Hello José Carlos;


On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:40:09 -0500, Jose Carlos <[log in to unmask]>  
wrote:


> One initial question, if I may: Are you William Schnell?

Yes, it is I.

> Although, honestly speaking, William Schnell was rather more laconic than
> you.

I've been drinking coffee. It's the drug speaking through me. ;)

>
> You say: "My experience is that raw requires less of those, and a better
> physical function includes support for the brain. Unless I did it wrong  
> or my > system was not ready yet, eating a lot of raw foods (not even  
> all raw)         > demanded a lot of work from my digestory system.


Experiments show that a piece of raw meat, eaten alone, is digested in one  
hour, while cooked, usually with other foods, takes from 5 to six hours.  
My experience shows this to be true for me.


> I usually chew my food well, but I
> can't spend all of my meal time chewing, and I don't like to use food
> processors or juicers to spare inner digestion, if you see what I mean.


Chewing raw meat is not necessary. No carnivore chews its meat, AFAIK.  
It's still digested in one hour.



> You also say: "I use the Norse definition of human, which means
> approximately "great of heart and mind" and the intent is to imitate as
> much as possible the state of paleolithic man."
>
Can you please tell me your source? Does it come from Norse mythology?


Yes, it does.


I've read a bit of it, but found it to be less
> attractive and less humane than the Greco-Roman version.


Depends on the source. After all, the surviving records all passed through  
the hands of Roman churchmen, who were trying to stamp out such beliefs  
and at the same time create an image of man such as is now believed by  
most.

  It's possible
> that "human" comes from "humus" (earth), so it's rather surprising to see
> that Norsemen entertained such an elevated opinion of man himself.


It's a function of a God, which is, if I have it right, a component of a  
human being rather than separate as others would have it.

William