does durianrider really have any idea?

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Vaughn Sadekni on December 5, 2008 at 5:30am

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Not that they have anything to do with it, but you are still arguing over this. :sigh: cmon guys this forum is called Give it to me raw not Give me war. Lets all have a mango, kiss and make up. lol

Permalink Reply by Vaughn Sadekni on December 5, 2008 at 9:16am

I guess, its kinda getting a little boring though. Sorry but I am in constant need of something else. I get bored way to easily lol

Permalink Reply by Ian on December 5, 2008 at 10:00am

Reflecting on this overwhelming response to something that may not have had the best or worst intentions by Chris Burt, I would like to offer some suggestions on potential approaches to issues like this.

The most common "enemy" we have as raw foodists are the cynics/skeptics who challenge it on the grounds that 100% raw food is scientifically unsound, and thus, considered "unhealthy". This places those who embrace raw food on their heels a bit, constantly searching for "data" to back up their reasoning eating in such a fashion (although, I envision a world where everyone is free to eat as they please, without questions and scrutiny from others, but that's just me)

So as it evolved in the early days of the modern raw food path (post - NH) from the 1950's on, it has been seen that it can be a lucrative business, with cafes, distribution companies, and superfoods MLM schemes and what have you. As such, there can be seen divisions within our own community because it is not merely enough to say "I eat just raw food", it now has to be "I eat living food", or "I eat only chlorophyll based food", or "I eat only raw vegan", or "I eat only 811", or "insert raw foodist identity with your labelmaker here -----> ____________".

Like historical divisions in the churches over a power struggle within, I sometimes feel the purpose of the labels within (and extrinsically) are done 1) to make us feel better about having a "tag" that we can "belong" to. And 2) to champion a labeled cause without regard to the labeled cause that we created in our heads in the first place.

#1 above is cute for those who prefer community to solidarity, and for those who have healed themselves by this path, it is nice to know that not everyone in your environment thinks that you are insane. #2, conversely, can be very dangerous to those within and outside of this movement, as blithely renegading a cause at the expense of ignoring others ultimately will foster nothing more than lost credibility with the very same people that one may be trying to assist (and let us not forget that raw food is based on personal choice theory, anyway)

So while I share the thesis of Chris Burt's post (ie- open debate and discussion in the marketplace of ideas about the merits of path A vs. path B, and so forth), I believe it would have been better served if these questions were posted directly to DR, either in private, on his message page, or in this forum. This method would have begun discussion in a Q&A format with DR directly (and others, if they chose to join), rather than speaking of DR's quotes in a "left-handed compliment" sort of way (ie - "your quotes are pretty witty for an ignoramus", or "you know a lot about 811 for a stupid person", or whatever other analogy that I would use but cannot think of right now)

Also, direct questions, asked openly and honestly, with evidence and reason behind the responses, will more than likely display the depth that one may have or claim to have about a certain topic or 3 :-)

As you were

Ian

Permalink Reply by Peter Berquist on December 5, 2008 at 11:00am

I would like to throw my 2 cents worth in on this.

I have just completed two weeks on the raw diet, and it is my third attempt. The first two times, I simply wasn't eating enough.

This time, in my research, I came across a few raw food teachers who emphasized that is common for newbies to undereat. I have therefore taken their advice and eat as much raw food as I want without too much concern for combining, fat content, etc. Also, green smoothies have been a big help (thank you Victoria!).

As a result, I feel like I have a fighting chance of staying with it this time.

It so happens that my last failed attempt at going raw happened when I was following Gabriel's approach. I have a lot of respect for him, and I recently purchased "Simply Raw" and was really impressed. I have no doubt he has healed many people, and I strongly support his spiritual approach.

However, for someone who is not overweight or suffering from diabetes or some other life-threatening disease like myself, the key thing at the beginning at least is just to stay raw, whatever it takes. Then later you can refine it.

This is just my opinion. For newbies like myself, it is critical that you get the message that you may tend to undereat at the beginning. If you are used to eating a lot of concentrated foods (even on a vegan diet), you don't realize how much bulk you may need once you go raw.

Another factor is level of physical activity. My job requires a lot of physical energy, and I just couldn't hack it on the low-glycemic approach. So I ended up going back to cooked foods.

Anyway, I think DR has some valid points, although he could perhaps state them more diplomatically.

Peace and love to this community, and thanks to Dhrumil.

Permalink Reply by Gil on December 5, 2008 at 12:09pm

I found this to be true at the beginning for me as well. I was always on the go, and I needed to consume a lot of raw food just to avoid relapsing. Eloquent reminder.

Permalink Reply by Chris Burt on December 5, 2008 at 11:51am

Interesting to see all the different personalities on display here. What does it mean when someone makes a factual statement pointing out the obvious and people take different meanings from it. The people who see the statement for what it is can’t understand why other people consider it to be an attack. I wonder why people see it as an attack? The facts are there for all to see and I offered to take down anything that wasn’t true and nobody took me up on the offer. Even if you could construe it as some form of attack then surely it would be best described as a counter attack. Then surely if you have some grievance then you should have a similar grievance against the one who made the original attack(s).

Also interesting is the fact that people can’t see the irony of making a post like ‘well if you don’t agree with him/it just ignore him/it that’s what I do’ No you don’t, or you wouldn’t have posted on this thread. Practise what you preach.
Another irony is the posts that say ‘this thread is a waste of time’. No it’s not, a lot of interesting issues have come up and at least one previous misunderstanding has been cleared up (Suvine/Kasey). So the irony is the only waste of time are those posts.
I also can’t understand why people say I am angry, mad, upset because of DR. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t get any of these things. I am perfectly calm. I don’t get upset and I can’t even conceive why anyone would get angry or upset on a Raw food forum regardless of what has been said. A bit like DR himself, who I like and have praised on many occasions. He doesn’t respond when I praise him and he doesn’t respond when I am critical of him. At least he is consistent. DR is not stupid. Nothing I say will change his mind or outlook on life or affect his moods. He knows that and I know that. His Tony Robbins training is working well.
As usual many people have missed the point here. The point is not about DR (sorry mate) or 811. It is about our right to be able to discuss matters of importance relating to our diet without having the discussion turned into a farce. That’s all I am interested in.

So with that in mind I have set up a new group called Pursuit Of The Truth where people will be free to express their curiosity and question common beliefs without fear of attack or ridicule.
(almost) all are welcome. See you there.

Permalink Reply by telefunken on December 6, 2008 at 12:17am

*lol*

Permalink Reply by Lorianne on December 5, 2008 at 12:41pm

Ahh I see, so this was all a marketing plot for his new group. Very clever..

I'm kidding :)

Permalink Reply by Chris Burt on December 5, 2008 at 12:47pm

Well spotted Lorianne.

Permalink Reply by Ian on December 5, 2008 at 1:26pm

Let me offer a different perspective:

I treat this GITMR forum as if it was an actual classroom (ode to my profession, I suppose). In an open classroom, the free exchange of ideas is paramount to the success of the classroom. As the focal point of the classroom (me, teaching), I will usually ask questions or inject strange theories to have people debate, which is kind of what this forum does. One person will offer the proper amount of b12 that should be consumed daily, while another will offer a different set of figures furthering the debate, and somewhere between all of this banter, the participants in the discussion will have a better understanding of the topic at hand.

However, the above scenario is much different than your original post, which asked an open ended question not about the theories of Dr. Douglas specifically, but instead asked the classroom (forum) at large about one of the actual classroom (forum) participant's statements and/or theories, which can sometimes be construed as the equivalent of speaking about someone in the 3rd person while they are standing there in front of you.

For example, I had a former student about 2 years ago state that she thought a Constitutional Monarchy was the optimal form of government, while other students in the class gave their own interpretations of governments with varying degrees of differences among them. The discussion took place at that time, with lively banter back and forth.

However, let's suppose that this debate did not happen in real time. Instead, let's suppose I walked into the class the next day, and my first item of the day was to put my student's quotes about her feelings about a Constitutional Monarchy on the board, jokingly poke fun of them, make it obvious that I do not agree with her theories, reference half a dozen authors of books I've read discrediting Constitutional Monarchies, refer to her in the 3rd person while addressing the class, and then ask the class for their input about what they think?

It would seem quite odd that anyone would want input from a particular person when referring to them in the third person. Like DR in your post, or the hypothetical student in my class above, referencing someone in the 3rd person while asking the rest of the "class" for their thoughts, indicates that the particular person might instead be left out of the discussion, if it set around these parameters. Or, the particular person would at least be asked to respond towards the end of the discussion when everyone else had chimed in to their heart's desires.

Now of course, no one is stopping DR or my student from entering the discussion, but when the parameters are set that asks a classroom of 30 students, or in this case a forum with 4,000+ members, any discussions that DR or my student would be entering into would not necessarily be giving their ideas to the group ........ instead it would defending the criticisms and counterpoints spearheaded by the rest of the "group" at hand (as this topic, almost 400 responses later, would surely indicate).

As I mentioned, asking these questions directly (whether DR responds to them or not) would probably be more effective at staving off a pissing contest or mob rule. Just as asking questions directly to my student to defend her position on Constitutional Monarchies would have been more effective than the scenario I gave above.

Just my (un)thoughts on the matter :-)

Ian

Permalink Reply by Jerry Strong Heart on December 5, 2008 at 5:55pm

Too Many words for this Elder~*~ * Don*t even like the Kings English language~*~Except i love to Bastardize the Bastards Language~*~So*so many words to get a simple point across is baffeling to me~*~
Its like sucking a lemon for the first time~*~Does all kinds of dis*tort*ions to the face~*~All that for a rash judge*ment~*~Abundance of words does not give me a*bun*dance~*~it is the Bun*Dance i like~*~An ab*origional*Doe*see*doe~*~If you don*t Under*stand my writing look down and you Over*stand~*~tee hee~

Permalink Reply by yoda on December 5, 2008 at 7:22pm

Very true. Though I think the simple point got lost in the words in the entire thread.
The above post (Jerry Strong Heart's) is probably the most sensible post in this thread :)

• 1
• 2
• 3
• ...
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17