Frozen Fruit?

December 7, 2007

Is it really necessary to call somebody an embarassement to the human

species??

Wow, ya'll! I gotta go!

Missy

-

" Laurie " <

Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:32 PM

Re: [Raw Food] Frozen Fruit?

> Elchanan wrote:

>

>> ... placing our awareness above those hallowed " studies " that some hold

>> so dear.

> You have made still-unsupported claims about " damage " to nutrients during

> freezing; I have challenged you REPEATEDLY to present the evidence

> supporting this claim. How about some " hallowed " studies " " instead of

> your own made up crap?

> YOU have FAILED to even =try= to substantiate your false claims.

> You LIE about science, you have NO intellectual integrity, you are a food

> fraud, an embarrassment to both the raw food movement and the human

> species.

>

> Laurie

> --

>

> Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

> news:alt.food.vegan.science

>

December 8, 2007

Oh hello there Mark and everyone,

I saw your post and read the prior comments from Laurie Forti for the first

time. I don't ever read his (not her) posts, so I had no idea.

For the sake of everyone else in the group, I'll just respond briefly about

freezing fruits as follows. One excellent place to learn about the science

of freezing foods is in the studies done when flash freezing technology was

first introduced. The advantages, in terms of food quality, texture, taste,

nutrient retention, etc. of flash freezing vs. conventional freezing

technology are well understood in science and industry. And this applies

beyond the food industry. For example, embryos frozen using conventional

freezing technology are typically nonviable (incapable of supporting or

becoming life). But embryos frozen using flash freezing technology are

viable at a rather high rate, and in fact the introduction of flash freezing

technology allowed the whole commercial practice of embryo implantation in

humans and other animals to take off like a rocket.

Home refrigerators use conventional freezing technology, and not very good

technology at that. So whatever damage to foods and other organic material

is documented in the flash-freezing comparative studies, done years ago,

applies to anything edible we freeze at home.

Mark, you say Laurie Forti has some good points. I fail to see them, but to

each, his own.

Best,

Elchanan

_____

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

mstrong56

Friday, December 07, 2007 4:21 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Frozen Fruit?

Can we all chip in and buy Laurie a seat in the next Dale Carnegie course on

human relations? She has some good points, but a rather toxic delivery. Also

no one owes you the time to argue with you, friendly debate is acceptable,

but no one is interested in debating someone caustic, sarcastic and

insulting... just my opinion ?

> You have made still-unsupported claims about " damage " to nutrients during

freezing; I have challenged you REPEATEDLY to present the evidence

supporting this claim. How about some " hallowed " studies " " instead of your

own made up crap? YOU have FAILED to even =try= to substantiate your false

claims.

> You LIE about science, you have NO intellectual integrity, you are a food

fraud, an embarrassment to both the raw food movement and the human species.

> Laurie

December 16, 2007

Erin wrote:

> The observer always influences the results:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

Nice ploy, but this allegedly happens only at the quantum level, at the extreme

small size, such as subatomic particles.

Interestingly, Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanic of note, says: " I think it is

safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics. " I agree.

But if you -really- want to discuss Quantum Mechanics, I am game.

> You asked about the word " acerbic " in another

thread and implied it was mischosen. It's a

real word meaning " sour or astringent in taste "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acerbic

Well, wheatgrass juice is NOT sour (acidic) OR astringent, so the Elchanan was

incorrect whan he claimed " content of the grass ... quite acerbic in us. "

And, more importantly he does not have the fundamental intellectual integrity

to even TRY to support his nonsensical claims when challenged. That is simply

dishonest; he is another fraud posing as a raw expert.

You are defending the indefensible; nice ploy, though.

Laurie

--

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

December 17, 2007

No ploy. And if I'm defending anything, it's just the single word,

not its use. You questioned it even being part of the language.

As a bibliophile, I just had to clear that up.

-Erin

http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

-

Laurie

rawfood

Sunday, December 16, 2007 6:40 PM

Re: [Raw Food] Frozen Fruit?

Erin wrote:

> The observer always influences the results:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

Nice ploy, but this allegedly happens only at the quantum level, at the

extreme small size, such as subatomic particles.

Interestingly, Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanic of note, says: " I think it

is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics. " I agree.

But if you -really- want to discuss Quantum Mechanics, I am game.

> You asked about the word " acerbic " in another

thread and implied it was mischosen. It's a

real word meaning " sour or astringent in taste "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acerbic

Well, wheatgrass juice is NOT sour (acidic) OR astringent, so the Elchanan

was incorrect whan he claimed " content of the grass ... quite acerbic in

us. "

And, more importantly he does not have the fundamental intellectual

integrity to even TRY to support his nonsensical claims when challenged.

That is simply dishonest; he is another fraud posing as a raw expert.

You are defending the indefensible; nice ploy, though.

Laurie

--

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

You are managing the rawfood group through Grouply.

You to individual emails for this group. | Update your

Subscription settings

1 messages in this conversation, including this one | Add a comment

View this message on Grouply so you can rate, tag, bookmark, and see what

others think about it.

December 17, 2007

rawfood , Laurie < wrote:

> > The observer always influences the results:

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

> Nice ploy, but this allegedly happens only at the quantum

level, at the extreme small size, such as subatomic particles.

> Interestingly, Richard Feynman, Quantum Mechanic of note,

says: " I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum

Mechanics. " I agree.

> But if you -really- want to discuss Quantum Mechanics, I am

game.

OK....Forgive me for stating what I believe to be obvious and

intuitive... but EVERYTHING is composed of particles and waves

of 'extreme small size' i.e. subatomic. (It is incomplete to mention

particles only because everything exists in a state of pure

potentiality -- meaning it can be a particle, a wave, or even both --

before it is impacted by the 'observer'.) So, to say that the

observer effect only impacts things at the quantum level is a bit

naive... it takes the 'small stuff' working together to make the 'big

stuff'.

I've had it with this group. I'm not an expert in Quantum Physics or

nutrition, but I read a lot and even I can tell that there are a few

people in this group that have appointed themselves 'experts' to save

the rest of us - feeble intellectuals that we are - and these so

called 'experts' just aren't as bright or as wonderful as they would

like us to think. I'm sick of the venomous posts debating shit that I

can figure out on my own anyway. The 'energy' and 'life force' in

this group is SICK, and I'm removing myself from what I now consider

to be a toxic environment.

Thanks to those of you who have conducted yourself in a decent,

professional manner.

Kim

December 17, 2007

I have to agree with Kimberly in this last paragraph of hers. I joined this

group to learn about eating healthy yes but I don't need to know all of the

quantum physics of eating. I also do not want to be talked down to or yelled at

for not being as " smart " as the others. I have gotten to the point I don't even

read most the posts because they are so negative. As a matter of fact I had to

search this one out after reading a reply from Elchanan (I hope that is right).

I keep waiting for something useful to come along out of this group and have

also been thinking about just leaving it. I do believe this is my first post to

the group just because if I want an argument, I will go to my teenager and tell

him to do something.

Jenn.....hoping to get something useful from here someday.

" Kimberly A. Rogers " <kimrogers1969 wrote: