I LOVE what you wrote there, derryckl. So right on.

"I think that the whole "why can´t you accept others Chris" has gone overboard. I too feel that raw is eating only raw and stating your raw when your not, is watering down the term. Somehow People have a hard time accepting Chris´s opinion in this case, maybe because its fiddles with their own self image as a rawfoodist?"

But most people on here who do not eat "100% raw" do not define themselves as raw foodists. They usually state percentages (which according to Chris are unreliable- although the math here isn't too complicated). I think the problem a lot of people were having was the seeming aggresion with which Chris made his initial post, which appeared to undermine the efforts of some of the people on here. This is starting to remind me a bit of high school for obvious reasons. I still do not understand why people feel so strongly about this label as it applies to others.

honestly, i would compare this whole clouded, bloated discussion to, (what else?) Christianity.

There are Christians. people who consider themselves followers of and believers in Jesus Christ.

I consider myself a Christian. Do I go advertising it everywhere? No. If someone asks me about my beliefs, do I tell them? Yes.

Then there are the Fundamentalist Christians. Christians who set borders and boundaries and parameters to designate, segregate, and distinguish. I am a Christian and I do things differently, so therefore the way I do things is more Christian than the way you do things, and you need to therefore adjust your Christianity to suit my needs as a Christian. WTF?

I feel that the term 'raw foodism' has become similarly the same way. there are fundamentalist Raws, and just 'spiritual' raws. is either any less deserving of the term?

no i'm not 'calling anyone out' or trying to point fingers, but i feel it helps to grapple this dialogue by comparing an a way that many can relate to.