Definition Dilemma

So, I'm compelled to revisit this issue of what makes it o.k. to claim oneself as a raw foodist. I've been claiming that my definition of it is someone who believes that a primarily raw food diet is one of the healthier choices and someone who also eats a primarily raw diet. Is this workable though? Some people think it comes down to percentages, but I'm unclear about the number: 50%? 75%? 85%? 100%? I'm not sure where the lines are drawn.

Of course, all this debate begs the next question: is it important to call oneself a raw foodist anyway?

Note: Capitalized recipes are my own.

Day 52

• 1/2 of this recipe, Superfood IceScream: 1.75 trays of ice, 3/4 c. goji berry juice, 1/2 c. Brazil nuts, 1/4 c. soaked goji berries, 1/4 c. honey, 3 T. cacao nibs, 3 T. lucuma, 3 T. mulberries, 2 T. mesquite powder, 1 tsp. maca powder, 1/2 tsp. stevia, 1/2 tsp. sea salt
• 1 c. hot decaf chai tea with stevia
• 2 c. salad (romaine, spinach, sprouts, cucumbers) with Olive Sesame Dressing and Tabasco hot sauce
• 1.5 c. Smashed Potatoes (1 part white potatoes, 2 parts sweet potatoes, nutritional yeast, sea salt, black pepper)
• 1/2 c. of malt-sweetened carob-coated raisins
• dinner from Thai Dish: 2 fresh vegetarian spring rolls, 3/4ths of an order of veggie Pad Thai with tofu
• 1 c. hot decaf chai tea with stevia
• 2 c. spring water
  

Today's Observations
I had an emotional day and was not in the mood to pull together a dinner. I'm very happy to live in the boonies and still be able to get decent Thai food inside a half-hour's drive. Love that Thai: vegan, low-impact food. Of course, if they'de stop serving it in those nasty styrofoam and plastic/tin containers...