Fredrerick, I think you've pretty well summed up what we should all take from this fascinating thread. I think it is interesting to note that we can derive some nourishment from many different forms of vegetation and that definitely would have been a survival advantage in bearing and raising offspring in an environment of scarce animal food sources. But to suggest that must make it a healthier human diet is pretty ridiculous.
And yet David is using the spurious net acid load theory to argue just that. And he is also suggesting that because comparative anatomy shows humans to not be OBLIGATE carnivores then we somehow must be OBLIGATE OMNIVORES. David, there is no such thing. Closer examination of the excellent health (particularly bone health) AND longevity enjoyed by all 'net acid load' cultures and the admittedly statistically insignifigant but (IMHO) entirely credible testimony of the Bear about his adult lifelong dietary experience, make this conclusion very shaky.

I'm also a bit dismayed that David seems to also be suggesting that the Bear's experience can not be extrapolated to the human animal generally- i.e. that the Bear must be somehow physiologically unique. This is grotesque.

Then David suggested that the people who found the carnivore = optimal health argument reported by the Bear convincing to be somehow gullible fools. So be it. I must be a fool .

Anyway, good on you Frederick for capturing the essence of this thread.