http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/

CONCORD, N.H. - Even after five years, Christy Pugh has no trouble sticking
to her vegetarian regimen.

advertisement

The secret to her success? Eating meat.

"Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad vegetarian, that I'm not strict enough or
good enough," the 28-year-old bookkeeper from Concord said recently. "I
really like vegetarian food but I'm just not 100 percent committed."

Pugh is one of a growing number of part-time vegetarians whose loose
adherence to the meat-free diet is transforming a decades-old movement and
the industry that feeds it.

'I really like sausage'
These so-called "flexitarians" - a term voted most useful word of 2003 by
the American Dialect Society - are motivated less by animal rights than by a
growing body of medical data that suggests health benefits from eating more
vegetarian foods.

"There's so many reasons that people are vegetarians ... I find that nobody
ever gives me a hard time when I say I usually eat vegetarian. But I really
like sausage," Pugh said.

In recent years the market for vegetarian friendly foods has exploded, with
items such as soy milk and veggie burgers showing up in mainstream groceries
and fast food restaurants.

But even the diet's activists say that growth can't be attributed to
committed vegetarians, who are estimated at about 3 percent of the adult
U.S. population, or about 5.7 million people never eating meat, poultry or
seafood.

Charles Stahler, co-director of the Baltimore-based Vegetarian Resource
Group, credits the growth to flexitarians - vegetarians who dabble in meat
and carnivores who seek out vegetarian meals.

"This is why Burger King has a veggie burger. It's not because of us," he
said. "The true vegetarians wouldn't rush to Burger King anyway. It's
because of those people in the middle. They are the driving audience."

Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly 30
percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks out
vegetarian meals.

Room for flexibility
Suzanne Havala Hobbs, a nutrition professor at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, credits the growth of flexitarianism to the nation'
s better understanding of the diet-disease connection.

"Whether you make a commitment to eating strictly vegetarian or not, cutting
back your dependence on meat is something most people acknowledge they know
they should do," she said.

Mollie Katzen, a cookbook author and a founder of the iconic vegetarian
eatery Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, N.Y., takes another perspective. The
former vegetarian thinks people who eschew meat would be better off if they
didn't.

Though she still advocates vegetable-based diets, Katzen sees room - and for
many people a need - for flexibility.

"To base our diet there, yes. Absolutely," she said. "However, where the
protein comes from in that diet, I don't feel it's wrong if you've got a
great big plate of vegetables your protein is from a healthy, happy chicken,
or a grass-fed cow."

Plenty of people seem to agree. At Wild Oats stores, a Boulder, Colo.-based
chain of natural foods grocers that cater to vegetarians, the majority of
shoppers aren't vegetarians.

Tracy Spencer, a spokeswoman for the company, said Wild Oats shoppers are
concerned about health and want the grocer's natural and organic products,
including meats.

Publishers take notice
Publishers of vegetarian magazines also are taking notice. To target the
part-timers many have softened their approach to meatless diets, even at
risk of alienating the far smaller reader pool of true vegetarians.

Until last year Natural Health, a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based magazine with
a monthly circulation of 300,000, published only vegan recipes, which
exclude even dairy and honey.

Now the recipes regularly include meat, said Barb Harris, the magazine's
editorial director.

"There is a big interest in vegetarianism," she said. "But we can also tell
from our readership that these are not people who are following a pure
vegetarian lifestyle. These are people who are integrating a vegetarian menu
in their current diets."

A similar change occurred at the 30-year-old Vegetarian Times, considered
the standardbearer of vegetarianism. Though still meat-free, the once mostly
vegan magazine focuses less on activism and more on recipes with broader
appeal.

Carla Davis, managing editor of the Glen Allen, Va.-based monthly, said the
changes were made after a survey showed 70 percent of the magazine's
300,000-plus readers weren't vegetarian.

Even the strictest of vegetarian advocacy groups considers the flexitarian
trend a good thing.

Bruce Friedrich, spokesman for Norfolk, Va.-based People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, said he doesn't see any harm in vegetarianism focusing
more on food than the issues that spurred the movement.

"From our perspective, if people influenced by health consequently cut back
on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals," he said. "If two people
cut their meat in half it helps as much as one person going completely
vegetarian."

man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
labels? flexitarians are omnivores. you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know. but
flexitarians will eat anything at all, they just choose the circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian? that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'
that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
healthily.

"Rubystars" wrote in message
m...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/

CONCORD, N.H. - Even after five years, Christy Pugh has no trouble
sticking
to her vegetarian regimen.

advertisement

The secret to her success? Eating meat.

"Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad vegetarian, that I'm not strict enough or
good enough," the 28-year-old bookkeeper from Concord said recently. "I
really like vegetarian food but I'm just not 100 percent committed."

Pugh is one of a growing number of part-time vegetarians whose loose
adherence to the meat-free diet is transforming a decades-old movement and
the industry that feeds it.

'I really like sausage'
These so-called "flexitarians" - a term voted most useful word of 2003 by
the American Dialect Society - are motivated less by animal rights than by
a
growing body of medical data that suggests health benefits from eating
more
vegetarian foods.

"There's so many reasons that people are vegetarians ... I find that
nobody
ever gives me a hard time when I say I usually eat vegetarian. But I
really
like sausage," Pugh said.

In recent years the market for vegetarian friendly foods has exploded,
with
items such as soy milk and veggie burgers showing up in mainstream
groceries
and fast food restaurants.

But even the diet's activists say that growth can't be attributed to
committed vegetarians, who are estimated at about 3 percent of the adult
U.S. population, or about 5.7 million people never eating meat, poultry or
seafood.

Charles Stahler, co-director of the Baltimore-based Vegetarian Resource
Group, credits the growth to flexitarians - vegetarians who dabble in meat
and carnivores who seek out vegetarian meals.

"This is why Burger King has a veggie burger. It's not because of us," he
said. "The true vegetarians wouldn't rush to Burger King anyway. It's
because of those people in the middle. They are the driving audience."

Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly 30
percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks out
vegetarian meals.

Room for flexibility
Suzanne Havala Hobbs, a nutrition professor at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, credits the growth of flexitarianism to the
nation'
s better understanding of the diet-disease connection.

"Whether you make a commitment to eating strictly vegetarian or not,
cutting
back your dependence on meat is something most people acknowledge they
know
they should do," she said.

Mollie Katzen, a cookbook author and a founder of the iconic vegetarian
eatery Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, N.Y., takes another perspective.
The
former vegetarian thinks people who eschew meat would be better off if
they
didn't.

Though she still advocates vegetable-based diets, Katzen sees room - and
for
many people a need - for flexibility.

"To base our diet there, yes. Absolutely," she said. "However, where the
protein comes from in that diet, I don't feel it's wrong if you've got a
great big plate of vegetables your protein is from a healthy, happy
chicken,
or a grass-fed cow."

Plenty of people seem to agree. At Wild Oats stores, a Boulder,
Colo.-based
chain of natural foods grocers that cater to vegetarians, the majority of
shoppers aren't vegetarians.

Tracy Spencer, a spokeswoman for the company, said Wild Oats shoppers are
concerned about health and want the grocer's natural and organic products,
including meats.

Publishers take notice
Publishers of vegetarian magazines also are taking notice. To target the
part-timers many have softened their approach to meatless diets, even at
risk of alienating the far smaller reader pool of true vegetarians.

Until last year Natural Health, a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based magazine
with
a monthly circulation of 300,000, published only vegan recipes, which
exclude even dairy and honey.

Now the recipes regularly include meat, said Barb Harris, the magazine's
editorial director.

"There is a big interest in vegetarianism," she said. "But we can also
tell
from our readership that these are not people who are following a pure
vegetarian lifestyle. These are people who are integrating a vegetarian
menu
in their current diets."

A similar change occurred at the 30-year-old Vegetarian Times, considered
the standardbearer of vegetarianism. Though still meat-free, the once
mostly
vegan magazine focuses less on activism and more on recipes with broader
appeal.

Carla Davis, managing editor of the Glen Allen, Va.-based monthly, said
the
changes were made after a survey showed 70 percent of the magazine's
300,000-plus readers weren't vegetarian.

Even the strictest of vegetarian advocacy groups considers the flexitarian
trend a good thing.

Bruce Friedrich, spokesman for Norfolk, Va.-based People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, said he doesn't see any harm in vegetarianism
focusing
more on food than the issues that spurred the movement.

"From our perspective, if people influenced by health consequently cut
back
on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals," he said. "If two people
cut their meat in half it helps as much as one person going completely
vegetarian."

that is the way most people are when they start vegetarian lifestyle-give up
this then that etc. thought it was a friendly article.
Michael
"katie" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
labels? flexitarians are omnivores. you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know. but
flexitarians will eat anything at all, they just choose the circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian? that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way
some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'
that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
healthily.

"Rubystars" wrote in message
m...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/

CONCORD, N.H. - Even after five years, Christy Pugh has no trouble
sticking
to her vegetarian regimen.

advertisement

The secret to her success? Eating meat.

"Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad vegetarian, that I'm not strict enough
or
good enough," the 28-year-old bookkeeper from Concord said recently. "I
really like vegetarian food but I'm just not 100 percent committed."

Pugh is one of a growing number of part-time vegetarians whose loose
adherence to the meat-free diet is transforming a decades-old movement
and
the industry that feeds it.

'I really like sausage'
These so-called "flexitarians" - a term voted most useful word of 2003
by
the American Dialect Society - are motivated less by animal rights than
by
a
growing body of medical data that suggests health benefits from eating
more
vegetarian foods.

"There's so many reasons that people are vegetarians ... I find that
nobody
ever gives me a hard time when I say I usually eat vegetarian. But I
really
like sausage," Pugh said.

In recent years the market for vegetarian friendly foods has exploded,
with
items such as soy milk and veggie burgers showing up in mainstream
groceries
and fast food restaurants.

But even the diet's activists say that growth can't be attributed to
committed vegetarians, who are estimated at about 3 percent of the adult
U.S. population, or about 5.7 million people never eating meat, poultry
or
seafood.

Charles Stahler, co-director of the Baltimore-based Vegetarian Resource
Group, credits the growth to flexitarians - vegetarians who dabble in
meat
and carnivores who seek out vegetarian meals.

"This is why Burger King has a veggie burger. It's not because of us,"
he
said. "The true vegetarians wouldn't rush to Burger King anyway. It's
because of those people in the middle. They are the driving audience."

Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly
30
percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks out
vegetarian meals.

Room for flexibility
Suzanne Havala Hobbs, a nutrition professor at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, credits the growth of flexitarianism to the
nation'
s better understanding of the diet-disease connection.

"Whether you make a commitment to eating strictly vegetarian or not,
cutting
back your dependence on meat is something most people acknowledge they
know
they should do," she said.

Mollie Katzen, a cookbook author and a founder of the iconic vegetarian
eatery Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, N.Y., takes another perspective.
The
former vegetarian thinks people who eschew meat would be better off if
they
didn't.

Though she still advocates vegetable-based diets, Katzen sees room - and
for
many people a need - for flexibility.

"To base our diet there, yes. Absolutely," she said. "However, where the
protein comes from in that diet, I don't feel it's wrong if you've got a
great big plate of vegetables your protein is from a healthy, happy
chicken,
or a grass-fed cow."

Plenty of people seem to agree. At Wild Oats stores, a Boulder,
Colo.-based
chain of natural foods grocers that cater to vegetarians, the majority
of
shoppers aren't vegetarians.

Tracy Spencer, a spokeswoman for the company, said Wild Oats shoppers
are
concerned about health and want the grocer's natural and organic
products,
including meats.

Publishers take notice
Publishers of vegetarian magazines also are taking notice. To target the
part-timers many have softened their approach to meatless diets, even at
risk of alienating the far smaller reader pool of true vegetarians.

Until last year Natural Health, a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based magazine
with
a monthly circulation of 300,000, published only vegan recipes, which
exclude even dairy and honey.

Now the recipes regularly include meat, said Barb Harris, the magazine's
editorial director.

"There is a big interest in vegetarianism," she said. "But we can also
tell
from our readership that these are not people who are following a pure
vegetarian lifestyle. These are people who are integrating a vegetarian
menu
in their current diets."

A similar change occurred at the 30-year-old Vegetarian Times,
considered
the standardbearer of vegetarianism. Though still meat-free, the once
mostly
vegan magazine focuses less on activism and more on recipes with broader
appeal.

Carla Davis, managing editor of the Glen Allen, Va.-based monthly, said
the
changes were made after a survey showed 70 percent of the magazine's
300,000-plus readers weren't vegetarian.

Even the strictest of vegetarian advocacy groups considers the
flexitarian
trend a good thing.

Bruce Friedrich, spokesman for Norfolk, Va.-based People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, said he doesn't see any harm in vegetarianism
focusing
more on food than the issues that spurred the movement.

"From our perspective, if people influenced by health consequently cut
back
on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals," he said. "If two
people
cut their meat in half it helps as much as one person going completely
vegetarian."

"Michael Balarama" wrote in message
...
that is the way most people are when they start vegetarian lifestyle-give
up
this then that etc. thought it was a friendly article.
Michael

i guess my opposition to it is just that they will eat anything so it
doesn't tell you anything. a lot of vegans are super opposed to the
pesco-veg prefix (and the pollo-veg one, which is getting just a little
rediculous..."i'm a pesco-pollo-lacto-ovo-veg!") but at least those specify
what you don't eat, you know? i think of those ones as the ones that people
use when they are transitioning. cause they do tend to cut out a whole food
group at a time and try their best to be INflexible with it. you know,
first they don't eat any red meat, then no chicken, then no fish etc....this
article looks like people eat veg most of the time, but just HAVE to have
some bacon sometimes, and just do. they might not have any intention of
every fully restricting a food group. that to me is just not something that
needs its own word.
then again, if people calling themselves flexitarian means that no one will
every try to feed a vegan chicken again, since they won't have seen this
'vegan' chowing down on chicken wings *shudder* then hey, it could be a good
thing.

"katie" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there
were
having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
labels? flexitarians are omnivores. you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know. but
flexitarians will eat anything at all, they just choose the
circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian? that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way
some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'
that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner
guest.
the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
healthily.

"Rubystars" wrote in message
m...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/

CONCORD, N.H. - Even after five years, Christy Pugh has no trouble
sticking
to her vegetarian regimen.

advertisement

The secret to her success? Eating meat.

"Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad vegetarian, that I'm not strict
enough
or
good enough," the 28-year-old bookkeeper from Concord said recently.
"I
really like vegetarian food but I'm just not 100 percent committed."

Pugh is one of a growing number of part-time vegetarians whose loose
adherence to the meat-free diet is transforming a decades-old movement
and
the industry that feeds it.

'I really like sausage'
These so-called "flexitarians" - a term voted most useful word of 2003
by
the American Dialect Society - are motivated less by animal rights
than
by
a
growing body of medical data that suggests health benefits from eating
more
vegetarian foods.

"There's so many reasons that people are vegetarians ... I find that
nobody
ever gives me a hard time when I say I usually eat vegetarian. But I
really
like sausage," Pugh said.

In recent years the market for vegetarian friendly foods has exploded,
with
items such as soy milk and veggie burgers showing up in mainstream
groceries
and fast food restaurants.

But even the diet's activists say that growth can't be attributed to
committed vegetarians, who are estimated at about 3 percent of the
adult
U.S. population, or about 5.7 million people never eating meat,
poultry
or
seafood.

Charles Stahler, co-director of the Baltimore-based Vegetarian
Resource
Group, credits the growth to flexitarians - vegetarians who dabble in
meat
and carnivores who seek out vegetarian meals.

"This is why Burger King has a veggie burger. It's not because of us,"
he
said. "The true vegetarians wouldn't rush to Burger King anyway. It's
because of those people in the middle. They are the driving audience."

Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly
30
percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks
out
vegetarian meals.

Room for flexibility
Suzanne Havala Hobbs, a nutrition professor at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, credits the growth of flexitarianism to the
nation'
s better understanding of the diet-disease connection.

"Whether you make a commitment to eating strictly vegetarian or not,
cutting
back your dependence on meat is something most people acknowledge they
know
they should do," she said.

Mollie Katzen, a cookbook author and a founder of the iconic
vegetarian
eatery Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, N.Y., takes another
perspective.
The
former vegetarian thinks people who eschew meat would be better off if
they
didn't.

Though she still advocates vegetable-based diets, Katzen sees room -
and
for
many people a need - for flexibility.

"To base our diet there, yes. Absolutely," she said. "However, where
the
protein comes from in that diet, I don't feel it's wrong if you've got
a
great big plate of vegetables your protein is from a healthy, happy
chicken,
or a grass-fed cow."

Plenty of people seem to agree. At Wild Oats stores, a Boulder,
Colo.-based
chain of natural foods grocers that cater to vegetarians, the majority
of
shoppers aren't vegetarians.

Tracy Spencer, a spokeswoman for the company, said Wild Oats shoppers
are
concerned about health and want the grocer's natural and organic
products,
including meats.

Publishers take notice
Publishers of vegetarian magazines also are taking notice. To target
the
part-timers many have softened their approach to meatless diets, even
at
risk of alienating the far smaller reader pool of true vegetarians.

Until last year Natural Health, a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based
magazine
with
a monthly circulation of 300,000, published only vegan recipes, which
exclude even dairy and honey.

Now the recipes regularly include meat, said Barb Harris, the
magazine's
editorial director.

"There is a big interest in vegetarianism," she said. "But we can also
tell
from our readership that these are not people who are following a pure
vegetarian lifestyle. These are people who are integrating a
vegetarian
menu
in their current diets."

A similar change occurred at the 30-year-old Vegetarian Times,
considered
the standardbearer of vegetarianism. Though still meat-free, the once
mostly
vegan magazine focuses less on activism and more on recipes with
broader
appeal.

Carla Davis, managing editor of the Glen Allen, Va.-based monthly,
said
the
changes were made after a survey showed 70 percent of the magazine's
300,000-plus readers weren't vegetarian.

Even the strictest of vegetarian advocacy groups considers the
flexitarian
trend a good thing.

Bruce Friedrich, spokesman for Norfolk, Va.-based People for the
Ethical
Treatment of Animals, said he doesn't see any harm in vegetarianism
focusing
more on food than the issues that spurred the movement.

"From our perspective, if people influenced by health consequently cut
back
on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals," he said. "If two
people
cut their meat in half it helps as much as one person going completely
vegetarian."

katie wrote:

man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
labels?

Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?

flexitarians are omnivores.

They're clearly different from people who are
omnivorous at every meal.

you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.

Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
eat because it will make you very sick.

but flexitarians will eat anything at all,

Not all the time. That's the key.

they just choose the circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian?

Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
(who don't even want to know anyway?)

that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'

You are demanding that people approach food issues the
same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
visit your food preferences on people, so you are
assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.

that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
healthily.

And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.

And STOP TOP-POSTING, GODDAMNIT.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...
katie wrote:

man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there
were
having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
labels?

Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?

vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is necessary if
you're going somewhere to eat. i think that label is alright since it's
easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this and
this and this etc..."


flexitarians are omnivores.

They're clearly different from people who are
omnivorous at every meal.

sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would assume
that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're flexible,
right? so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.


you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.

Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
eat because it will make you very sick.

YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to eat or
not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was at
your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to explain
myself.


but flexitarians will eat anything at all,

Not all the time. That's the key.

true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
label for it. and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't want
to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is concerned,
you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.


they just choose the circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian?

Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
(who don't even want to know anyway?)

no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although it's a
good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that being in
a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
know how these catch-phrases take off.


that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'

You are demanding that people approach food issues the
same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
visit your food preferences on people, so you are
assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.


i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my food
preferences on anyone. i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people do
that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
order to avoid eating animal products. but the whole point of the
flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
flexible.

that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner
guest.
the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
healthily.

And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.

declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous. it has a
purpose, which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
fed something on that list. certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork. but somehow i wonder if
those trendy vegans are maybe more likely to be flexitarians...like vegans
who eat chicken ()

And STOP TOP-POSTING, GODDAMNIT.

GODDAMNIT, i will top-post where i feel it is appropriate to do so. i top
posted on the above thread because it was an article, and i had nothing in
my post that needed to be interspersed in the article for clarity or
context. unlike this, where i am not top-posting because i am responding to
individual items that need their context. i don't think that's unreasonable
at all. you need to chill out.

katie wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...

katie wrote:


man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there

were

having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
labels?

Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?


vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is necessary if
you're going somewhere to eat.

It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
You are grossly inconsistent.

i think that label is alright since it's
easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this and
this and this etc..."

I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.



flexitarians are omnivores.

They're clearly different from people who are
omnivorous at every meal.


sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would assume
that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're flexible,
right?

No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
back and reread it.

so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.


you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.

Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
eat because it will make you very sick.


YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to eat or
not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was at
your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to explain
myself.

No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.

Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.



but flexitarians will eat anything at all,

Not all the time. That's the key.


true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
label for it.

They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
to describe them.

and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't want
to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is concerned,
you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.

You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
understood what they're about.



they just choose the circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian?

Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
(who don't even want to know anyway?)


no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although it's a
good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that being in
a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
know how these catch-phrases take off.

It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".



that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'

You are demanding that people approach food issues the
same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
visit your food preferences on people, so you are
assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.



i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my food
preferences on anyone.

You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
don't eat meat.

i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people do
that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
order to avoid eating animal products.

Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.

but the whole point of the
flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
flexible.

NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
The flexibility is PERIODIC.



that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.

the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
healthily.

And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.


declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.

It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
by definition superfluous.

it has a purpose,

Self aggrandizement.

which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
fed something on that list.

No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
statement being made by an announcement of being
"vegan" is bullshit; a lie.

certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.

It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.

but somehow i wonder if
those trendy vegans are maybe more likely to be flexitarians...like vegans
who eat chicken ()

And STOP TOP-POSTING, GODDAMNIT.


GODDAMNIT, i will top-post where i feel it is appropriate to do so.

Your top-posting has NEVER been appropriate.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...
katie wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...

katie wrote:


man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there

were

having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
labels?

Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?


vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is
necessary if
you're going somewhere to eat.

It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
You are grossly inconsistent.

i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous. that is
not 'grossly inconsistent.' i think that having too many labels can get a
little nutty. i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
right? but we've added vegetarian, vegan, lacto-, ovo-, pesco-, and pollo-
prefixes, vegitan, fruitarian, and now flexitarian? geez louise.


i think that label is alright since it's
easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this
and
this and this etc..."

I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.

this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all wrong'




flexitarians are omnivores.

They're clearly different from people who are
omnivorous at every meal.


sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would
assume
that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're
flexible,
right?

No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
back and reread it.

done.

so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.


you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.

Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
eat because it will make you very sick.


YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to
eat or
not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was
at
your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to
explain
myself.

No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.

Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.

once again, this post isn't about whether or not you think veganism has
merits.
and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not most,
family dinners. maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended ()
any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know what
i mean.





but flexitarians will eat anything at all,

Not all the time. That's the key.


true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
label for it.

They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
to describe them.

and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't
want
to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is
concerned,
you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.

You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
understood what they're about.

from the article: 'I really like sausage'




they just choose the circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian?

Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
(who don't even want to know anyway?)


no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although
it's a
good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that
being in
a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
know how these catch-phrases take off.

It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".

i wouldn't say resentful. but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
vegan eats sausages because they like them. but like i said in my earlier
post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that respect,
since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.




that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever
the
hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'

You are demanding that people approach food issues the
same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
visit your food preferences on people, so you are
assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.



i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my
food
preferences on anyone.

You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
don't eat meat.

if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat when
they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then i
suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...
gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food situations,
how odd...


i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people
do
that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
order to avoid eating animal products.

Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.

that isn't what this thread is about


but the whole point of the
flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
flexible.

NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
The flexibility is PERIODIC.

perhaps not in this article. but i'm sure we've all met vegetarians or
vegans who situationally eat non veg*n stuff, for different reasons, and
still call themselves veg*n. if this flexitarian word takes off, i would
think that label would apply to those folks.




that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner
guest.

the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat
more
healthily.

And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.


declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.

It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
by definition superfluous.

not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
bandwagon-hopping. some of us actually apply the label to describe our
dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.


it has a purpose,

Self aggrandizement.

no, the purpose is to avoid having people try to feed you stuff that you
don't eat.


which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
fed something on that list.

No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
statement being made by an announcement of being
"vegan" is bullshit; a lie.

whether or not you think that veganism is ethically valid is not the point
of this thread.

certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.

It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.

yes, i am well aware of that. i'm talking about the trend that has been
happening lately. famous folks get their diets splattered all over the
media. 'ooh, madonna's vegan! ooh, moby's vegan! wow, that guy who played
spiderman has all these big muscles but he doesn't eat meat! wow, did you
hear what alecia silverstone has catered to her movie sets? all that weird
vegan food!'


but somehow i wonder if
those trendy vegans are maybe more likely to be flexitarians...like
vegans
who eat chicken ()

And STOP TOP-POSTING, GODDAMNIT.


GODDAMNIT, i will top-post where i feel it is appropriate to do so.

Your top-posting has NEVER been appropriate.

i believe that the instances where i top post is just fine. not to mention
that how i post is my business. i don't know why you're getting bent out of
shape about it.

katie wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...

katie wrote:



Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?


vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is
necessary if you're going somewhere to eat.

It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
You are grossly inconsistent.


i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous.

You have no standard for deciding which are which.

that is not 'grossly inconsistent.'

Yes it is.

i think that having too many labels can get a
little nutty.

Just so long as the label you like to apply to yourself
is seen as 'useful'. RIIIIIIIGHT.

i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
right?

No. No humans are herbivores.

but we've added vegetarian, vegan, lacto-, ovo-, pesco-, and pollo-
prefixes, vegitan, fruitarian, and now flexitarian? geez louise.

Get rid of ALL of the clearly socio-politcal ones,
including "vegan". The ones to keep are the
zoologically descriptive ones: herbivore, carnivore,
frugivore, omnivore.



i think that label is alright since it's
easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this
and this and this etc..."

I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.


this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all wrong'

My participation here is based on my belief that it's
all wrong.




flexitarians are omnivores.

They're clearly different from people who are
omnivorous at every meal.


sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would
assume that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're
flexible, right?

No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
back and reread it.


done.

Remains to be seen...


so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.



you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.

Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
eat because it will make you very sick.


YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to eat or
not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was at
your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to explain
myself.

No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.

Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.


once again, this post isn't about whether or not you think veganism has
merits.

Your post may not be; mine is.

and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not most,
family dinners.

Yes, it is.

maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended ()
any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know what
i mean.

Maybe you ought to reconsider the specious reasoning
that led you to declare yourself "vegan".





but flexitarians will eat anything at all,

Not all the time. That's the key.


true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
label for it.

They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
to describe them.


and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't
want to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is
concerned, you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.

You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
understood what they're about.


from the article: 'I really like sausage'

She doesn't eat it whenever it happens to be served.




they just choose the circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian?

Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
(who don't even want to know anyway?)


no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although it's a
good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that being in
a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
know how these catch-phrases take off.

It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".


i wouldn't say resentful.

I would, but you can give it whatever label you like.
The point is, it BUGS you that others are using a label
that you feel in some way detracts from the cachet of
the label you like to use for yourself. So, we see
that your allegedly "ethical" underpinnings for your
dietary choice have nothing to do with ethics at all,
but are purely about your image, both self-image and
the image you want to present to others.

but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
vegan eats sausages because they like them.

There was no suggestion in the article that the people
who are 'flexitarians' originated as "vegans". In
fact, it explicitly said that they are vegetarian, or
vegetarian-leaning, for health concerns, *not* due to
belief in "animal rights".

Anyway, you have further confirmed that this is an
*image* thing for you, not any kind of moral commitment.

but like i said in my earlier
post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that respect,
since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.

There isn't really any confusion. One is either
vegetarian, or not. There is no such thing as a
"lacto-ovo" vegetarian, for example. Dairy and eggs
are animal products. If you eat them, you're not
vegetarian.




that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever
the hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'

You are demanding that people approach food issues the
same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
visit your food preferences on people, so you are
assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.



i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my
food preferences on anyone.

You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
don't eat meat.


if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat when
they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then i
suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...

Your whole motivation for not eating meat to begin with
is bogus.

gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food situations,
how odd...


i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people do
that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
order to avoid eating animal products.

Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.


that isn't what this thread is about

It is now.



but the whole point of the
flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
flexible.

NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
The flexibility is PERIODIC.


perhaps not in this article. but i'm sure we've all met vegetarians or
vegans who situationally eat non veg*n stuff, for different reasons, and
still call themselves veg*n. if this flexitarian word takes off, i would
think that label would apply to those folks.

It'll be just one more in a long line of linguistic
pollution.




that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
healthily.

And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.


declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.

It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
by definition superfluous.


not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
bandwagon-hopping.

Whatever reason they want to call it, it's no more than
bandwagon-hopping.

some of us actually apply the label to describe our
dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.

No. No one is "vegan" for any practical purpose.



it has a purpose,

Self aggrandizement.


no, the purpose is to avoid having people try to feed you stuff that you
don't eat.

No, the purpose of declaring oneself "vegan" in the
first place is self aggrandizement.



which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
fed something on that list.

No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
statement being made by an announcement of being
"vegan" is bullshit; a lie.


whether or not you think that veganism is ethically valid is not the point
of this thread.

Now it is.



certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.

It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.


yes, i am well aware of that. i'm talking about the trend that has been
happening lately. famous folks get their diets splattered all over the
media. 'ooh, madonna's vegan! ooh, moby's vegan! wow, that guy who played
spiderman has all these big muscles but he doesn't eat meat! wow, did you
hear what alecia silverstone has catered to her movie sets? all that weird
vegan food!'

How is it YOU know all about this, HMMMMMMMMMM? Seems
to me you're AWFULLY well attuned to the dietary
preferences of the Hollywood crowd...

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...
katie wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...

katie wrote:



Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?


vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is
necessary if you're going somewhere to eat.

It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
You are grossly inconsistent.


i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous.

You have no standard for deciding which are which.

holy tofu man. i keep on telling you what my standard is. i consider the
'vegan' label to be useful because it tells people what you don't eat. that
is useful to people who don't want some well-meaning person trying to feed
them beef or whatnot.


that is not 'grossly inconsistent.'

Yes it is.

i think that having too many labels can get a
little nutty.

Just so long as the label you like to apply to yourself
is seen as 'useful'. RIIIIIIIGHT.

if it is useful to me, (and it is) what's the problem with me using it?


i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
right?

No. No humans are herbivores.

humans who exist on plant foods only are herbivores. you may not believe
that they are herbivores physiologically, and that is fine. but in terms of
what they eat, observationally, they are herbivores.


but we've added vegetarian, vegan, lacto-, ovo-, pesco-, and pollo-
prefixes, vegitan, fruitarian, and now flexitarian? geez louise.

ooooh, i forgot freegan ()

Get rid of ALL of the clearly socio-politcal ones,
including "vegan". The ones to keep are the
zoologically descriptive ones: herbivore, carnivore,
frugivore, omnivore.



i think that label is alright since it's
easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this
and this and this etc..."

I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.


this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all wrong'

My participation here is based on my belief that it's
all wrong.

then perhaps you have gotten lost. this is a vegan FOOD board. not a
debating-the-merits-of-veganism board.


flexitarians are omnivores.

They're clearly different from people who are
omnivorous at every meal.


sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would
assume that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're
flexible, right?

No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
back and reread it.


done.

Remains to be seen...


so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.



you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.

Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
eat because it will make you very sick.


YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to
eat or
not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was
at
your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to
explain
myself.

No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.

Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.


once again, this post isn't about whether or not you think veganism has
merits.

Your post may not be; mine is.

and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not
most,
family dinners.

Yes, it is.

okay, you can just not eat the beef. you will still have family members
that are left confused and with hurt feelings that you did not eat their
beef. and they will harp and you for the entire time. every time they see
you with food. fun times.


maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended
()
any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know
what
i mean.

Maybe you ought to reconsider the specious reasoning
that led you to declare yourself "vegan".

hmm...no, i like my lifestyle just fine, thank you. i feel much healthier.





but flexitarians will eat anything at all,

Not all the time. That's the key.


true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
label for it.

They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
to describe them.


and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't
want to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is
concerned, you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you
anything.

You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
infrequently eat