"father of the bride" > wrote in message
news:skcnl71rh3gpkeo79njgchogaa3hg9juki@father_of_ the_bride...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"father of the bride" > wrote in message
>>news:cacml79sd92idg3ebhq5i9fl77g91hdh4g@father_o f_the_bride...
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>> > wrote:
>>>>On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>> "Derek" > wrote:
>>>>> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>> >>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>That's bad advice.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> Their only objective
>>>>> >>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well
>>>>> >>designed vegan diet can be healthy,
>>>>>
>>>>> > You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,
>>>>>
>>>>> > "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
>>>>> > one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
>>>>> > experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
>>>>> > meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
>>>>> > Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't contradict what I said above.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does.
>>
>>No, it doesn't.
>
> It does.
>
>>>You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
>>> be healthy" above, but you've often said that it isn't and that
>>> a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
>>> secrets. The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
>>> haven't had any kids.
>>
>>Whether I actually have kids or I prefer to refer to 'my kids' in the
>>hypothetical should be none of your concern.
>
> It is my concern when you invent children to use as anecdotal
> evidence a failure to thrive on a vegetarian diet.

I never did that.

> Your kids
> didn't .suffer on a vegetarian diet

I never said I had kids that suffered on a vegetarian diet.

> And what was all that ********
> about having to do all the hoovering while she was pregnant; another
> hypothetical reference, or just another lie to reinforce the first one?

Context ****wit.

>>> You don't have a family.
>>
>>Yes I do.
>
> I don't believe a word you say about your family, if in fact you
> actually have one.
>
>> > They and you
>>> didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
>>> evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.
>>
>>Yes we did
>
> No, you didn't. You lied about having kids.

I've referred in the past to kids as if I had them rather than say what I
would do *if* I had kids. I have never said that I had kids who suffered
from FTT.

> You lied about your
> family's failure to survive on a vegetarian diet.

That was true.

Pearl got you to
> admit you'd lied:
>
> [start - Pearl to Dutch]
> > Of course I DON'T believe you. No one does. How could we.
> > You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. GLL!
> [Dutch replied]
> Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly not to
> try
> to claim otherwise.
> [end]
> Dutch Oct 23 2006 http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7

That's good advice, depending on the situation, people lie all the time,
most many times a day.

>
> You lied about your child status in alt.abortion, too, and used
> personal anecdotes to bolster your arguments there.

This is usenet Derek, not a court of law. Being creative about your
personal life and experiences is perfectly normal. Implying that you never
lie is itself not credible.

You can choose to believe that since I referred to children that I don't
have that discredits everything I have said, but I have have given other
evidence about FTT in vegetarianism, and besides it's a fallacy.