"Mr. N.A.Cho" > wrote

> >>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>> the usenet.
>
> >>>>>>>> --Tedward
>
> >>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>
> >>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>> athletes.
>
> >>>>>> Your claim is bullshit.
>
> >>>>>http://kaleuniversity.org/3888-famou...n-bodybuilders
>
> >>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>
> >>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so ****ing insecure they
> >>>> feel they need to put them together?
>
> >>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>
> >> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you ****ing well know it.
> >> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>
> > What an interesting opinion you have there.
>
> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>
> >>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>> ****ing ****witted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>
> >>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>> rarely are people of substance.
>
> >>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>
> >> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>
> > What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>
> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> prominent medical doctors.
>
> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
<
<yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
<piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.

You means those Goths don't really believe in vampires?!

--Tedward