On 31/01/2013 21:16, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 11:41 AM, Derek wrote:
>> [
>> trimmed]
>>
>> On 31/01/2013 19:09, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>> Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun of Veggie Eaters
>>> After Veggie Eaters Complain
>>>
>>> January 30, 2013
>>>
>>> United States, January 2013 (gawker.com): A Taco Bell ad
>>> chastising party-poopers who bring veggie platters to
>>> Game Day has been pulled following a Twitter campaign
>>> launched by the Center for Science in the Public
>>> Interest.
>>>
>>> Continues at:
>>>
>>> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-n...ain/12678.html
>>>
>>
>> "punting on fourth and one" Is that, "playing it safe" or something?
>
> In American football, when a team takes possession of the ball, they
> have four downs (plays) to try to advance 10 yards. If they succeed in
> advancing the ball 10 yards, they get a new set of downs (unless they
> advance past the other team's goal line, resulting in scoring a
> touchdown worth six points.) On the fourth attempt to advance the
> initial 10 yards, if they fail to advance beyond the point 10 yards from
> where they first took possession, the lose the ball on downs and the
> other team takes possession. Typically, if the team possessing the ball
> is between their own goal line and the midfield line (50 yard line),
> they'll punt the ball to the other team. A punt is a kick: the ball is
> snapped from the line of scrimmage to the punter standing about 15 yards
> behind the line, and he kicks the ball in the air; someone on the
> defensive team usually tries to catch the ball and run with it.
> However, if the team with the ball is in the other team's half of the
> field (pitch), and if there is but a short distance left to complete a
> 10 yard advance and obtain another set of downs, then the team with the
> ball may elect to try to gain the necessary advance. There is a variety
> of game situations in which a team might try to do this rather than
> punting the ball or perhaps trying to kick a field goal.

I'm going to start following it now I know some of the rules and what
the actual objective of the game is.

> The metaphor "punting on fourth and one" means, indeed, to play it safe,

It fit's so well I knew it had to be something along the lines, 'playing
it safe.' I like it.

> or conservatively. It's also taken as meaning lacking confidence in
> one's ability to advance, even though not much advance is required -
> that is, a metaphor for gutlessness. The "one", of course, refers to
> one yard left to go. Even worse would be "punting on fourth and inches."

Got it. And thanks for using that knack you've got in explaining thing
in terms a Brit would understand, by the way.

>> I can't see why anyone would think a comment like that would "discourage
>> people from eating vegetables."
>
> By itself, it wouldn't. But as you might imagine, dietary choice has
> been heavily politicized here. The "Center for Science in the Public
> Interest" is not a true science advisory group at all. It's a left-wing
> advocacy group with a long and sordid history of peddling pseudoscience
> in order to try to dictate to people what they "ought" to eat. Yes,
> they very much advocate vegetarianism, and if they want to advocate it
> on ethical principles, no one would really object, but when they try to
> dress it up in the language of fake science, it becomes objectionable.

Whatever did happen to the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, I often wonder. I
found some of what she wrote quite plausible for a while, but when she
went right off the rails I began to doubt her and then my own judgement
about people I found plausible, generally. I learned a lot from that
experience.

> Jay Stevens, aka "'Dr.' Jai Maharaj", aka the jyotishithead, is not a
> doctor, not a Hindoo, and is in fact a Caucasian lying shitbag from
> Hawaii who does real vegetarians a disservice by making them look like
> intolerant meddlers.

He seems to be trying to put vegetarians in the same group as those who
should never be criticised or offended. That in itself is going to cause
more. It's the wrong tactic.

> He's a fraudster - he claims to be an astrologer,
> and he tells people their "fortunes" and futures for money, so he is
> committing outright fraud.

Preying on the most vulnerable in need has to be one of the most
despicable crimes because the victims often ask for more of the same in
the hope that what was promised will one day be due. The way they go
about their business is sinister and heartless.

>> I certainly do hope the minority of
>> vegetarians incapable of taking a bit of a joke don't ruin things for
>> the majority who can.
>
> ****wits like Jay Stevens and CSPI are exactly the reason why "vegans"
> are widely considered to be completely humorless.

There's at least one more vegetarian I can think of who does a pretty
good job in keeping that character group alive. He's Australian, you
know. From a country that probably has one of the richest reserves of
humour in the world.