"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:

>> I object to your vitriol
>
> Which I typically reserve for the right situation, such as when someone is
> ridiculously pigheaded, willfully ignorant, or blatantly deceitful.

You are NOT reserved. It doesn't take much to set you off.

>> and your tendency to take positions that are far to the contrary -
>> wherever contrary may be.
>
> Such as...? Maybe you mean something like this:
> There are some common misconceptions about being vegetarian.
> Among the most common is that being vegetarian saves all animal
> lives. Animals will die to put food on your table whether you
> are vegetarian or not - even if you are vegan. It's unavoidable
> unless you go to extreme measures that are not usually practical
> in today's culture. You might save the lives of some animals:
> cows, chickens, turkeys, fish, pigs, etc., but other animals
> will die as a result of agricultural practices, transportation,
> packaging, warehousing, and for many other reasons. Most people
> don't think about the other animal casualties because they
> aren't featured in a meal.
>
> Of course, I didn't write that (though I've made those very points many
> times myself only to be subjected to your objections). You posted that two
> days ago in rfvc.

What's your point? I wrote it and I agree with it. It proves your comment
yesterday WRONG that I defend "veg-n dogma". If you go back and look at our
clashes in the past (which you so like to do), I don't object to your
positions as much as I object to your style. You like to argue for the sake
of argueing and you do so in a very aggressive and mean-spirited manner.

Look, I understand that you are here to argue why you think veganism is a
misguided pursuit. Why don't you just let people be vegan if that's what
they want to do? And why must you be so disparaging and insulting as you
make your points? People are entitled to their thoughts and aspirations just
as you are. Why don't you respect that?