"ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
. com...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> t>,
>>>>> "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL I'm not giving MY defintion, fool. I'm giving the
>>>>>> definition from the original guy who made up the word and
>>>>>> religion. Anything else is a watered down version
>>>>>> designed to
>>>>>> make YOU feel better about doing nothing of substance.
>>>>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>>>>>> includes
>>>>>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living
>>>>>> on the
>>>>>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh,
>>>>>> fish,
>>>>>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>>>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities
>>>>>> derived
>>>>>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>>>> Donald Watson, 1944
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one definition he accepted.
>>>> =======================
>>>> LOL NO, fool, that's the definition of the word he made up.
>>>> He made-up the word, he get's to define it.
>>>
>>> Well.. yes and no. Language evolves. Words change over
>>> time. Yes, Watson made the word up, but that was over 60
>>> years ago, and it has changed by usage. "***" used to mean
>>> just "happy", but anyone who thinks that it means exactly the
>>> same thing today that it meant in 1920 is either leading an
>>> amazingly sheltered life or is being foolish. It's the same
>>> with "vegan". We sticklers like to think that words are
>>> static, but they aren't. Watson made that word up, but then
>>> he released it into the big, wide world of language users.
>>> The only way to keep your made-up word from changing is to
>>> never let anyone else know about it! Nowadays, when people
>>> want to harken back to old definitions, they use terms like
>>> "classic" and "old school", so maybe we could avoid confusion
>>> by saying "classic veganism" when referring to Donald
>>> Watson's veganism. Just a thought.
>> =============================
>> No, the change in the word is by lazy waanbes that can't be
>> bothered to actually live up to the ideals created for
>> veganism. They are smug, self-rightous, people-hating
>> hypocrites...
>
> In 60+ years, there have been tons of those, but there have
> also been plenty of folks who just asked innocently "What's a
> vegan?" and were told some watered down version of the above
> definition. From there, it went like that old children's party
> game, Telephone, and now you have plenty of people who are not
> lazy or smug or wannabes but who just ended up, through no
> fault of their own, with the altered definition in their heads
> (whether they apply it to themselves or not). That's the real
> world, Rick. You have some very good arguments here, but if
> you think that every single person who is uninformed about the
> original definition of "vegan" is automatically a lazy, smug,
> self-righteous, people-hating, hypocritical wannabe, you're
> just not being rational.
=======================
Only those here on usenet. There prabably are some real vegans
out there somewhere.

If that isn't what you believe, my apologies.
> ============================
Exactly what i believe of those on usenet that try to claim their
vegan...


>