IS VEGETARIANISM A VIRTUE?
IS CARNIVORISM A VICE?

Recent research has confirmed what some have long suspected: the
percentage of Americans who are truly vegetarian has not changed
significantly in the past 30 years.(1) And the percentages are
unlikely to change very much unless those who believe that the
deprivation and suffering caused by human carnivorism is intolerable,
learn something from those who came to the conclusion that slavery was
intolerable. As long as people did not want to appear "judgmental" in
regard to those who upheld slavery, there was no chance of abolition.

As slavery became more widespread and its atrocities multiplied,
growing numbers of people became disturbed by its abuses and distanced
themselves from participation in it. But they could not distance
themselves from the people with whom they worked, worshipped, and
lived. So in its earliest stages the issue of slavery was treated as
one of personal choice. This allowed people to live comfortably and
without dissent among neighbors and family who supported the status
quo. It also allowed them to be viewed as Good Christians who
subscribed to the biblical directive "judge not, lest ye be judged."
This was a position as politically correct and self-serving in its own
day as is the espousal of ethical relativism and value-free judgments
in our own time. It was also a position that ignored another passage
of scripture which directed the believer to "judge with a righteous
judgment."

But a growing number of people began to understand that because the
abuses of slavery were upheld by custom, law, and religion, the buying
and selling of other human beings reflected a societal standard as
well as an individual choice. And they understood that as members of
a society which validated and perpetuated its cruelties, they shared
the moral responsibility for its offenses. Only when this happened
did abolition become a possibility.

And it is only when those who understand that killing other beings in
order to satisfy an appetite for their flesh is much more than a
personal choice, that human carnivorism will become an anomaly. Only
when the cruelty and immorality of breeding animals for the
slaughterhouse is recognized as an evil sanctioned by society and
upheld by its laws, will vegetarianism reach the next stage of its
evolution in Western civilization.

In Western civilization? Yes. We can set an example for others but
our own culture, with its values and traditions, is the only one we
can hope to change. People of other cultures will have to find the
basis for change within their own belief systems. Should this
discourage us from working for the abolition of human carnivorism? Of
course not. Although slavery was ended in England almost 200 years
ago by legislation and in the United States by civil war, there are
still, literally, tens of thousands of people who are being sold into
slavery in our own day. And although other countries and other
cultures continue to traffic in the buying and selling of human
beings, that does not stop us from continuing to outlaw it in our own
country.

For those who are aware of the ways in which the buying and selling,
the killing and the consumption of animal beings permeates every
aspect of our society, the odds against its abolition can seem
overwhelming. And were it not for the example of the end of slavery
in Western culture, an end to human carnivorism would seem a Utopian
dream. But we do have the example of slavery to show us that no
matter how deep its roots, nor how great its antiquity, a spiritually
evolving human race is able to overcome its failings.

Because slavery and carnivorism can be traced back to the beginning of
historical times, both have been accepted as enduring components of
human society. Millennia of women and men were carefully taught to
rationalize or ignore the cruelties and deprivations endured by
enslaved human beings and to claim divine sanction for brutalities
that were devised by men. And just as biblical support was claimed
for slavery, the Bible has also been used to validate the eating of
other creatures, although the scripture clearly states that men and
women were created to be herbivorous.(2)

In times past, people were content to claim that God supported their
carnivorism. But in an increasingly secularized society, various
pseudo- scientific explanations have been developed to account for the
brutality that demands a diet of dead animals for its sustenance.
Scientism -- or junk science -- has manufactured various theories to
explain the continuing brutality that insists on killing and eating
other creatures.

For the secularist, the claim that God said it's all right to eat
other creatures has no creditability. So anthropology and physiology
have provided rationalizations to fill the void left by those who
believe that God-is-dead or never was. These alternative excuses
allow contemporary humans to blame pre-historic ancestors for their
modern-day food choices.

Anthropologists offer the theory of enculturation and physiologists
vaguely speak of "adaptation" and assure you that it is your genes
that make you want to kill and eat other creatures.

Among family and friends, most vegetarians have been subjected to
these ongoing religious and secular arguments, offered as proof that
carnivorism is okay/normal. Of course, the adversarial answer to that
position is that it's not okay/normal to eat your fellow creatures.
Ultimately, these arguments lead either to a rift in relationships or
an agreement not to discuss the subject again. Every vegetarian knows
how painful either decision is and no suggestions will be offered
here, about the way it should be resolved.

However, at the level of infrequent encounters with neighborhood,
church or social groups, there are guidelines that should be observed.
When those who refuse to eat the chicken kiev at the annual luncheon
are challenged about their refusal, they have automatically become
spokesperson against animal suffering. And when asked "why" they
don't partake, the answer is usually a variation on the theme of a
nonviolent diet. But if the dialogue continues, and they are asked if
they think it's wrong to eat meat, many will begin to equivocate. And
generally speaking, it is those who consider themselves well-educated
and intellectually aware, who do this.

Above all other considerations, they do not want to be thought of as
ignorant and judgmental. Value-free is the way to be if you aspire to
be considered a highly developed, rational being by those who have
decided the criteria for that designation. For some people, this is
even more important than the fate of the animals for whom they may
truly be concerned.

The mind-set of this kind of person prevails even at the media level.
Unfortunately, this writer has been privy to what went on at a meeting
between a journalist and the spokesman for a vegetarian group. When
asked whether or not eating meat was wrong the spokesman, who is a
medical professional, said "no," he couldn't make such a statement.
It might be wrong for him, personally, but he certainly would not make
that judgment for others. Having established himself as an
intelligent, value-free observer of the human scene, he went on to
volunteer the information that we must also consider the fact that
there are people who struggle with a physical or psychological
addiction to eating flesh. Of course, this value-free standard also
absolves a Hannibal Lector of responsibility for his food choices.

In order for vegetarianism to become a societal standard, those who
refuse to eat other creatures need to resist the intellectual,
religious and social pressures that try to make it simply a matter of
individual choice. Although carnivorism has overwhelming majority
approval at this time, that does not make it a moral or ethical
choice. And in a society in which optimum nourishment can easily be
had without the slaughter or cruel confinement of other creatures,
those who understand the brutality of human carnivorism have an
obligation to speak the truth when they are asked "Do you think
meat-eating is wrong.?"

------------------------------------

(1) Donna Maurer, Ph.d "Vegetarianism: Movement or Moment." For more
information: www.veganoutreach.org

(2) Genesis 1:29. For further discussion see "The Biblical Basis of
Vegetarianism" at below website.

Copyright 2003 J. R. Hyland

from http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hra-isveg.htm

I bet after eating twigs and berries for so long our vegan friend here would
be pretty tasty sliced thin and grilled rare.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
om...
> IS VEGETARIANISM A VIRTUE?
> IS CARNIVORISM A VICE?
> (snipped a bubnch of hippie verbiage)

"Jason in Dallas" > wrote in
. com:

> I bet after eating twigs and berries for so long our vegan friend here
> would be pretty tasty sliced thin and grilled rare.
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> om...
>> IS VEGETARIANISM A VIRTUE?
>> IS CARNIVORISM A VICE?
>> (snipped a bubnch of hippie verbiage)
>
>
>

I still don't understand this "battle" between Vegetarians and Others. I,
myself, am a pseudo-vegetarian and have noticed that many people have pre-
concieved notions that they must ridicule or dislike vegetarians simply
because they are different than them. That is stupid.

Equally as dumb are these vegetarians who come to this newsgroup simply to
annoy you fine people. I don't understand their purpose. As I stated a
couple of weeks ago, wouldn't they be better served to try to convert
people like me, rather than trying to annoy others? I am already teatering
on the fence of vegetarianism. I would think that these people should find
a target audience and try to convince them. Wouldn't the results be
greater?

Quite honestly, I think the vegetarian trolls who have infiltrated this
group do more harm to their cause than good. If anything they are angering
people towards the notion of vegetarianism.

I wonder if these trolls really give a shit about what they are posting, or
if they just want a reaction from you. I question if they are even
vegetarians themselves. Why wouldn't they post these articles in more
appropriate groups? I visit rec.music.gdead (Grateful Dead) quite
frequently and would think that there are alot more people there who could
be "convinced" to not eat meat than there are people in a BBQ newsgroup for
Christ's Sake! Yet I've never seen one of these trolls post there.

Maybe they are just trolls. I'm betting they're eating a beef stick while
posting.

I try to be a vegetarian for my own personal reasons. I fail quite often,
but that's ok with me. I currently have a freezer full of Pork Chops (that
I plan to smoke next week) and a ton of venison steaks (that I plan to
marinate in my home-made Jalapeno Wine and grill) that were given to me by
a friend, and eventually I will eat them despite trying to be a vegetarian.
If I go 6 or 7 days without eating meat then eat meat once or twice, I
think I'm doing pretty good. I would never try to force my ideals on
others. In fact my reasons for trying to be a vegetarian probably do
coincide with what the trolls have been posting. I just chose to work on
myself rather than taunting or annoying others.

BTW, the Venison steaks marinated in Jalapeno Wine are Fricking Awesome! A
little garlic, some onions and pepper.....Hmmmmmmm. when you cook the
steaks only a hint of the japaleno wine flavor is left behind. Damn it's
good!!!! Eating Food this good is why I have difficulty being a true
vegetarian! For me it's a constant battle.

OTOH, please don't let these idiot trolls influence how *MOST* Vegetarians
are. Unfortunately it only takes a handful of trolls to make ALL
Vegetarians look like assholes.

Jason in Dallas wrote:
>
> I bet after eating twigs and berries for so long our vegan friend here would
> be pretty tasty sliced thin and grilled rare.


Please don't feed the troll.



Brian Rodenborn

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:35:39 GMT, Robert >
wrote:

> Unfortunately it only takes a handful of trolls to make ALL
>Vegetarians look like assholes.

Which part of "We're not interested in talking about vegetarianism"
did you fail to understand the last time you blundered in here?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:35:39 GMT, Robert >
> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately it only takes a handful of trolls to make ALL
>>Vegetarians look like assholes.
>
> Which part of "We're not interested in talking about vegetarianism"
> did you fail to understand the last time you blundered in here?
>

Oh you again. I guess I didn't realize that YOU spoke for the entire
newsgroup. Which part of "This entire newsgroup thinks you are an idiot"
don't you understand?

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:21:44 GMT, Robert >
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:35:39 GMT, Robert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately it only takes a handful of trolls to make ALL
>>>Vegetarians look like assholes.
>>
>> Which part of "We're not interested in talking about vegetarianism"
>> did you fail to understand the last time you blundered in here?
>>
>
>Oh you again. I guess I didn't realize that YOU spoke for the entire
>newsgroup. Which part of "This entire newsgroup thinks you are an idiot"
>don't you understand?

Oh, I see. So it's you who speaks for the entire newsgroup. Glad you
cleared that up.

PS: I'll bet the lurkers support you in e-mail, right?.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Jack Sloan wrote:
> "Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:21:44 GMT, Robert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:35:39 GMT, Robert >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately it only takes a handful of trolls to make ALL
>>>>> Vegetarians look like assholes.
>>>>
>>>> Which part of "We're not interested in talking about vegetarianism"
>>>> did you fail to understand the last time you blundered in here?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh you again. I guess I didn't realize that YOU spoke for the entire
>>> newsgroup. Which part of "This entire newsgroup thinks you are an idiot"
>>> don't you understand?
>>
>> Oh, I see. So it's you who speaks for the entire newsgroup. Glad you
>> cleared that up.
>>
>> PS: I'll bet the lurkers support you in e-mail, right?.
>>
>> --
>> Kevin S. Wilson
>> Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
>> "Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
>> --Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology
>
> Hmmmmm.... Seems to me they could both be right....I'm not sure...Gotta
> think about this some more...
> Jack

Jack,
Right now, I think that *you* are speaking for *me*.
That is is you are saying that neither of them speaks for you.
Or me.

BOB

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:21:44 GMT, Robert >
> wrote:
>
> >Kevin S. Wilson > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:35:39 GMT, Robert >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unfortunately it only takes a handful of trolls to make ALL
> >>>Vegetarians look like assholes.
> >>
> >> Which part of "We're not interested in talking about vegetarianism"
> >> did you fail to understand the last time you blundered in here?
> >>
> >
> >Oh you again. I guess I didn't realize that YOU spoke for the entire
> >newsgroup. Which part of "This entire newsgroup thinks you are an idiot"
> >don't you understand?
>
> Oh, I see. So it's you who speaks for the entire newsgroup. Glad you
> cleared that up.
>
> PS: I'll bet the lurkers support you in e-mail, right?.
>
> --
> Kevin S. Wilson
> Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
> "Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
> --Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Hmmmmm.... Seems to me they could both be right....I'm not sure...Gotta
think about this some more...
Jack

Robert wrote:

> I still don't understand this "battle" between Vegetarians and Others.

What you fail to understand is that this is not something we want to be
discussed in this newsgroup. In fact, the person responsible doesn't
discuss anything. He drops in articles, large and small, on the topic
but never follows up to any of the replie. Often the sender is spoofed
to seem as though if came from one of the regulars here.

This is trolling behavior, pure and simple. Your continual habit of
taking up this threads does not help your standing here either. For me
personally, one more episode like this will lead you directly to my
killfile. You may or may not care about that, but if enough do that the
group will be effectively dead to you.




Brian Rodenborn

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:50:48 GMT, Default User
> wrote:

>Robert wrote:
>
>> I still don't understand this "battle" between Vegetarians and Others.
>
>What you fail to understand is that this is not something we want to be
>discussed in this newsgroup.
>
He's been told exacty that many, many times.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:50:48 GMT, Default User
> > wrote:
>
> >Robert wrote:
> >
> >> I still don't understand this "battle" between Vegetarians and Others.
> >
> >What you fail to understand is that this is not something we want to be
> >discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> He's been told exacty that many, many times.

I know. As I said, anything further from him will be enough for me to do
what I have to.


Brian Rodenborn

Default User wrote:
> For me
> personally, one more episode like this will lead you directly to my
> killfile. You may or may not care about that, but if enough do that
> the group will be effectively dead to you.

Here we go again - you tryin to control the NG.

Do me a favor and add me to your killfile; you've certainly joined mine.

--
-frohe
Life is too short to be in a hurry

Default User > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:50:48 GMT, Default User
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Robert wrote:
> > >
> > >> I still don't understand this "battle" between Vegetarians and Others.
> > >
> > >What you fail to understand is that this is not something we want to be
> > >discussed in this newsgroup.
> > >
> > He's been told exacty that many, many times.
>
> I know. As I said, anything further from him will be enough for me to do
> what I have to.
>
>
OH NOOOOOOOOO! GASP! Robert, watch out! Brian's gonna do "it". And
nobody in the vicinity will enjoy "it" either. Oh the horror, oh the
humanity.

"A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do......"
Brian Rodenborn, Feb. 2004


D

frohe wrote:

> Do me a favor and add me to your killfile; you've certainly joined mine.


Fair enough.



Brian Rodenborn

Duwop wrote:

> OH NOOOOOOOOO! GASP! Robert, watch out! Brian's gonna do "it". And
> nobody in the vicinity will enjoy "it" either. Oh the horror, oh the
> humanity.


Well, Robert is an interesting case. I'm unsure whether he's trollish or
just somewhat over-exuberant. I've been trying to give him the benefit
of the doubt while letting him know that, I at least, find his behavior
counter-productive to the group.

We'll see.




Brian Rodenborn

"frohe" > wrote in
:

> Default User wrote:
>> For me
>> personally, one more episode like this will lead you directly to my
>> killfile. You may or may not care about that, but if enough do that
>> the group will be effectively dead to you.
>
> Here we go again - you tryin to control the NG.
>
> Do me a favor and add me to your killfile; you've certainly joined mine.
>

LOL!

Robert wrote:

> LOL!


Well, you've yet to actually respond to any of my points. I've gone out
of my way to try and be of some help to you in this newsgroup, as your
particular beliefs already put you at a disadvantage.

You may not feel that it is help, but that's how it is intended.



Brian Rodenborn

Default User wrote:
> Robert wrote:
>
>> LOL!
>
>
> Well, you've yet to actually respond to any of my points. I've gone
> out of my way to try and be of some help to you in this newsgroup, as
> your particular beliefs already put you at a disadvantage.
>
> You may not feel that it is help, but that's how it is intended.
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Brian, this too is intended to be helpul, check it out:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor:first.last
%40boeing.com.invalid&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=images&as
_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=2002&as_maxd= 13&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=2004&
selm=3F834933.AB4A820D%40boeing.com.invalid&rnum=8 6&filter=0>

These are your posts to AFB from 5/12/02 forward.

Out of 86 posts since 5/12/02 I figure only 34 are on topic, and by "on"
topic I included anything that wasnt you being a netcop of one sort or
another. 60% of your posts are you directing people how to behave, or post,
or one thing or another. Now if you saw that sort of posting by someone
else, what would you think?

A little goes a long way. Right now you are the guy in the hot crowded
elevator with waay too much aftershave on.

D
--

Duwop wrote:

> Brian, this too is intended to be helpul, check it out:
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor:first.last
> %40boeing.com.invalid&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=images&as
> _drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=2002&as_maxd= 13&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=2004&
> selm=3F834933.AB4A820D%40boeing.com.invalid&rnum=8 6&filter=0>

Your posting software does not adequately handle long links, and as such
the above is unusable. Regardless, I'll accept that you have truthfully
conveyed what the results are.

> These are your posts to AFB from 5/12/02 forward.
>
> Out of 86 posts since 5/12/02 I figure only 34 are on topic, and by "on"
> topic I included anything that wasnt you being a netcop of one sort or
> another.

You are incorrect about topicality. Such activities are normally
considered meta-topical, i.e. always topical. They may not be welcome,
but are not normally considered off-topic.

> 60% of your posts are you directing people how to behave, or post,
> or one thing or another. Now if you saw that sort of posting by someone
> else, what would you think?

That there are some people not behaving properly?

> A little goes a long way. Right now you are the guy in the hot crowded
> elevator with waay too much aftershave on.

You are free to draw that conclusion. The fact that I do more reading
than posting shouldn't be surprising, I am not an expert Qer, although I
am trying to learn. It's also mid-winter here, and while many hardy
souls don't let that stop them, I tend not to do much this time of year.

People who feed trolls encourage what I consider to be a real danger to
the usability of the newsgroup. The veg guy is only going to go away
when it's clear he'll have no fun at all. The only way that will happen
is if people get the message, "don't reply at all, no matter how
tempting it is to ridicule."

You may not agree, and that's your call. It's not going to change the
way I approach things. You are certainly free to emulate Frohe and
killfile me, that's one of the wonderful things about usenet. It won't
hurt my feelings in the slightest.



Brian Rodenborn

Default User wrote:
> You may not agree, and that's your call. It's not going to change the
> way I approach things. You are certainly free to emulate Frohe and
> killfile me, that's one of the wonderful things about usenet. It won't
> hurt my feelings in the slightest.
>

He only did so because you insisted on it. He did try to politely reason
with you, or did you forget that part?
And you find nothing wrong in your approach when repeatedly and politely
asked to desist by multiple users? In what way is that different from a
trollish creature?

As I did with Kevin, I shall grant your wish , I had hoped you would be as
reasonable to the rest of us. But no, you think you are above us, that your
personal wishes and wants are paramount, if you want to do it you will,
regardless of others. Again, how is that selfish attitude different from
that of a troll? If you are honest you wont find much of a difference, other
than intent the results are the same.


D
--

Duwop wrote:

> He only did so because you insisted on it.

Did I? I don't recall that.

> He did try to politely reason
> with you, or did you forget that part?

It was relatively polite, but disagreed with him on the subject of the
binary postings. In the latest case, he did not reason with me, but
announced a plonking.

> And you find nothing wrong in your approach when repeatedly and politely
> asked to desist by multiple users? In what way is that different from a
> trollish creature?

Basically, I ask people who have responded to the vegetarian troll not
to do so.

> As I did with Kevin, I shall grant your wish ,

My saying that you are free to KF me is not a request to do so.


> But no, you think you are above us, that your
> personal wishes and wants are paramount, if you want to do it you will,

I'm doing what I think will be best for the group in the long run. A
persistent troll like we have in a relatively lightly trafficked
newsgroup can destroy. Trust me, I've seen it.


> Again, how is that selfish attitude different from
> that of a troll? If you are honest you wont find much of a difference, other
> than intent the results are the same.

I am honest, and I don't agree. I am trying to help, trolls are not. You
may disagree with me, and that is fine. I don't want to make this a
contentious issue, that is for sure.



Brian Rodenborn

> People who feed trolls encourage what I consider to be a real danger to
> the usability of the newsgroup. The veg guy is only going to go away
> when it's clear he'll have no fun at all. The only way that will happen
> is if people get the message, "don't reply at all, no matter how
> tempting it is to ridicule."
>
> You may not agree, and that's your call. It's not going to change the
> way I approach things. You are certainly free to emulate Frohe and
> killfile me, that's one of the wonderful things about usenet. It won't
> hurt my feelings in the slightest.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn
>


That's so good I'll even leave your name at the bottom.

That first paragraph should be the opener for the forthcoming, "Usenet For
Dummies".

Mr. Rodenborn, I generally disagree with you as a rule, and overall I don't
think I like you much, but you've got a pearl there.

TFM®

"TFM®" > wrote in message

>> People who feed trolls encourage what I consider to be a real danger
>> to the usability of the newsgroup. The veg guy is only going to go
>> away when it's clear he'll have no fun at all. The only way that
>> will happen is if people get the message, "don't reply at all, no
>> matter how tempting it is to ridicule."
>>
>> You may not agree, and that's your call. It's not going to change the
>> way I approach things. You are certainly free to emulate Frohe and
>> killfile me, that's one of the wonderful things about usenet. It
>> won't hurt my feelings in the slightest.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian Rodenborn
>>
>
>
> That's so good I'll even leave your name at the bottom.
>
> That first paragraph should be the opener for the forthcoming,
> "Usenet For Dummies".
>
> Mr. Rodenborn, I generally disagree with you as a rule, and overall I
> don't think I like you much, but you've got a pearl there.
>
> TFM®

Declining celebrities (think Janet Jackson) and trolls both know that
negative attention beats no attention at all.

JD

In article >, "Duwop"
> wrote:

> Brian, this too is intended to be helpul, check it out:
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor:first.last
> %40boeing.com.invalid&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=images&as
> _drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=2002&as_maxd= 13&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=2004&
> selm=3F834933.AB4A820D%40boeing.com.invalid&rnum=8 6&filter=0>
>
> These are your posts to AFB from 5/12/02 forward.
>
> Out of 86 posts since 5/12/02 I figure only 34 are on topic, and by "on"
> topic I included anything that wasnt you being a netcop of one sort or
> another. 60% of your posts are you directing people how to behave, or post,
> or one thing or another. Now if you saw that sort of posting by someone
> else, what would you think?
>
> A little goes a long way. Right now you are the guy in the hot crowded
> elevator with waay too much aftershave on.
>

More like the one who just ripped a rank fart.
I don't claim to be a bastion of proper netmanners but the constant
"don't feed the trolls" is more annoying IMO than the dadblamed trolls.

monroe(there-i seddit)

Such activities are normally
> considered meta-topical, i.e. always topical. They may not be welcome,
> but are not normally considered off-topic.

I'm not "normally" one to post on troll threads, ( I think this kind of
arguing over troll posts acomplishes exactly what the trolls are looking
for-just look at how long these threads are compared to the on topic ones)
and Brian I intend you no disrespect, (uh oh here comes a but) but I have to
say that the prefix meta may not be saying what you meant in the context you
are using it in. Meta does not mean "always", it means "above" or "beyond".
By saying that posts about net use are meta-topical you are essentially
saying that they are over and above any relevant topics posted to this
board. Is that what you are trying to say?
I realize that I sound like a High School English teacher (I am actually
Middle School Science and never cared for English class) and that is not my
intent. I just want to make sure that I hear you correctly.

I think that the best thing for all of us would be to completly ignore the
troll posts and anyone who replies to them. However, I like what Jack Curry
does. Since I expand threads before reading them, his alerts that a thread
is a troll post keeps me from wasting time.

ag

> arguing over troll posts acomplishes exactly what the trolls are looking

ok so I can't spell "accomplishes" (figured I had better point it out before
someone else did)

Duwop > wrote in message
...

> Out of 86 posts since 5/12/02 I figure only 34 are on topic, and by "on"
> topic I included anything that wasnt you being a netcop of one sort or
> another. 60% of your posts are you directing people how to behave, or
post,
> or one thing or another. Now if you saw that sort of posting by someone
> else, what would you think?


Oh, I forgot to ask, why is it ok for you to netcop but not me


Brian Rodenborn

AG > wrote in message
...
> Such activities are normally
> > considered meta-topical, i.e. always topical. They may not be welcome,
> > but are not normally considered off-topic.

> and Brian I intend you no disrespect, (uh oh here comes a but) but I have
to
> say that the prefix meta may not be saying what you meant in the context
you
> are using it in. Meta does not mean "always", it means "above" or
"beyond".

Right. They topical because the are about the workings of the group. Do a
search
on meta-topical.

> By saying that posts about net use are meta-topical you are essentially
> saying that they are over and above any relevant topics posted to this
> board. Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes. They are topical on all groups across the board. Meta-topical as in
usenet-topical.

> I realize that I sound like a High School English teacher (I am actually
> Middle School Science and never cared for English class) and that is not
my
> intent. I just want to make sure that I hear you correctly.

You do. It's not a term I made up

> I think that the best thing for all of us would be to completly ignore the
> troll posts and anyone who replies to them. However, I like what Jack
Curry
> does. Since I expand threads before reading them, his alerts that a thread
> is a troll post keeps me from wasting time.

Well, I can see both ways. We've made huge strides in not getting large
threads started (this one notwithstanding). I have no problem at all with
the Jack Curry, Ignore This It's A Troll responses. Howver, any newsgroup
has new people coming in, and they won't really be clued in to the goal that
the group is striving for, to starve out the troll. If no one says anything,
they may not realize it.



Brian Rodenborn

TFM® > wrote in message
...

> Mr. Rodenborn, I generally disagree with you as a rule, and overall I
don't
> think I like you much, but you've got a pearl there.

Ah well, one of the things that's pretty much a truism is that not everyone
in the world is going to like you. There's not much you can do about the
ones who don't.



Brian Rodenborn

On 13-Feb-2004, Default User > wrote:

> You are incorrect about topicality. Such activities are normally
> considered meta-topical, i.e. always topical. They may not be welcome,
> but are not normally considered off-topic.

Yet another post that has nothing to do with BBQ.
--
M&M (Getting sick of all this S#$% about what is or is not netiquet). OTOH
I finally got Airnews to carry ABF. Hooray.

Brian Rodenborn wrote:
> Duwop > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Out of 86 posts since 5/12/02 I figure only 34 are on topic, and by "on"
>> topic I included anything that wasnt you being a netcop of one sort or
>> another. 60% of your posts are you directing people how to behave, or post,
>> or one thing or another. Now if you saw that sort of posting by someone
>> else, what would you think?
>
>
> Oh, I forgot to ask, why is it ok for you to netcop but not me
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Maybe because *you* do it more often? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

I still join the small group that believes that continuing threads like this
just make the troll the winner. He/she has "us" fighting among ourselves over
something that he/she started instead of discussing or arguing about the subject
of the newsgroup.

BOB

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:11:03 -0500, "AG" >
wrote:

> Such activities are normally
>> considered meta-topical, i.e. always topical. They may not be welcome,
>> but are not normally considered off-topic.
>
>I'm not "normally" one to post on troll threads, ( I think this kind of
>arguing over troll posts acomplishes exactly what the trolls are looking
>for-just look at how long these threads are compared to the on topic ones)
>and Brian I intend you no disrespect, (uh oh here comes a but) but I have to
>say that the prefix meta may not be saying what you meant in the context you
>are using it in. Meta does not mean "always", it means "above" or "beyond".
>By saying that posts about net use are meta-topical you are essentially
>saying that they are over and above any relevant topics posted to this
>board. Is that what you are trying to say?
>I realize that I sound like a High School English teacher (I am actually
>Middle School Science and never cared for English class) and that is not my
>intent. I just want to make sure that I hear you correctly.
>
I assume that he was using "meta" in the sense of "metadiscourse."
Metadiscourse is "talk about talk," or discussion about the act of
discussion.

I find it highly amusing that many of those who wish to silence
Brian--or at least proscribe him from posting metadiscourse-- do so on
the grounds that he is trying to dictate what can and cannot be posted
to the group or is otherwise trying to control the group.

My irony meter goes up to 11.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:35:18 GMT, "M&M" >
wrote:

>On 13-Feb-2004, Default User > wrote:
>
>> You are incorrect about topicality. Such activities are normally
>> considered meta-topical, i.e. always topical. They may not be welcome,
>> but are not normally considered off-topic.
>
>Yet another post that has nothing to do with BBQ.

As was the case with the original post. If you can't figure out that
this thread isn't about BBQ--and therefore ignore it, if its off-topic
nature bothers you--then log off, 'cuz you ain't quite ready for prime
time, much less Usenet.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"

BOB > wrote in message
s.com...

> > Oh, I forgot to ask, why is it ok for you to netcop but not me

> Maybe because *you* do it more often? I don't know, I'm just guessing
here.

Ah. What is the acceptable amount of netcopping. Who decides that, or is
that something left up to the personal discretion of knowledgable posters?

Do you see where I'm going with this? There is a certain essential hypocrisy
involved.



Brian Rodenborn

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:43:06 -0600, "Brian Rodenborn"
> wrote:

>
>BOB > wrote in message
ws.com...
>
>> > Oh, I forgot to ask, why is it ok for you to netcop but not me
>
>> Maybe because *you* do it more often? I don't know, I'm just guessing
>here.
>
>Ah. What is the acceptable amount of netcopping. Who decides that, or is
>that something left up to the personal discretion of knowledgable posters?
>
>Do you see where I'm going with this? There is a certain essential hypocrisy
>involved.
>
Let me see if I can explain. When you politely ask someone not to
respond to flame-bait, you are netcopping and trying to dictate what
is appropriate for the group. When someone impolitely tells you not to
ask, he is standing up for God, truth, and the American way.

Or something like that.

On the other hand, the people who are telling you to stop trying to
influence the posting behavior of others might be doing exactly what
they're telling you not to do. I'm waiting for some of them to spot
the logical inconsistency.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"

Brian Rodenborn wrote:
> BOB > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
>>> Oh, I forgot to ask, why is it ok for you to netcop but not me
>
>> Maybe because *you* do it more often? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
>
> Ah. What is the acceptable amount of netcopping. Who decides that, or is
> that something left up to the personal discretion of knowledgable posters?
>
> Do you see where I'm going with this? There is a certain essential hypocrisy
> involved.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

But you seemed to snip the relevant part of my post, didn't you?

BOB

In article >, Kevin S.
Wilson > wrote:

> I find it highly amusing that many of those who wish to silence
> Brian--or at least proscribe him from posting metadiscourse-- do so on
> the grounds that he is trying to dictate what can and cannot be posted
> to the group or is otherwise trying to control the group.

How about 'on the grounds that "Don't feed the troll" posts in excess
are as annoying as the trolls are'?

> My irony meter goes up to 11.

Tufneltron Model 500s always do.

monroe(wants a cracker)

Here is my answer to all this:

From this day forward I, Alan Gayton, AKA ag, will not respond to any post I
deem to be a troll post. I also will not participate in threads that are
about troll posts with the exception of the few that shift back onto more
topical discussions. I don't care if anyone else does or doesn't.

I know some of you will say "Who cares what ag posts to. He's just some new
guy". Fair enough. I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do. Just look
for me on topic.

have a great day!
ag

BOB wrote:
> Brian Rodenborn wrote:
>> BOB > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>>
>>>> Oh, I forgot to ask, why is it ok for you to netcop but not me
>>
>>> Maybe because *you* do it more often? I don't know, I'm just
>>> guessing here.
>>
>> Ah. What is the acceptable amount of netcopping. Who decides that,
>> Do you see where I'm going with this? There is a certain essential
>> hypocrisy involved.
>>

Only to the truly clueless.
>
> But you seemed to snip the relevant part of my post, didn't you?
>
And now it's morphed. After asking people to killfile him, he morphs. Acted
like a troll before, reeks like one now.


On topic: Pork sirloin tonight, grilled hot so the middle is a nice pink.
Got to try one of the many recipes shown on afb, mebbe tonight who knows?.

Dale, in sunny RWC
--