Do you consider sunflower seeds vegan?

I have a dilemma with them because of the extreme measures use to protect the
crops. Ironically, most of the seeds grown in the US are sold for birdseed, but
an incredible number of birds are killed & injured each year in "pest control
management" to protect the crops.

What do you think?
--
Wohali
"Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something
together, are companions." --C.S. Lewis

"Wohali" > wrote in message
...
> Do you consider sunflower seeds vegan?
>
> I have a dilemma with them because of the extreme measures use to protect
the
> crops. Ironically, most of the seeds grown in the US are sold for
birdseed, but
> an incredible number of birds are killed & injured each year in "pest
control
> management" to protect the crops.
>
> What do you think?

bad stuff is associated with everything even water-my vote-vegan



> --
> Wohali
> "Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something
> together, are companions." --C.S. Lewis

"Wohali" > wrote in message
...
> Do you consider sunflower seeds vegan?
>
> I have a dilemma with them because of the extreme measures use to protect
the
> crops. Ironically, most of the seeds grown in the US are sold for
birdseed, but
> an incredible number of birds are killed & injured each year in "pest
control
> management" to protect the crops.
>
> What do you think?
======================
I think you'd better check all your food first if you thing you're a vegan.
Sunflower seeds are the least of your worries as far as animal death and
suffering go.





> --
> Wohali
> "Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something
> together, are companions." --C.S. Lewis

rick etter wrote:
>
> I think you'd better check all your food first if you thing you're a vegan.

I do. And I know it's impossible to avoid animal products.

> Sunflower seeds are the least of your worries as far as animal death and
> suffering go.

I'm not talking about a few birds injured to keep them out of the crops. It's
legal & acceptable to net them, shoot them, and by any means necessary "manage"
them to protect the sunflower crops - including poisoning. This is wide-spread
& not isolated to just a few farms.
--
Wohali
"Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something
together, are companions." --C.S. Lewis

"Wohali" > wrote in message
...
> rick etter wrote:
> >
> > I think you'd better check all your food first if you thing you're a
vegan.
>
> I do. And I know it's impossible to avoid animal products.
=====================
Then why try? The substitution you make can, and some times does, cause
more animal death than if you just ate meat instead.
How many deaths go into 100lbs of tofu meat substitute? How many go into
100lbs of grass fed beef, or game?


>
> > Sunflower seeds are the least of your worries as far as animal death and
> > suffering go.
>
> I'm not talking about a few birds injured to keep them out of the crops.
It's
> legal & acceptable to net them, shoot them, and by any means necessary
"manage"
> them to protect the sunflower crops - including poisoning. This is
wide-spread
> & not isolated to just a few farms.
==================
LOL And it's not isolated to sunflowers either. everything you eat has
those deaths, and more, involved. they die by the millions and millions in
all your crops just to keep your food clean, cheap, and convenient. They
also die by the millions and millions to provide for your usenet
entertainment too. But I don't see you stopping that unecessary killing.


> --
> Wohali
> "Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something
> together, are companions." --C.S. Lewis

Hi Wohali,

I think this is a personal call that you have to make for yourself. I do the
same thing, all the time. For instance, I refuse to buy bananas, a nice
vegan food, right? Because of the inhumane conditions applied to the
communities surrounding the plantations and the workers themselves, I won't
consider bananas to be an ethical food to eat until the growing practices
become more ethical. As to your dillemna about sunflower seeds, I commend
you for looking at the bigger picture of how your products are grown and
taking that into account. I truly wish that more people did.

-Jay

"Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel



"Wohali" > wrote in message
...
> Do you consider sunflower seeds vegan?
>
> I have a dilemma with them because of the extreme measures use to protect
the
> crops. Ironically, most of the seeds grown in the US are sold for
birdseed, but
> an incredible number of birds are killed & injured each year in "pest
control
> management" to protect the crops.
>
> What do you think?
> --
> Wohali
> "Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something
> together, are companions." --C.S. Lewis

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Jay of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

>I think this is a personal call that you have to make for yourself. I do the
>same thing, all the time. For instance, I refuse to buy bananas, a nice
>vegan food, right? Because of the inhumane conditions applied to the
>communities surrounding the plantations and the workers themselves, I won't
>consider bananas to be an ethical food to eat until the growing practices
>become more ethical.

How about the Max Havelaar(sp?) bananas, or Fair Trade bananas?
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Jay of Shaw Residential
> Internet said:
>
> >I think this is a personal call that you have to make for yourself. I do
the
> >same thing, all the time. For instance, I refuse to buy bananas, a nice
> >vegan food, right? Because of the inhumane conditions applied to the
> >communities surrounding the plantations and the workers themselves, I
won't
> >consider bananas to be an ethical food to eat until the growing practices
> >become more ethical.
>
> How about the Max Havelaar(sp?) bananas, or Fair Trade bananas?


I have no idea what the conditions are for producing fair trade bananas.
I've never seen them in my grocery store, either, though. Might be worth
looking into. If you find anything, be sure to post it here. I do love
bananas =)

By the way, I have no way of verifying my sources since I've never been to a
banana plantation, but everything I've heard suggests that the way they
'control pests' is by spraying pesticides over the crop workers and crops
alike - pesticides which then get into the local water table. That can't be
safe. Also, much like any crop product, the pay for workers is dismal and
local economies are so completely dependant on crop production that to
remove the product would surely cause much poverty and even worse
conditions. I don't know which is better. Kind of a sucky situation.

I'm sure some companies are working to change conditions but I honestly
don't know which ones, nor have I done any research into the subject lately.
Unlike the fair trade movement with coffee and the like, bananas are not
nearly as often talked about amongst people looking to consume ethically.
Thought it might be worth mentioning here.

-Jay

"Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel

Jay wrote:
> I think this is a personal call that you have to make for yourself. I do the
> same thing, all the time. For instance, I refuse to buy bananas, a nice
> vegan food, right?

Very nice food, period.

> Because of the inhumane conditions applied to the
> communities surrounding the plantations and the workers themselves,

What inhumane conditions are these? Have you ever visited a banana
plantation in person or do you get your information from petty activists
who turn everything into an ethical dilemma?

I can say that I *have* visited a banana plantation, and within the last
couple of weeks. I also rode past many more on vacation. What I found
was nothing like you describe. The workers were joyful and well-fed.
They also seemed grateful to have honest work. Their income was actually
higher than what's available for semi- and un-skilled work in more urban
areas. Maybe the propaganda you've read didn't give comparative pay
within the same nation(s); such insight would defeat the purposes of the
activists.

> I won't consider bananas to be an ethical food to eat until the
> growing practices become more ethical.

What's unethical about bananas or any other food, or growing practices?
What does your withdrawl from the free market mean for banana plantation
workers? Does it mean better conditions or worse? Does it mean they make
more or less money to raise their families?

Living conditions in the regions where bananas are grown commercially
are probably substandard to Western tastes. That goes for every aspect
of third world life -- not just banana plantations. Are you still
drinking coffee, eating chocolate, or consuming sugar in ANY form? Those
foods, too, affect quality of life issues in the same regions where
bananas are grown.

> As to your dillemna about sunflower seeds, I commend
> you for looking at the bigger picture of how your products are grown and
> taking that into account.

It's a futile exercise to withdraw from the market and expect it to
change. If you're concerned about the welfare of banana workers, eat
MORE bananas, not less, or find bananas raised in conditions that appeal
to your hypersensitivities. Your sense of morality is only leading to
worse working and economic conditions for banana workers. How do you
feel about that?

> I truly wish that more people did.

What you are doing is not an act of conscience or principle, but one of
ignorance of economics. What economic, moral, or noble purpose would
mass deprivation serve? (Answer: none.)

> How about the Max Havelaar(sp?) bananas, or Fair Trade bananas?


http://www.newdream.org/consumer/betterbanana.html


Just looked into it, looks like Chiquita is now certified. Good for them.

Check out the site above for a list of fair trade banana distributors.

-Jay

"Unlike you, I have problem spanking men." -Angel

Jay wrote:
> I have no idea what the conditions are for producing fair trade bananas.

You also have no idea about conditions for any other bananas.

> I've never seen them in my grocery store, either, though. Might be worth
> looking into. If you find anything, be sure to post it here. I do love
> bananas =)

The way to support banana workers is to eat their products, not to avoid
them.

> By the way, I have no way of verifying my sources since I've never been to a
> banana plantation,

Aha. Figures.

> but everything I've heard

Is possibly bullshit? Yeah. It is.

> suggests that the way they
> 'control pests' is by spraying pesticides over the crop workers and crops
> alike - pesticides which then get into the local water table.

And Iraqi soldier are *still* tossing babies on bayonets.

Did you know organic food is also treated with pesticides? Some of the
organic pesticides have longer halflives than synthetic ones.

> That can't be safe.

The question isn't about safety, but of truth. I walked and biked in the
banana plantation. I was never sprayed. I didn't even see a single airplane.

> Also, much like any crop product, the pay for workers is dismal

The pay for ANY unskilled or semi-skilled labor is low regardless of
locale. As noted in my previous post, the pay for labor at the
plantation I visited was higher than that of similarly skilled work in
the cities. Go figure, huh.

> and local economies are so completely dependant on crop production

Not entirely true. Local economies in third world nations, which most
banana producers are, are very much tied to agriculture and products and
services which don't require much sophistication in training or
infrastructure. This also includes mining, which is usually more
deleterious to the environment and may be deemed even harsher than crop
work. The exportation of agriculture and mining products from these
nations is a major portion of their GDP.

The way to support those economies so they can grow and diversify is to
buy the product(s) they have, not to boycott them.

> that to remove the product would surely cause much poverty and
> even worse conditions.

Such is the result of boycotts and withdrawls from the market, as you
have chosen. How do you sleep at night?

> I don't know which is better. Kind of a sucky situation.

No, your conscience is guided by ignorance. I hope my replies help you
so you can enjoy a food you like AND help people you think you care about.

> I'm sure some companies are working to change conditions but I honestly
> don't know which ones, nor have I done any research into the subject lately.

So you smear the whole industry based on your lack of knowledge and hope
others act on your ignorance and false conscience?

> Unlike the fair trade movement with coffee and the like, bananas are not
> nearly as often talked about amongst people looking to consume ethically.

Most "ethical" consumption is based on faulty premises (like your
ignorance of banana plantations) and/or a poor understanding of
economics (which you alluded to above; namely, that withdrawing from the
market only makes conditions worse for others rather than causing
improvement). Either way, "ethics" is never served; it's just lipservice
and posturing. One is not moral by abstaining from bananas, and one is
not immoral by eating them.

> Thought it might be worth mentioning here.

Thanks for muddying the water with your admission of ignorance. I'm sure
you really helped others with your lack of insight.

> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel

Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
spanking men?

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Jay of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

>I have no idea what the conditions are for producing fair trade bananas.
>I've never seen them in my grocery store, either, though. Might be worth
>looking into. If you find anything, be sure to post it here. I do love
>bananas =)
>
>By the way, I have no way of verifying my sources since I've never been to a
>banana plantation, but everything I've heard suggests that the way they
>'control pests' is by spraying pesticides over the crop workers and crops
>alike - pesticides which then get into the local water table. That can't be
>safe. Also, much like any crop product, the pay for workers is dismal and
>local economies are so completely dependant on crop production that to
>remove the product would surely cause much poverty and even worse
>conditions. I don't know which is better. Kind of a sucky situation.

I know. It's the problem when a country depends on just one product,
like banana, because it's almost the only thing other countries will
buy from them. As far as the method of pest control goes, I only have
it from a documentary on the issue, but it seems that they do spread
those chemicals by plane with no consideration of who might be out an
working at the plantation.
>
>I'm sure some companies are working to change conditions but I honestly
>don't know which ones, nor have I done any research into the subject lately.
>Unlike the fair trade movement with coffee and the like, bananas are not
>nearly as often talked about amongst people looking to consume ethically.
>Thought it might be worth mentioning here.
>
I don't know if Fair Trade do have bananas on the list, for sure. I do
know that Max Havelaar(sp?) is much similar to Fair Trade and they do
have bananas.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Jay of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

>http://www.newdream.org/consumer/betterbanana.html
>
>
>Just looked into it, looks like Chiquita is now certified. Good for them.
>
>Check out the site above for a list of fair trade banana distributors.
>
Thanks.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
>
>Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
>spanking men?

Obsessing about signatures again? Where did your sense of humour go? I
remember you used to have one.

Besides, she's only quoting someone else for saying it, not saying
that it's her own opinion. As with most other quotes in signatures,
it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
usenet signatures and the humour in them.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

> >> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
> >
> >Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
> >spanking men?
>

Compassion and ethics can go hand in hand with consenting sexual practices,
kinky or not. I don't see a contradiction. And I draw different lines in
terms of compassion and ethics every day depending on individual contexts.
Plus, you know what? It's a signature. And a damn chuckle-y one at that,
IMHO.


> Obsessing about signatures again? Where did your sense of humour go? I
> remember you used to have one.
>
> Besides, she's only quoting someone else for saying it, not saying
> that it's her own opinion.

If you're referring to me, I'm a HE please. Just 'cos I spank men doesn't
make me a woman =P (Though I would say that I'm definitely a Lady ~grin~)

-Jay


--
"Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Jay of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

>> >> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
>> >
>> >Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
>> >spanking men?
>>
>
>Compassion and ethics can go hand in hand with consenting sexual practices,
>kinky or not. I don't see a contradiction. And I draw different lines in
>terms of compassion and ethics every day depending on individual contexts.
>Plus, you know what? It's a signature. And a damn chuckle-y one at that,
>IMHO.
>
It made *me* laugh. Some people just don't get the humour used in
signatures.
>
>> Obsessing about signatures again? Where did your sense of humour go? I
>> remember you used to have one.
>>
>> Besides, she's only quoting someone else for saying it, not saying
>> that it's her own opinion.
>
>If you're referring to me, I'm a HE please. Just 'cos I spank men doesn't
>make me a woman =P (Though I would say that I'm definitely a Lady ~grin~)
>
Oops! Sorry about that! For some reason I thought your nickname
sounded feminine. Don't ask me why, though. It's what you get when you
can't see each other. Several usenet people have mistaken me for a
man.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

usual suspect wrote:
>
> Jay wrote:
> > I think this is a personal call that you have to make for yourself. I do the
> > same thing, all the time. For instance, I refuse to buy bananas, a nice
> > vegan food, right?
>
> Very nice food, period.
>
> > Because of the inhumane conditions applied to the
> > communities surrounding the plantations and the workers themselves,
>
> What inhumane conditions are these? Have you ever visited a banana
> plantation in person or do you get your information from petty activists
> who turn everything into an ethical dilemma?
>
> I can say that I *have* visited a banana plantation, and within the last
> couple of weeks. I also rode past many more on vacation. What I found
> was nothing like you describe. The workers were joyful and well-fed.

Swing Low Sweet Chariot comin' for to carry me home... It's not just
about the workers, that's bad enough. It's about the environment.

http://members.tripod.com/foro_emaus/BanPlantsCA.htm

> >If you're referring to me, I'm a HE please. Just 'cos I spank men doesn't
> >make me a woman =P (Though I would say that I'm definitely a Lady ~grin~)
> >
> Oops! Sorry about that! For some reason I thought your nickname
> sounded feminine. Don't ask me why, though. It's what you get when you
> can't see each other. Several usenet people have mistaken me for a
> man.

Don't worry. No offense was taken. I'm quite gender-flexible =)

I remember getting into an argument with some guy on a newsgroup about
whether or not Leonard Cohen's music was somewhat misogynistic and the guy
said "OH, you must be a women then!" As if that was the ultimate insult.
Sheesh. Heh. People are weird, sometimes =P

-Jay
(Let's see if this sig bothers anyone)
--
Melissa: Where are you going?
Brendan: To the splendid, eternal unitement of the fairy princess and the
milady of flowers.
Melissa: That's weird! That's where I'm going! You can come with me on my
dragon. He's my best friend and I own him.
Brendan: Sounds like a complicated relationship.
-from Home Movies, Soup2Nutz

MEow wrote:
>>>"Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
>>
>>Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
>>spanking men?
>
> Obsessing about signatures again?

It's not obsessing, it's asking a question. Get the two straight, okay?

> Where did your sense of humour go? I
> remember you used to have one.

I still have it. The OP made off like a moralist, and I asked a
reasonable question. If it's wrong to eat bananas, why is it okay to
spank men? Big ****ing deal.

> Besides, she's only quoting someone else for saying it, not saying
> that it's her own opinion.

That's the OP's problem, no? I happen to think the OP thinks of morality
in rather inconsistent terms, so I asked a question.

> As with most other quotes in signatures,
> it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
> thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
> usenet signatures and the humour in them.

No, you seem to be lashing out again to gain brownie points with other
posters. I understand sigs quite well, and I have an excellent sense of
humor. I asked one question given the apparent incongruencies I noted.
That's all.

MEow wrote:
>>Compassion and ethics can go hand in hand with consenting sexual practices,
>>kinky or not. I don't see a contradiction. And I draw different lines in
>>terms of compassion and ethics every day depending on individual contexts.
>>Plus, you know what? It's a signature. And a damn chuckle-y one at that,
>>IMHO.
>
> It made *me* laugh. Some people just don't get the humour used in
> signatures.

That's it. No apology, no more Mr Nice Guy to you. Your assumption is
*completely* misplaced.

>>If you're referring to me, I'm a HE please. Just 'cos I spank men doesn't
>>make me a woman =P (Though I would say that I'm definitely a Lady ~grin~)
>
> Oops! Sorry about that! For some reason I thought your nickname
> sounded feminine. Don't ask me why, though.

Could it be that yours sounds masculine?

> It's what you get when you can't see each other.

From the gist of his other posts, he could probably tell all kinds of
lurid stories about that kind of behavior.

> Several usenet people have mistaken me for a man.

:-X

frlcnt wrote:
>>>I think this is a personal call that you have to make for yourself. I do the
>>>same thing, all the time. For instance, I refuse to buy bananas, a nice
>>>vegan food, right?
>>
>>Very nice food, period.
>>
>>
>>>Because of the inhumane conditions applied to the
>>>communities surrounding the plantations and the workers themselves,
>>
>>What inhumane conditions are these? Have you ever visited a banana
>>plantation in person or do you get your information from petty activists
>>who turn everything into an ethical dilemma?
>>
>>I can say that I *have* visited a banana plantation, and within the last
>>couple of weeks. I also rode past many more on vacation. What I found
>>was nothing like you describe. The workers were joyful and well-fed.
>
> Swing Low Sweet Chariot comin' for to carry me home... It's not just
> about the workers, that's bad enough.

Ipse dixit.

> It's about the environment.

Ipse dixit.

<snip of someone's bogus term paper: note many of the sources
are activist publications>

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>> It made *me* laugh. Some people just don't get the humour used in
>> signatures.
>
>That's it. No apology, no more Mr Nice Guy to you. Your assumption is
>*completely* misplaced.

You haven't shown any signs of getting it. Especially considering how
you went after my past signatures.
>
>>>If you're referring to me, I'm a HE please. Just 'cos I spank men doesn't
>>>make me a woman =P (Though I would say that I'm definitely a Lady ~grin~)
>>
>> Oops! Sorry about that! For some reason I thought your nickname
>> sounded feminine. Don't ask me why, though.
>
>Could it be that yours sounds masculine?

It's feline. What's masculine about that?
>
>> It's what you get when you can't see each other.
>
> From the gist of his other posts, he could probably tell all kinds of
>lurid stories about that kind of behavior.

What he does with other consenting adults is not something I intend to
get upset about.
>
>> Several usenet people have mistaken me for a man.
>
>:-X

I've told you why.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>>>>"Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
>>>
>>>Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
>>>spanking men?
>>
>> Obsessing about signatures again?
>
>It's not obsessing, it's asking a question. Get the two straight, okay?
>
The signature has nothing to do with the post, but you seem to insist
on picking on it.

>> Where did your sense of humour go? I
>> remember you used to have one.
>
>I still have it. The OP made off like a moralist, and I asked a
>reasonable question. If it's wrong to eat bananas, why is it okay to
>spank men? Big ****ing deal.

As long as the men he spanks are consenting to it, I don't see what's
so immoral about it.
>
>> Besides, she's only quoting someone else for saying it, not saying
>> that it's her own opinion.
>
>That's the OP's problem, no? I happen to think the OP thinks of morality
>in rather inconsistent terms, so I asked a question.
>
No, not really. Anyone understanding usenet signatures and the humour
in them would know that it's a quote and most likely meant as a joke.
Your failure to get that is not his fault or problem.

>> As with most other quotes in signatures,
>> it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
>> thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
>> usenet signatures and the humour in them.
>
>No, you seem to be lashing out again to gain brownie points with other
>posters. I understand sigs quite well, and I have an excellent sense of
>humor. I asked one question given the apparent incongruencies I noted.
>That's all.

I say what I mean because I mean it, though of course it's easier for
you to pretend that I'm trying to gain brownie points. Your repeated
insistence of taking signatures seriously and literally shows that you
don't understand them, or you would've know that they're not meant
that way.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

MEow wrote:
>>That's it. No apology, no more Mr Nice Guy to you. Your assumption is
>>*completely* misplaced.
>
> You haven't shown any signs of getting it. Especially considering how
> you went after my past signatures.

I didn't "go after," I asked questions. And I did it politely.

>>>Oops! Sorry about that! For some reason I thought your nickname
>>>sounded feminine. Don't ask me why, though.
>>
>>Could it be that yours sounds masculine?
>
> It's feline.

You may be catty, but your name isn't feline.

> What's masculine about that?

Ask those who think you're a male.

>>>It's what you get when you can't see each other.
>>
>>From the gist of his other posts, he could probably tell all kinds of
>>lurid stories about that kind of behavior.
>
> What he does with other consenting adults is not something I intend to
> get upset about.

Nor do I.

>>>Several usenet people have mistaken me for a man.
>>
>>:-X
>
> I've told you why.

I'm biting my tongue because I'm WAY TOO polite even though I'm through
being nice to you till you apologize.

MEow wrote:
>>>>Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
>>>>spanking men?
>>>
>>>Obsessing about signatures again?
>>
>>It's not obsessing, it's asking a question. Get the two straight, okay?
>
> The signature has nothing to do with the post, but you seem to insist
> on picking on it.

I know it has nothing to do with the content of the post, nitwit. It
does seem out of place with the OP's concerns about unknown people for
whom he feigns interest and support. He suggested eating bananas is
morally wrong, but finds enjoyment and/or amusement in acts of
consensual violence. I just wanted to know if he accepts the paradox,
but his intimations about his bizarre sexuality clarified the whole matter.

>>>Where did your sense of humour go? I
>>>remember you used to have one.
>>
>>I still have it. The OP made off like a moralist, and I asked a
>>reasonable question. If it's wrong to eat bananas, why is it okay to
>>spank men? Big ****ing deal.
>
> As long as the men he spanks are consenting to it, I don't see what's
> so immoral about it.

What's immoral about eating bananas if the pickers not only consent to
picking them, but get paid to do so?

>>>Besides, she's only quoting someone else for saying it, not saying
>>>that it's her own opinion.
>>
>>That's the OP's problem, no? I happen to think the OP thinks of morality
>>in rather inconsistent terms, so I asked a question.
>
> No, not really. Anyone understanding usenet signatures and the humour
> in them would know that it's a quote and most likely meant as a joke.

I do understand that, nitwit. I asked one question, a very reasonable
one, asking about the paradox between his feigned morality and his sig.

> Your failure to get that is not his fault or problem.

I didn't fail anything, dipstick. Your behavior in this more is more
stupid than his sig.

>>>As with most other quotes in signatures,
>>>it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
>>>thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
>>>usenet signatures and the humour in them.
>>
>>No, you seem to be lashing out again to gain brownie points with other
>>posters. I understand sigs quite well, and I have an excellent sense of
>>humor. I asked one question given the apparent incongruencies I noted.
>>That's all.
>
> I say what I mean because I mean it, though of course it's easier for
> you to pretend that I'm trying to gain brownie points. Your repeated
> insistence of taking signatures seriously and literally shows that you
> don't understand them, or you would've know that they're not meant
> that way.

http://tinyurl.com/1gd

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>>>That's it. No apology, no more Mr Nice Guy to you. Your assumption is
>>>*completely* misplaced.
>>
>> You haven't shown any signs of getting it. Especially considering how
>> you went after my past signatures.
>
>I didn't "go after," I asked questions. And I did it politely.

Yes you did go after them and you were not polite about it at all.
>
>>>>Oops! Sorry about that! For some reason I thought your nickname
>>>>sounded feminine. Don't ask me why, though.
>>>
>>>Could it be that yours sounds masculine?
>>
>> It's feline.
>
>You may be catty, but your name isn't feline.

Cats don't say "meow" where you're from? Oh, you meant my *real* name!
>
>> What's masculine about that?
>
>Ask those who think you're a male.
>
Okay, so my real name is considered masculine in some places.

>>>>It's what you get when you can't see each other.
>>>
>>>From the gist of his other posts, he could probably tell all kinds of
>>>lurid stories about that kind of behavior.
>>
>> What he does with other consenting adults is not something I intend to
>> get upset about.
>
>Nor do I.
>
Then why make an issue out of it or say that there's a contradiction?

>>>>Several usenet people have mistaken me for a man.
>>>
>>>:-X
>>
>> I've told you why.
>
>I'm biting my tongue because I'm WAY TOO polite even though I'm through
>being nice to you till you apologize.

I have nothing to apologise for, as I'm only pointing out that your
repeated insistence of taking usenet signatures seriously shows that
you don't understand the humour in it. Anyone understanding the humour
in usenet signatures would know to not take them seriously. Besides,
you were different to me in past discussions than you are now that
you're "through being nice".
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

MEow wrote:
>>>>That's it. No apology, no more Mr Nice Guy to you. Your assumption is
>>>>*completely* misplaced.
>>>
>>>You haven't shown any signs of getting it. Especially considering how
>>>you went after my past signatures.
>>
>>I didn't "go after," I asked questions. And I did it politely.
>
> Yes you did go after them and you were not polite about it at all.

I was polite. I pointed out certain facts based on firsthand
observation, and I also suggested the OP should eat bananas if he wanted
to help banana workers. Some people really don't get the harm done to
the lower-rung employees during boycotts.

>>>>>Oops! Sorry about that! For some reason I thought your nickname
>>>>>sounded feminine. Don't ask me why, though.
>>>>
>>>>Could it be that yours sounds masculine?
>>>
>>>It's feline.
>>
>>You may be catty, but your name isn't feline.
>
> Cats don't say "meow" where you're from?

Of course they make that sound.

> Oh, you meant my *real* name!

What name would others consider masculine?

>>>What's masculine about that?
>>
>>Ask those who think you're a male.
>
> Okay, so my real name is considered masculine in some places.

Yea, you got one right. Time for a party.

>>>>>It's what you get when you can't see each other.
>>>>
>>>>From the gist of his other posts, he could probably tell all kinds of
>>>
>>>>lurid stories about that kind of behavior.
>>>
>>>What he does with other consenting adults is not something I intend to
>>>get upset about.
>>
>>Nor do I.
>
> Then why make an issue out of it or say that there's a contradiction?

You're the one making an issue of it. I only asked one question and let
it be.

>>>>>Several usenet people have mistaken me for a man.
>>>>
>>>>:-X
>>>
>>>I've told you why.
>>
>>I'm biting my tongue because I'm WAY TOO polite even though I'm through
>>being nice to you till you apologize.
>
> I have nothing to apologise for,

Yes, you do. You've thoroughly mischaracterized my intent.

> as I'm only pointing out that your
> repeated insistence of taking usenet signatures seriously shows that
> you don't understand the humour in it.

Strawman.

> Anyone understanding the humour
> in usenet signatures would know to not take them seriously.

Strawman.

> Besides,
> you were different to me in past discussions than you are now that
> you're "through being nice".

I've *always* been nice to you. Way too nice. The fact that you always
jump the gun and decide I'm being mean without delving into issues
doesn't wash, Nikitta. All that does is show how rash you are.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> MEow wrote:
> >>>"Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
> >>
> >>Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
> >>spanking men?
> >
> > Obsessing about signatures again?
>
> It's not obsessing, it's asking a question. Get the two straight, okay?
>
> > Where did your sense of humour go? I
> > remember you used to have one.
>
> I still have it. The OP made off like a moralist, and I asked a
> reasonable question. If it's wrong to eat bananas, why is it okay to
> spank men? Big ****ing deal.
>

I never said it was wrong to eat bananas. I just said that I didn't and for
certain reasons and beliefs that I hold. I never said they were truths and I
never said I mightn't be wrong. People can do whatever they want and far be
it from me to tell them how to live their lives.

> That's the OP's problem, no? I happen to think the OP thinks of morality
> in rather inconsistent terms, so I asked a question.
>

Along with everyone else in the world. None of us are above inconsistent
morals. I wish people would just stop pretending that they were.

-Jay

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>>>>>Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
>>>>>spanking men?
>>>>
>>>>Obsessing about signatures again?
>>>
>>>It's not obsessing, it's asking a question. Get the two straight, okay?
>>
>> The signature has nothing to do with the post, but you seem to insist
>> on picking on it.
>
>I know it has nothing to do with the content of the post, nitwit. It
>does seem out of place with the OP's concerns about unknown people for
>whom he feigns interest and support. He suggested eating bananas is
>morally wrong, but finds enjoyment and/or amusement in acts of
>consensual violence. I just wanted to know if he accepts the paradox,
>but his intimations about his bizarre sexuality clarified the whole matter.

You recently agreed that it wasn't immoral, as long as they're adult
and consenting. Can you make up your mind?
>
>>>>Where did your sense of humour go? I
>>>>remember you used to have one.
>>>
>>>I still have it. The OP made off like a moralist, and I asked a
>>>reasonable question. If it's wrong to eat bananas, why is it okay to
>>>spank men? Big ****ing deal.
>>
>> As long as the men he spanks are consenting to it, I don't see what's
>> so immoral about it.
>
>What's immoral about eating bananas if the pickers not only consent to
>picking them, but get paid to do so?
>
Different issue which I'm not going to discuss with you here. Reality
isn't as simple as you set it up, though.

>>>>Besides, she's only quoting someone else for saying it, not saying
>>>>that it's her own opinion.
>>>
>>>That's the OP's problem, no? I happen to think the OP thinks of morality
>>>in rather inconsistent terms, so I asked a question.
>>
>> No, not really. Anyone understanding usenet signatures and the humour
>> in them would know that it's a quote and most likely meant as a joke.
>
>I do understand that, nitwit. I asked one question, a very reasonable
>one, asking about the paradox between his feigned morality and his sig.

You took his signature seriously. This means failing to get the joke.
If you had seen it as a joke and nothing else, you wouldn't even have
had an issue with it, as you would've known that far from all people
having such things in their sigs are actually into that kind of thing.
You can't tell from the signature, even if you happened to guess right
once.
>
>> Your failure to get that is not his fault or problem.
>
>I didn't fail anything, dipstick. Your behavior in this more is more
>stupid than his sig.
>
Is that the best you can do? Name calling?

>>>>As with most other quotes in signatures,
>>>>it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
>>>>thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
>>>>usenet signatures and the humour in them.
>>>
>>>No, you seem to be lashing out again to gain brownie points with other
>>>posters. I understand sigs quite well, and I have an excellent sense of
>>>humor. I asked one question given the apparent incongruencies I noted.
>>>That's all.
>>
>> I say what I mean because I mean it, though of course it's easier for
>> you to pretend that I'm trying to gain brownie points. Your repeated
>> insistence of taking signatures seriously and literally shows that you
>> don't understand them, or you would've know that they're not meant
>> that way.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/1gd

ROFL - This from someone who calls *my* replies stupid! At least my
replies contain arguments and I don't have to resort to name calling.
That fact that you couldn't come up with anything better shows a good
deal about you, just like the way you seem to think I'd be offended by
something as childish as this. I'm laughing!
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Jay wrote:
> > I have no idea what the conditions are for producing fair trade bananas.
>
> You also have no idea about conditions for any other bananas.

True. Never claimed that I did. I only mentioned what I'd heard (recognizing
that my sources may be unreliable.)


>
> The way to support banana workers is to eat their products, not to avoid
> them.
>

In some ways, I agree with you. I don't put much stock in boycotts. If I
knew without a doubt how all of my food was produced, I'd have no problem
picking and choosing who to buy from. Since I don't, I have to wing it based
on guesses and my own experience. Kind of like everyone else.

> Did you know organic food is also treated with pesticides? Some of the
> organic pesticides have longer halflives than synthetic ones.
>

Thank you, I did know that. And if you ask me (which you didn't) I think
that agriculture is just as big a problem on a global level as anything
else. I get that.


> The question isn't about safety, but of truth. I walked and biked in the
> banana plantation. I was never sprayed. I didn't even see a single
airplane.
>

That may be true, it may not. I don't trust you as a source any more than
anyone else. And just because you weren't sprayed doesn't mean that they
don't spray. And just because that plantation may have had decent conditions
does not mean that the bananas in my grocery store come from decent
plantations.

> The pay for ANY unskilled or semi-skilled labor is low regardless of
> locale. As noted in my previous post, the pay for labor at the
> plantation I visited was higher than that of similarly skilled work in
> the cities. Go figure, huh.
>

Again, the conditions of one plantation are no guarantee of what's available
to me.


> Not entirely true. Local economies in third world nations, which most
> banana producers are, are very much tied to agriculture and products and
> services which don't require much sophistication in training or
> infrastructure. This also includes mining, which is usually more
> deleterious to the environment and may be deemed even harsher than crop
> work. The exportation of agriculture and mining products from these
> nations is a major portion of their GDP.

Absolutely.

>
> The way to support those economies so they can grow and diversify is to
> buy the product(s) they have, not to boycott them.
>

Of course. But buying from companies whose practices you support is
different from buying indiscriminantly. I don't always succeed in buying
from companies I support all the time, but that's life. For me, talking
about growing practices and discussing them like we are here is much more
valuable than where a anonymous money goes. They both carry weight.

> Such is the result of boycotts and withdrawls from the market, as you
> have chosen. How do you sleep at night?
>

On a crappy bed purchased from a company I don't support. I know I'm a
hypocrite. I'd rather be a self-admitted hypocrite than someone who refuses
to acknowledge their hypocrisy.

> So you smear the whole industry based on your lack of knowledge and hope
> others act on your ignorance and false conscience?
>

I'm not encouraging anyone else to act in any which way. Their decisions are
their own.

Either way, "ethics" is never served; it's just lipservice
> and posturing. One is not moral by abstaining from bananas, and one is
> not immoral by eating them.
>

Perhaps I did suggest that eating bananas was immoral. What I meant, is that
to ME eating bananas is immoral because I don't know enough about the
situation to learn it inside out. And frankly, I'm too poor and too lazy to
fly to all the banana plantations and learn first hand about them.


-Jay

--
Melissa: Where are you going?
Brendan: To the splendid, eternal unitement of the fairy princess and the
milady of flowers.
Melissa: That's weird! That's where I'm going! You can come with me on my
dragon. He's my best friend and I own him.
Brendan: Sounds like a complicated relationship.
-from Home Movies

MEow wrote:
>>I know it has nothing to do with the content of the post, nitwit. It
>>does seem out of place with the OP's concerns about unknown people for
>>whom he feigns interest and support. He suggested eating bananas is
>>morally wrong, but finds enjoyment and/or amusement in acts of
>>consensual violence. I just wanted to know if he accepts the paradox,
>>but his intimations about his bizarre sexuality clarified the whole matter.
>
> You recently agreed that it wasn't immoral, as long as they're adult
> and consenting. Can you make up your mind?

Where did I agree with anything of that nature? My mind is made up.

>>>As long as the men he spanks are consenting to it, I don't see what's
>>>so immoral about it.
>>
>>What's immoral about eating bananas if the pickers not only consent to
>>picking them, but get paid to do so?
>
> Different issue

No, you dumb woman, that is THE issue.

> which I'm not going to discuss with you here.

Evasion of the main issue. Fine.

> Reality isn't as simple as you set it up, though.

Yes, it is. And unlike the OP, I was able to relate more about the issue
than what I remembered reading from some activists.

>>>No, not really. Anyone understanding usenet signatures and the humour
>>>in them would know that it's a quote and most likely meant as a joke.
>>
>>I do understand that, nitwit. I asked one question, a very reasonable
>>one, asking about the paradox between his feigned morality and his sig.
>
> You took his signature seriously.

No, I took it and compared it to his sentiments about bananas.

> This means failing to get the joke.

I got the joke, idiot.

> If you had seen it as a joke and nothing else, you wouldn't even have
> had an issue with it, as you would've known that far from all people
> having such things in their sigs are actually into that kind of thing.
> You can't tell from the signature, even if you happened to guess right
> once.

All of which is beside the point.

>>>Your failure to get that is not his fault or problem.
>>
>>I didn't fail anything, dipstick. Your behavior in this more is more
>>stupid than his sig.
>
> Is that the best you can do? Name calling?

I can do a lot better, including using nastier names. Shall I?

>>>>>As with most other quotes in signatures,
>>>>>it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
>>>>>thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
>>>>>usenet signatures and the humour in them.
>>>>
>>>>No, you seem to be lashing out again to gain brownie points with other
>>>>posters. I understand sigs quite well, and I have an excellent sense of
>>>>humor. I asked one question given the apparent incongruencies I noted.
>>>>That's all.
>>>
>>>I say what I mean because I mean it, though of course it's easier for
>>>you to pretend that I'm trying to gain brownie points. Your repeated
>>>insistence of taking signatures seriously and literally shows that you
>>>don't understand them, or you would've know that they're not meant
>>>that way.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/1gd
>
>
> ROFL - This from someone who calls *my* replies stupid!

They are.

> At least my replies contain arguments

Weak ones, so stop bragging.

> and I don't have to resort to name calling.

No? Then take Jonathan and Rick out of your killfile.

> That fact that you couldn't come up with anything better

Like your repeated strawmen are worth bragging about?

> shows a good deal about you,

No, you don't know a damn thing about me. Except I have the best recipe
ever for meatless balls.

> just like the way you seem to think

Another unreasonable assumption...

> I'd be offended by
> something as childish as this.

I'm not worried if you're offended or not.

> I'm laughing!

You're easily amused. Then again, the simple ones usually are.

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>>>>>That's it. No apology, no more Mr Nice Guy to you. Your assumption is
>>>>>*completely* misplaced.
>>>>
>>>>You haven't shown any signs of getting it. Especially considering how
>>>>you went after my past signatures.
>>>
>>>I didn't "go after," I asked questions. And I did it politely.
>>
>> Yes you did go after them and you were not polite about it at all.
>
>I was polite. I pointed out certain facts based on firsthand
>observation, and I also suggested the OP should eat bananas if he wanted
>to help banana workers. Some people really don't get the harm done to
>the lower-rung employees during boycotts.
>
You took the signature seriously, or you wouldn't even have bothered
asking a question. As far as boycuts go, they do sometimes work, if
the company gets told why the boycott is made. Then they'll want to
improve the conditions in question to get their customers back.

>>>>>>It's what you get when you can't see each other.
>>>>>
>>>>>From the gist of his other posts, he could probably tell all kinds of
>>>>
>>>>>lurid stories about that kind of behavior.
>>>>
>>>>What he does with other consenting adults is not something I intend to
>>>>get upset about.
>>>
>>>Nor do I.
>>
>> Then why make an issue out of it or say that there's a contradiction?
>
>You're the one making an issue of it. I only asked one question and let
>it be.
>
It was a quite insinuating question. You acted like you were taking it
seriously, which I then believed, giving you the benefit of the doubt,
but it seems to be misplaced, as you now claim that you knew it was a
joke, all along.

>>>>>>Several usenet people have mistaken me for a man.
>>>>>
>>>>>:-X
>>>>
>>>>I've told you why.
>>>
>>>I'm biting my tongue because I'm WAY TOO polite even though I'm through
>>>being nice to you till you apologize.
>>
>> I have nothing to apologise for,
>
>Yes, you do. You've thoroughly mischaracterized my intent.
>
I was saying that you didn't get the humour which is a different
thing. Saying "strawman" doesn't do anything to my initial argument
about why I think you didn't get the joke.

Why did you act like you took it seriously, if you knew it was a joke?
I'd like to know that.

>> as I'm only pointing out that your
>> repeated insistence of taking usenet signatures seriously shows that
>> you don't understand the humour in it.
>
>Strawman.
>
>> Anyone understanding the humour
>> in usenet signatures would know to not take them seriously.
>
>Strawman.
>
>> Besides,
>> you were different to me in past discussions than you are now that
>> you're "through being nice".
>
>I've *always* been nice to you. Way too nice. The fact that you always
>jump the gun and decide I'm being mean without delving into issues
>doesn't wash, Nikitta. All that does is show how rash you are.

Your general going after anything you consider to be "liberal" or
whatever you call it and anyone talking about ethics isn't polite
behaviour in a newsgroup, or in general. Actually I see no difference
between this and what you call being nice to me in previous
discussions. I see no difference at all.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

> It's a futile exercise to withdraw from the market and expect it to
> change. If you're concerned about the welfare of banana workers, eat
> MORE bananas, not less, or find bananas raised in conditions that appeal
> to your hypersensitivities.

I haven't found them yet in my area, so I haven't bought them. When I do, I
will. I said that in my original post. And I don't think eating more bananas
helps any more than blind boycotting. It merely serves to preserve the
status quo.

Gradually, corporations are bringing their standards up and that's what's
helping lower rung workers as a result of plain old social evolution, which
admittedly goes along with capitalism and commerce etc. Discussion,
knowledge and education is what's making the real changes. And we're doing
an eeny weeny bit of that right here.

-Jay

--
Melissa: Where are you going?
Brendan: To the splendid, eternal unitement of the fairy princess and the
milady of flowers.
Melissa: That's weird! That's where I'm going! You can come with me on my
dragon. He's my best friend and I own him.
Brendan: Sounds like a complicated relationship.
-from Home Movies



Your sense of morality is only leading to
> worse working and economic conditions for banana workers. How do you
> feel about that?
>
> > I truly wish that more people did.
>
> What you are doing is not an act of conscience or principle, but one of
> ignorance of economics. What economic, moral, or noble purpose would
> mass deprivation serve? (Answer: none.)
>

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>>>I know it has nothing to do with the content of the post, nitwit. It
>>>does seem out of place with the OP's concerns about unknown people for
>>>whom he feigns interest and support. He suggested eating bananas is
>>>morally wrong, but finds enjoyment and/or amusement in acts of
>>>consensual violence. I just wanted to know if he accepts the paradox,
>>>but his intimations about his bizarre sexuality clarified the whole matter.
>>
>> You recently agreed that it wasn't immoral, as long as they're adult
>> and consenting. Can you make up your mind?
>
>Where did I agree with anything of that nature? My mind is made up.
>

Seems to imply that you have no moral problems with it, or is it
something you consider immoral, but not upsetting? Sounds a bit
inconsistent.

>>>>As long as the men he spanks are consenting to it, I don't see what's
>>>>so immoral about it.
>>>
>>>What's immoral about eating bananas if the pickers not only consent to
>>>picking them, but get paid to do so?
>>
>> Different issue
>
>No, you dumb woman, that is THE issue.
>
Not with me, it isn't.

>> which I'm not going to discuss with you here.
>
>Evasion of the main issue. Fine.

I picked up a different discussion with you. This thread is hardly a
place where an interesting political discussion is likely to erupt
(yeah, I know you'll blame me for that). Besides, I haven't said that
eating bananas is wrong.
>
>> Reality isn't as simple as you set it up, though.
>
>Yes, it is. And unlike the OP, I was able to relate more about the issue
>than what I remembered reading from some activists.
>
The OP didn't claim that all bananas farms were bad. Surely you will
agree that the conditions in some banana farms are bad, or did you
visit them all? That something comes from an activist doesn't
automatically make it 100% wrong.

>>>>No, not really. Anyone understanding usenet signatures and the humour
>>>>in them would know that it's a quote and most likely meant as a joke.
>>>
>>>I do understand that, nitwit. I asked one question, a very reasonable
>>>one, asking about the paradox between his feigned morality and his sig.
>>
>> You took his signature seriously.
>
>No, I took it and compared it to his sentiments about bananas.
>
Same deal.

>> This means failing to get the joke.
>
>I got the joke, idiot.
>
If you didn't you wouldn't have asked a serious question to it, or
will you say that the question was a joke too?

>> If you had seen it as a joke and nothing else, you wouldn't even have
>> had an issue with it, as you would've known that far from all people
>> having such things in their sigs are actually into that kind of thing.
>> You can't tell from the signature, even if you happened to guess right
>> once.
>
>All of which is beside the point.
>
All of which is my point.

>>>>Your failure to get that is not his fault or problem.
>>>
>>>I didn't fail anything, dipstick. Your behavior in this more is more
>>>stupid than his sig.
>>
>> Is that the best you can do? Name calling?
>
>I can do a lot better, including using nastier names. Shall I?
>
If it makes you happy and insulting is the best you can do, but it
won't help your case. Stating what you mean, clearly, with arguments
and telling me why you pretended to take his signature seriously if
you knew it was a joke, OTOH, would help your case. So, it depends on
whether you want to argue your case, or if you want to vent. Don't
expect me to not killfile you out of boredom if you just go for more
name calling.

>>>>>>As with most other quotes in signatures,
>>>>>>it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
>>>>>>thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
>>>>>>usenet signatures and the humour in them.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you seem to be lashing out again to gain brownie points with other
>>>>>posters. I understand sigs quite well, and I have an excellent sense of
>>>>>humor. I asked one question given the apparent incongruencies I noted.
>>>>>That's all.
>>>>
>>>>I say what I mean because I mean it, though of course it's easier for
>>>>you to pretend that I'm trying to gain brownie points. Your repeated
>>>>insistence of taking signatures seriously and literally shows that you
>>>>don't understand them, or you would've know that they're not meant
>>>>that way.
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/1gd
>>
>>
>> ROFL - This from someone who calls *my* replies stupid!
>
>They are.
>
>> At least my replies contain arguments
>
>Weak ones, so stop bragging.
>
At least it's better arguments than name calling, and so far you've
come with no actual counter-rgument. Just name calling which isn't
very convincing. Try arguing *why* my arguments are wrong and you
might convince someone.

>> and I don't have to resort to name calling.
>
>No? Then take Jonathan and Rick out of your killfile.
>
That's not name calling. That's just not wasting time on them.

>> That fact that you couldn't come up with anything better
>
>Like your repeated strawmen are worth bragging about?
>
>> shows a good deal about you,
>
>No, you don't know a damn thing about me. Except I have the best recipe
>ever for meatless balls.
>
I know that you couldn't come up with anything better than link to a
silly joke which I'm not even going to take seriously as an insult as
an answer to arguments which you call weak without telling why.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

Gender Confused wrote:
>>I was polite. I pointed out certain facts based on firsthand
>>observation, and I also suggested the OP should eat bananas if he wanted
>>to help banana workers. Some people really don't get the harm done to
>>the lower-rung employees during boycotts.
>
> You took the signature seriously, or you wouldn't even have bothered
> asking a question.

So says you. I took his post seriously enough to respond. I asked one
****ing little question as an aside and you've sought to make an issue
of it. I'm glad you read enough of what I wrote to nitpick on the one
molehill you could turn into a mountain. You stupid, stupid woman.

> As far as boycuts go, they do sometimes work, if
> the company gets told why the boycott is made. Then they'll want to
> improve the conditions in question to get their customers back.

Not always, and the interim conditions during a boycott often result in
a negative effect. *Threats* of boycotts, often a form of legal
extortion, usually have greater effect than an actual boycott. That
said, I am a fan of neither threats nor actual boycotts.

>>You're the one making an issue of it. I only asked one question and let
>>it be.
>
> It was a quite insinuating question. You acted like you were taking it
> seriously, which I then believed, giving you the benefit of the doubt,

No, you rarely give me benefit of the doubt, and you certainly haven't
in this instance. Fine, you're free to quibble over trivial issues, but
don't count on my buying your supposed "generosity." You are a very
contemptible woman.

> but it seems to be misplaced, as you now claim that you knew it was a
> joke, all along.

> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel

Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating
bananas, spanking men?

What in my response to that demonstrates the question is insinuating,
that I lack a sense of humor, or that I "don't get it"?

>>>I have nothing to apologise for,
>>
>>Yes, you do. You've thoroughly mischaracterized my intent.
>
> I was saying that you didn't get the humour which is a different
> thing. Saying "strawman" doesn't do anything to my initial argument
> about why I think you didn't get the joke.

You haven't given ANY reason for incessantly repeating why you think I
didn't get ANY joke. In light of your lack of evidence (tautology is not
evidence, you hag) and your continued distortions of my motivations, you
have engaged in making a strawman. My motivation for asking that one
question, out of all the others and the statements I made in my
responses to the OP, have nothing at all to do with your assignations of
my intent, my character, my sense of humor, or anything else about me.

> Why did you act like you took it seriously, if you knew it was a joke?
> I'd like to know that.

> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel

Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating
bananas, spanking men?

No matter how YOU (it wasn't addressed to you) see it, it's a fair
question given his arrogance about not eating bananas and compassionate,
ethical behavior.

<...>
>>>Besides,
>>>you were different to me in past discussions than you are now that
>>>you're "through being nice".
>>
>>I've *always* been nice to you. Way too nice. The fact that you always
>>jump the gun and decide I'm being mean without delving into issues
>>doesn't wash, Nikitta. All that does is show how rash you are.
>
> Your general going after anything you consider to be "liberal" or
> whatever you call it and anyone talking about ethics isn't polite
> behaviour in a newsgroup, or in general.

Oh hell, aren't you awfully defensive. You insisted none of those
generalizations applied to you, so why do you take such umbrage now? I
know the answer, and so do you, but I also know you won't admit that
those remarks were accurate and hurt your feelings. Why else would you
bitch about them now? lol

> Actually I see no difference
> between this and what you call being nice to me in previous
> discussions. I see no difference at all.

Fine, you LIBERAL. Go get some beauty sleep. You know you need it.

MEow wrote:
>>>You recently agreed that it wasn't immoral, as long as they're adult
>>>and consenting. Can you make up your mind?
>>
>>Where did I agree with anything of that nature? My mind is made up.
>

Quote:

> >>What he does with other consenting adults is not something I intend toget upset about. > > Nor do I. >

>
> Seems to imply that you have no moral problems with it,

You sure are reading a whole lot into my statements, hussy. Whether or
not I have disagreement over the morality of what others do is begging
the question. The issue was whether or not I intend to get upset about
it. I didn't, I don't, and I won't.

> or is it something you consider immoral, but not upsetting?

I think my posts against sadomasochism and homosexuality are still
archived at Google. Perhaps you can figure out my views from when I've
already addressed the issue. I haven't changed my mind.

> Sounds a bit inconsistent.

Only to someone like you intent on stirring up shit rather than taking
someone at his word.

>>>>>As long as the men he spanks are consenting to it, I don't see what's
>>>>>so immoral about it.
>>>>
>>>>What's immoral about eating bananas if the pickers not only consent to
>>>>picking them, but get paid to do so?
>>>
>>>Different issue
>>
>>No, you dumb woman, that is THE issue.
>
> Not with me, it isn't.

I know, you nasty shit-stirrer. That was the whole premise beneath the
question I asked:
> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel

Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating
bananas, spanking men?

Once again, your fast leap to a conclusion shows how blissfully ignorant
you are.

>>>which I'm not going to discuss with you here.
>>
>>Evasion of the main issue. Fine.
>
> I picked up a different discussion with you.

No, that's WRONG. You nitpicked about the question I asked, which was
apropos given the OP's issues about bananas and his sig. The question
was quite fair, despite your retarded nagging.

> This thread is hardly a
> place where an interesting political discussion is likely to erupt
> (yeah, I know you'll blame me for that).

You've been wrong about everything else you've "known" and "assumed"
about me this evening. Why stop now, eh? FU and what you think you know.

> Besides, I haven't said that
> eating bananas is wrong.

The OP did. That was the reason for the question I asked.

> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel

Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating
bananas, spanking men?

>>>Reality isn't as simple as you set it up, though.
>>
>>Yes, it is. And unlike the OP, I was able to relate more about the issue
>>than what I remembered reading from some activists.
>
> The OP didn't claim that all bananas farms were bad.

The OP made a generalization on par with ones I've made and to which
you've taken exception. Pinko.

> Surely you will
> agree that the conditions in some banana farms are bad, or did you
> visit them all?

I didn't say they were all bad, either. Again, you reflexively give
others a measure of benefit of the doubt and assign to me the worst of
intentions. You are a misguided, shrill idiot.

> That something comes from an activist doesn't
> automatically make it 100% wrong.

Damn sure doesn't make it 100% right, either. In most cases, the
propaganda from activists is easier to dismiss than industry rhetoric
for the sole reason that governments oversee industries and industry
claims. Activists have no accountability with respect to the truth, and
do they ever take advantage of that lack of accountability.

>>>>>No, not really. Anyone understanding usenet signatures and the humour
>>>>>in them would know that it's a quote and most likely meant as a joke.
>>>>
>>>>I do understand that, nitwit. I asked one question, a very reasonable
>>>>one, asking about the paradox between his feigned morality and his sig.
>>>
>>>You took his signature seriously.
>>
>>No, I took it and compared it to his sentiments about bananas.
>
> Same deal.

No, not at all.

> "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel

Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating
bananas, spanking men?


<snip of standard Nikitta drivel>

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>> As far as boycuts go, they do sometimes work, if
>> the company gets told why the boycott is made. Then they'll want to
>> improve the conditions in question to get their customers back.
>
>Not always, and the interim conditions during a boycott often result in
>a negative effect. *Threats* of boycotts, often a form of legal
>extortion, usually have greater effect than an actual boycott. That
>said, I am a fan of neither threats nor actual boycotts.
>
I think I've heard of cases where it did help. I'll see if I can dig
them out, if you want me to.

>> but it seems to be misplaced, as you now claim that you knew it was a
>> joke, all along.
>
> > "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
>
> Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating
> bananas, spanking men?
>
>What in my response to that demonstrates the question is insinuating,
>that I lack a sense of humor, or that I "don't get it"?

Why ask the question if you didn't take the joke seriously, but just
saw it as a joke? Care to tell me?

>You haven't given ANY reason for incessantly repeating why you think I
>didn't get ANY joke. In light of your lack of evidence (tautology is not
>evidence, you hag) and your continued distortions of my motivations, you
>have engaged in making a strawman. My motivation for asking that one
>question, out of all the others and the statements I made in my
>responses to the OP, have nothing at all to do with your assignations of
>my intent, my character, my sense of humor, or anything else about me.
>
You treated it as if he meant it seriously. That makes it look like
you didn't get the joke, because I assumed that when you treat
something like you take it seriously, then you actually are.

><...>
>>>>Besides,
>>>>you were different to me in past discussions than you are now that
>>>>you're "through being nice".
>>>
>>>I've *always* been nice to you. Way too nice. The fact that you always
>>>jump the gun and decide I'm being mean without delving into issues
>>>doesn't wash, Nikitta. All that does is show how rash you are.
>>
>> Your general going after anything you consider to be "liberal" or
>> whatever you call it and anyone talking about ethics isn't polite
>> behaviour in a newsgroup, or in general.
>
>Oh hell, aren't you awfully defensive. You insisted none of those
>generalizations applied to you, so why do you take such umbrage now? I
>know the answer, and so do you, but I also know you won't admit that
>those remarks were accurate and hurt your feelings. Why else would you
>bitch about them now? lol
>
You didn't believe me then, remember? In any case, I hold, what I know
you consider to be liberal ideas and part of my reasons for being a
veggie is ethics, so every time you lash out after liberals or people
with ethical reasons for being vegan, then it includes me. The only
thing I said didn't include me was being on a mission.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

gender confused wrote:
<snip>
>>Oh hell, aren't you awfully defensive. You insisted none of those
>>generalizations applied to you, so why do you take such umbrage now? I
>>know the answer, and so do you, but I also know you won't admit that
>>those remarks were accurate and hurt your feelings. Why else would you
>>bitch about them now? lol
>
> You didn't believe me then, remember?

I awaited your explanations, remember?

> In any case, I hold, what I know
> you consider to be liberal ideas and part of my reasons for being a
> veggie is ethics, so every time you lash out after liberals or people
> with ethical reasons for being vegan, then it includes me. The only
> thing I said didn't include me was being on a mission.

Thanks for FINALLY being honest about that.

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>>>>You recently agreed that it wasn't immoral, as long as they're adult
>>>>and consenting. Can you make up your mind?
>>>
>>>Where did I agree with anything of that nature? My mind is made up.
>>

Quote:

>> >>>What he does with other consenting adults is not something I intend toget upset about. >> >> Nor do I. >>

>>
>> Seems to imply that you have no moral problems with it,
>
>You sure are reading a whole lot into my statements, hussy. Whether or
>not I have disagreement over the morality of what others do is begging
>the question. The issue was whether or not I intend to get upset about
>it. I didn't, I don't, and I won't.
>
>> or is it something you consider immoral, but not upsetting?
>
>I think my posts against sadomasochism and homosexuality are still
>archived at Google. Perhaps you can figure out my views from when I've
>already addressed the issue. I haven't changed my mind.
>
>> Sounds a bit inconsistent.
>
>Only to someone like you intent on stirring up shit rather than taking
>someone at his word.

You didn't address my point. You said that you didn't intend to get
upset about it. How does that go with finding it immoral, if you do
find it immoral?

>>>>Reality isn't as simple as you set it up, though.
>>>
>>>Yes, it is. And unlike the OP, I was able to relate more about the issue
>>>than what I remembered reading from some activists.
>>
>> The OP didn't claim that all bananas farms were bad.
>
>The OP made a generalization on par with ones I've made and to which
>you've taken exception. Pinko.
>
He has said, directly, that not all banana farms was bad and some
might be having better standards, but he didn't know which ones.

>> Surely you will
>> agree that the conditions in some banana farms are bad, or did you
>> visit them all?
>
>I didn't say they were all bad, either. Again, you reflexively give
>others a measure of benefit of the doubt and assign to me the worst of
>intentions. You are a misguided, shrill idiot.

Ehm - I'll repeat my question, as you didn't answer it: Do you agree
that *some* of them are bad?
>
>> That something comes from an activist doesn't
>> automatically make it 100% wrong.
>
>Damn sure doesn't make it 100% right, either.

Correct.

>In most cases, the
>propaganda from activists is easier to dismiss than industry rhetoric
>for the sole reason that governments oversee industries and industry
>claims. Activists have no accountability with respect to the truth, and
>do they ever take advantage of that lack of accountability.
>
I'll believe them over the commercials from an industry where they
have a salees-rate to protect.

>>>No, I took it and compared it to his sentiments about bananas.
>>
>> Same deal.
>
>No, not at all.
>
How so? Arguments, please.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)

HI Nikitta,

I took no offense to someone asking about what seemed to him to be
contradiction between my post and my sig. It's a valid question and I take
responsibility for everything I post, including my sig.

I kind of agree that understanding that something is a joke and criticising
it in seriousness is valid as well. After all, there are many offensive
jokes out there and they may be funny to some and not to others (who might
'get' the joke but still find it flawed or un-funny). Anyway, my point is,
don't wear yourself out fighting a battle that isn't neccessary, AFAIC.


-Jay





"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
> Runner - Texas said:
>
> >> As far as boycuts go, they do sometimes work, if
> >> the company gets told why the boycott is made. Then they'll want to
> >> improve the conditions in question to get their customers back.
> >
> >Not always, and the interim conditions during a boycott often result in
> >a negative effect. *Threats* of boycotts, often a form of legal
> >extortion, usually have greater effect than an actual boycott. That
> >said, I am a fan of neither threats nor actual boycotts.
> >
> I think I've heard of cases where it did help. I'll see if I can dig
> them out, if you want me to.
>
> >> but it seems to be misplaced, as you now claim that you knew it was a
> >> joke, all along.
> >
> > > "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
> >
> > Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating
> > bananas, spanking men?
> >
> >What in my response to that demonstrates the question is insinuating,
> >that I lack a sense of humor, or that I "don't get it"?
>
> Why ask the question if you didn't take the joke seriously, but just
> saw it as a joke? Care to tell me?
>
> >You haven't given ANY reason for incessantly repeating why you think I
> >didn't get ANY joke. In light of your lack of evidence (tautology is not
> >evidence, you hag) and your continued distortions of my motivations, you
> >have engaged in making a strawman. My motivation for asking that one
> >question, out of all the others and the statements I made in my
> >responses to the OP, have nothing at all to do with your assignations of
> >my intent, my character, my sense of humor, or anything else about me.
> >
> You treated it as if he meant it seriously. That makes it look like
> you didn't get the joke, because I assumed that when you treat
> something like you take it seriously, then you actually are.
>
> ><...>
> >>>>Besides,
> >>>>you were different to me in past discussions than you are now that
> >>>>you're "through being nice".
> >>>
> >>>I've *always* been nice to you. Way too nice. The fact that you always
> >>>jump the gun and decide I'm being mean without delving into issues
> >>>doesn't wash, Nikitta. All that does is show how rash you are.
> >>
> >> Your general going after anything you consider to be "liberal" or
> >> whatever you call it and anyone talking about ethics isn't polite
> >> behaviour in a newsgroup, or in general.
> >
> >Oh hell, aren't you awfully defensive. You insisted none of those
> >generalizations applied to you, so why do you take such umbrage now? I
> >know the answer, and so do you, but I also know you won't admit that
> >those remarks were accurate and hurt your feelings. Why else would you
> >bitch about them now? lol
> >
> You didn't believe me then, remember? In any case, I hold, what I know
> you consider to be liberal ideas and part of my reasons for being a
> veggie is ethics, so every time you lash out after liberals or people
> with ethical reasons for being vegan, then it includes me. The only
> thing I said didn't include me was being on a mission.
> --
> Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
> ICQ# 251532856
> Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
> "Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14
percent
> of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)