 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Mayonnaise
Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's
place? Richard |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
Richard Miller wrote:
> Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's > place? Don't use something in its place. Use a good mayonnaise when the recipe calls for it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"Richard Miller" > wrote in message hlink.net... > Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's > place? > > Richard > > Veganaise is good, dense and creamy like real mayonnaise without that awful greasy sulphur-like eggy taste (imo). It does have 9 grams of fat per tablespoon. http://www.followyourheart.com/ingre...rit_facts.html You can also Google this group and find many recipes for homemade alternatives. Good Luck -nancy- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
In article .net>,
Richard Miller > wrote: > This is a vegan news group > <snip> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message You must be new here. Jonathan Ball is a notorious troll. Just killfile him and don't bother responding. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
Don't top post.
Richard Miller wrote: > This is a vegan news group and the reason for the question is mayonnaise has > too many calories As opposed to fake mayonnaise? Even tofu-based versions, which are by definition not mayonnaise, contain a lot of fat calories. Calorically speaking, tofu is 50% fat. Use mustard if you're worried about calories. > and animal products. You mean eggs? Eggs are *barely* animal products. If liberals are correct that abortion doesn't kill humans, then those eggs sure can't be chickens. You may as well eat them. Be consistent, liberal. > If you make potato salad and use > mayonnaise in it, you might as well go to burger king. Non sequitur. BK doesn't have potato salad. BK does have veggie burgers, and vegan activists like Erik Marcus like them. > Richard > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>Richard Miller wrote: >> >> >>>Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's >>>place? >> >>Don't use something in its place. Use a good >>mayonnaise when the recipe calls for it. >> > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"usual suspect" > wrote in message news  > C. James Strutz wrote: > >>>"Each to his own"; > >> > >>Moral relativism suits "vegans." They're hypocritical poseurs when it > >>comes to ethics. > > > > A generalization... > > Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part. Your opinion. > >>>everybody is entitled to believe whether eggs are > >>>chickens or not without being politically labeled. > >> > >>And what's your position on that issue, James? > > > > Hmmm...good question. I guess it really hasn't been a big issue with me. I > > eat eggs, albiet infrequently. I guess I draw my line with sentience. > > Is an egg sentient? I don't think so. > > I > > think it's wrong to take the life of a sentient being except under > > extenuating circumstances. > > Which extenuating circumstances are those? Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is threatened are two examples that I can think of. > > Attn: Jon Ball, et. al. Okay, I understand the > > issue that thousands of sentient lives are lost as a result of producing the > > vegetables I buy. That's just the way it is right now. > > If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so > taboo? I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" from?? > Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh -- > unacceptable? Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to me. > > Sorry... > > You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of > "ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's. No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder. > >>>You can always take your own potato salad to BK. > >> > >>Maybe where *you* live, but most locales have food safety laws which > >>forbid taking food from other sources (home, other restaurants) into > >>restaurants. > > > > Well, maybe so. Guess I just assumed since I've never seen the food police > > in any of the restaurants here. > > Many restaurant managers will politely inform you of such laws if you > try to take food into their restaurants. Did you ever try it? > >>>>BK does have veggie burgers, > >>>>and vegan activists like Erik Marcus like them. > >>> > >>>And the point is?? > >> > >>The OP mentioned BK. I wanted him to know vegan "experts" like Mr Marcus > >>approve of BK. He can stop disparaging the place. > > > > Then I will. BK sucks. > > You're just mad because they don't have potato salad. Maybe so, but I wouldn't go there even if they did. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > news
>>>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>>>>"Each to his own"; >>>> >>>>Moral relativism suits "vegans." They're hypocritical poseurs when it >>>>comes to ethics. >>> >>>A generalization... >> >>Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part. > > > Your opinion. He has demonstrated that his opinions merit consideration. Yours don't. Your belief that a generalization is only a ("mere") opinion is false. Try this one: "Americans speak English." "Fact" or "'mere' opinion"? GENERALLY true, or GENERALLY false? You stupid putz. I have a friend who used to be like you. I'd make a generalization, and after moment's reflection - but he should have taken 10 minutes - he'd complain that I had made a generalization. I'd always laugh and say, "You don't *really* object to my having made a generalization; you merely don't LIKE the generalization I made!" And that's true with you, SeeJames. You don't *really* object to generalizations, whether of fact or opinion, because you make them yourself: "Generalizing specific groups of people is always a bad thing to do" is, itself, a generalization. It is a generalized OPINION, not a "fact" as you stupidly claimed. No, you (I can't resist!) generally don't object to generalizations; you merely objected to the PARTICULAR generalization I made, because you felt, correctly, that it was saying something unflattering about you. Your feeling, however, does not alter the truth and usefulness of the generalization. In fact, your feeling is wholly irrelevant. >>>I eat eggs, albiet infrequently. I guess I draw my line with sentience. >> >>Is an egg sentient? > > > I don't think so. So you approve of human abortion, then. > > >>>I think it's wrong to take the life of a sentient being except under >>>extenuating circumstances. >> >>Which extenuating circumstances are those? > > > Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is threatened > are two examples that I can think of. So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the course of that production is, unequivocally in your view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as morally wrong? > > >>>Attn: Jon Ball, et. al. Okay, I understand the >>>issue that thousands of sentient lives are lost as a result of producing >>>the vegetables I buy. That's just the way it is right now. >> >>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to you, why are eggs so >>taboo? > > > I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" from?? More to the point, why are the collateral deaths of animals that are NOT covered by your weasel-worded "extenuating circumstances" morally acceptable to you? > > >>Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh -- >>unacceptable? > > > Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to me. What's the difference between that and eggs? Animal protein is animal protein. > > >>>Sorry... >> >>You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of >>"ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's. > > > No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder. You didn't obviate anything, SeeJames; I don't believe you even know what the word means. What you did was jump into a stinking cesspool of hypocrisy, so that your nose is almost covered by the slime. You have said you think it's wrong to kill sentient animals except "under [SIC] extenuating circumstances", yet you cheerily participate in the killing of massive numbers of sentient animals whose deaths aren't covered by your "extenuating circumstances". Maybe my cesspool metaphor isn't the best; perhaps I should point out that you are on the horns of a classic dilemma. Either: - your willing participation in collateral deaths of sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is evil; or - your casual participation, a participation that is ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you evil. So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying, which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is evil? > > >>>>>You can always take your own potato salad to BK. >>>> >>>>Maybe where *you* live, but most locales have food safety laws which >>>>forbid taking food from other sources (home, other restaurants) into >>>>restaurants. >>> >>>Well, maybe so. Guess I just assumed since I've never seen the food >>>police in any of the restaurants here. >> >>Many restaurant managers will politely inform you of such laws if you >>try to take food into their restaurants. Those laws, of course, are shams. Their intent isn't really to protect public health; it's to prevent competition. > > > Did you ever try it? > > >>>>>>BK does have veggie burgers, >>>>>>and vegan activists like Erik Marcus like them. >>>>> >>>>>And the point is?? >>>> >>>>The OP mentioned BK. I wanted him to know vegan "experts" like Mr Marcus >>>>approve of BK. He can stop disparaging the place. >>> >>>Then I will. BK sucks. >> >>You're just mad because they don't have potato salad. > > > Maybe so, but I wouldn't go there even if they did. This is an aesthetic judgment, that's all. You don't have any substantive objection to the place, you're just trying to show you're stylish, according to your political beliefs. Ho-hum. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>"Each to his own"; >>>> >>>>Moral relativism suits "vegans." They're hypocritical poseurs when it >>>>comes to ethics. >>> >>>A generalization... >> >>Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part. > > Your opinion. My well-reasoned opinion based on keen observance of others. Do you care to challenge it on its merits or just impugn it on its surface? >>>>>everybody is entitled to believe whether eggs are >>>>>chickens or not without being politically labeled. >>>> >>>>And what's your position on that issue, James? >>> >>>Hmmm...good question. I guess it really hasn't been a big issue with me. > I >>>eat eggs, albiet infrequently. I guess I draw my line with sentience. >> >>Is an egg sentient? > > I don't think so. When does an egg's contents become sentient? >>>I >>>think it's wrong to take the life of a sentient being except under >>>extenuating circumstances. >> >>Which extenuating circumstances are those? > > Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is threatened > are two examples that I can think of. I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a civil manner this time. >>>Attn: Jon Ball, et. al. Okay, I understand the >>>issue that thousands of sentient lives are lost as a result of producing > the >>>vegetables I buy. That's just the way it is right now. >> >>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so >>taboo? > > I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" from?? Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. >>Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh -- >>unacceptable? > > Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to me. The question was, Why is anything else... unacceptable? I can list plant-derived foods which are much more injurious to health than eggs or lean meats. Sugar comes to mind. Do you ever use sugar or sweeteners? >>>Sorry... >> >>You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of >>"ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's. > > No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder. I see it as a fair point, not merely troll fodder. >>>>>You can always take your own potato salad to BK. >>>> >>>>Maybe where *you* live, but most locales have food safety laws which >>>>forbid taking food from other sources (home, other restaurants) into >>>>restaurants. >>> >>>Well, maybe so. Guess I just assumed since I've never seen the food > police >>>in any of the restaurants here. >> >>Many restaurant managers will politely inform you of such laws if you >>try to take food into their restaurants. > > Did you ever try it? Some restaurants here, particularly near campus, have signs posted because students like to grab something from one establishment and join friends eating at another. One way they've accomodated customers is by putting tables outside, but this has caused some problems with the city's overzealous zone compliance officers. >>>>>>BK does have veggie burgers, >>>>>>and vegan activists like Erik Marcus like them. >>>>> >>>>>And the point is?? >>>> >>>>The OP mentioned BK. I wanted him to know vegan "experts" like Mr Marcus >>>>approve of BK. He can stop disparaging the place. >>> >>>Then I will. BK sucks. >> >>You're just mad because they don't have potato salad. > > Maybe so, but I wouldn't go there even if they did. Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars and turn your nose at BK? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
Benny Hannah wrote:
> David Marx wrote: > >> Jon Lindsay, an AMERICAN, wrote: >> >>>> Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's >>>> place? >>>> >>>> Richard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Making your own is always fun, that way you can experiment with the >>> flavours you like. >> >> >> Stop with the affected British spellings, Jon. Write FLAVORS, not >> "flavours". You are not British. > > > What's more, that Yank even uses "whilst" in sentences. You snipped this: > Blend together whilst adding 2 - 4 teaspoons of Vinegar or Lemon > juice. Good eyes; good catch. I saw "flavours" and didn't look further. We both missed "soya" milk. Americans just call it soy milk. In past recipes, Jon sometimes uses the Britishism "bring to the boil", instead of the American "bring to a boil", e.g. http://snipurl.com/4foa Note in that same recipe, he refers to soy cream, not "soya" cream. He's a pompous, pretentious ass. > > He also left an n out of mayonnaise. Funny since he adds letters to pass > himself off as a Brit. That was probably just a typo; I do tha al th tim. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
usual suspect wrote:
> C. James Strutz wrote: > >>>>>> "Each to his own"; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Moral relativism suits "vegans." They're hypocritical poseurs when it >>>>> comes to ethics. >>>> >>>> >>>> A generalization... >>> >>> >>> Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part. >> >> >> Your opinion. > > > My well-reasoned opinion based on keen observance of others. Do you care > to challenge it on its merits or just impugn it on its surface? Heh heh heh. He KNOWS he can't really tackle it on its merits, which is why he's pulling a Sophist Boob Black maneuver here and arguing essentially on form only. As I've noted already, SeeJames doesn't *really* dislike generalizations; that is, he doesn't (faw faw faw!) *generally* dislike them; he just likes this particular one we've stated, because it hurts his feelings. > >>>>>> everybody is entitled to believe whether eggs are >>>>>> chickens or not without being politically labeled. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And what's your position on that issue, James? >>>> >>>> >>>> Hmmm...good question. I guess it really hasn't been a big issue with >>>> me. >> >> I >> >>>> eat eggs, albiet infrequently. I guess I draw my line with sentience. >>> >>> >>> Is an egg sentient? >> >> >> I don't think so. > > > When does an egg's contents become sentient? > >>>> I >>>> think it's wrong to take the life of a sentient being except under >>>> extenuating circumstances. >>> >>> >>> Which extenuating circumstances are those? >> >> >> Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is threatened >> are two examples that I can think of. > > > I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a > civil manner this time. > >>>> Attn: Jon Ball, et. al. Okay, I understand the >>>> issue that thousands of sentient lives are lost as a result of >>>> producing >> >> the >> >>>> vegetables I buy. That's just the way it is right now. >>> >>> >>> If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so >>> taboo? >> >> >> I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" from?? > > > Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. > >>> Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh -- >>> unacceptable? >> >> >> Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to >> me. > > > The question was, Why is anything else... unacceptable? I can list > plant-derived foods which are much more injurious to health than eggs or > lean meats. Sugar comes to mind. Do you ever use sugar or sweeteners? > >>>> Sorry... >>> >>> >>> You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of >>> "ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's. >> >> >> No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder. > > > I see it as a fair point, not merely troll fodder. > >>>>>> You can always take your own potato salad to BK. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe where *you* live, but most locales have food safety laws which >>>>> forbid taking food from other sources (home, other restaurants) into >>>>> restaurants. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, maybe so. Guess I just assumed since I've never seen the food >> >> police >> >>>> in any of the restaurants here. >>> >>> >>> Many restaurant managers will politely inform you of such laws if you >>> try to take food into their restaurants. >> >> >> Did you ever try it? > > > Some restaurants here, particularly near campus, have signs posted > because students like to grab something from one establishment and join > friends eating at another. One way they've accomodated customers is by > putting tables outside, but this has caused some problems with the > city's overzealous zone compliance officers. > >>>>>>> BK does have veggie burgers, >>>>>>> and vegan activists like Erik Marcus like them. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And the point is?? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The OP mentioned BK. I wanted him to know vegan "experts" like Mr >>>>> Marcus >>>>> approve of BK. He can stop disparaging the place. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then I will. BK sucks. >>> >>> >>> You're just mad because they don't have potato salad. >> >> >> Maybe so, but I wouldn't go there even if they did. > > > Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars > and turn your nose at BK? > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
David Marx wrote:
>>> Jon Lindsay, an AMERICAN, wrote: >>> >>>>> Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's >>>>> place? >>>>> >>>>> Richard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Making your own is always fun, that way you can experiment with the >>>> flavours you like. >>> >>> >>> >>> Stop with the affected British spellings, Jon. Write FLAVORS, not >>> "flavours". You are not British. >> >> >> What's more, that Yank even uses "whilst" in sentences. You snipped this: >> Blend together whilst adding 2 - 4 teaspoons of Vinegar or Lemon >> juice. > > Good eyes; good catch. I saw "flavours" and didn't look further. > > We both missed "soya" milk. Americans just call it soy milk. Yep. > In past recipes, Jon sometimes uses the Britishism "bring to the boil", > instead of the American "bring to a boil", e.g. http://snipurl.com/4foa > Note in that same recipe, he refers to soy cream, not "soya" cream. > > He's a pompous, pretentious ass. > >> >> He also left an n out of mayonnaise. Funny since he adds letters to >> pass himself off as a Brit. > > > That was probably just a typo; I do tha al th tim. He spelled it that way twice, so I'm sure he meant that. Of course, he'll probably deny he "spelt" it that way. (Spelt is a *grain*, not past tense for spell.) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > No, you (I can't resist!) generally don't object to > generalizations; you merely objected to the PARTICULAR > generalization I made, because you felt, correctly, > that it was saying something unflattering about you. No, I didn't take it personally. All I'm trying to say in all of this is that you can't rightfully generalize all vegans as religious fanatics. Stop with the rant on generalizations already. > Your feeling, however, does not alter the truth and > usefulness of the generalization. In fact, your > feeling is wholly irrelevant. It's relevant to me... > Maybe my cesspool > metaphor isn't the best; perhaps I should point out > that you are on the horns of a classic dilemma. Either: > > - your willing participation in collateral deaths of > sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's > morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is evil; or > > - your casual participation, a participation that is > ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus > voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in > violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you evil. > > > So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying, > which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is evil? What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap amusement is evil. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > >>>>>"Each to his own"; > >>>> > >>>>Moral relativism suits "vegans." They're hypocritical poseurs when it > >>>>comes to ethics. > >>> > >>>A generalization... > >> > >>Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part. > > > > Your opinion. > > My well-reasoned opinion based on keen observance of others. Do you care > to challenge it on its merits or just impugn it on its surface? I'm not impugning anything, just disagreeing with your opinion. > >>Is an egg sentient? > > > > I don't think so. > > When does an egg's contents become sentient? I don't know. > > Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is threatened > > are two examples that I can think of. > > I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a > civil manner this time. > >>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so > >>taboo? > > > > I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" from?? > > Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider eggs to be taboo. > >>Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh -- > >>unacceptable? > > > > Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to me. > > The question was, Why is anything else... unacceptable? I can list > plant-derived foods which are much more injurious to health than eggs or > lean meats. Sugar comes to mind. Do you ever use sugar or sweeteners? Can't you ever just respect people's opinions and preferences? I don't care to eat meat - is that okay with you? > >>>Sorry... > >> > >>You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of > >>"ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's. > > > > No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder. > > I see it as a fair point, not merely troll fodder. It was troll fodder. > >>Many restaurant managers will politely inform you of such laws if you > >>try to take food into their restaurants. > > > > Did you ever try it? > > Some restaurants here, particularly near campus, have signs posted > because students like to grab something from one establishment and join > friends eating at another. One way they've accomodated customers is by > putting tables outside, but this has caused some problems with the > city's overzealous zone compliance officers. Bummer... > >>>Then I will. BK sucks. > >> > >>You're just mad because they don't have potato salad. > > > > Maybe so, but I wouldn't go there even if they did. > > Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars > and turn your nose at BK? I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > k.net... > > >>No, you (I can't resist!) generally don't object to >>generalizations; you merely objected to the PARTICULAR >>generalization I made, because you felt, correctly, >>that it was saying something unflattering about you. > > > No, I didn't take it personally. Yes, you did. > All I'm trying to say in all of this is > that you can't rightfully generalize all vegans as religious fanatics. Yes, I can, and I did. My generalization is correct: "vegans" are what they are for religious reasons. > Stop with the rant on generalizations already. No, I won't stop. It demonstrates several bad traits about you, and I rather like it. > > >>Your feeling, however, does not alter the truth and >>usefulness of the generalization. In fact, your >>feeling is wholly irrelevant. > > > It's relevant to me... It's wholly irrelevant to everyone else, and it is wholly irrelevant to the truth of my generalization. > > >>Maybe my cesspool >>metaphor isn't the best; perhaps I should point out >>that you are on the horns of a classic dilemma. Either: >> >>- your willing participation in collateral deaths of >> sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's >> morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is evil; or >> >>- your casual participation, a participation that is >> ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus >> voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in >> violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you evil. >> >> >>So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying, >>which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is evil? > > > What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap amusement is evil. I'm not abusing anyone, and I'm not doing this for my amusement (which doesn't come cheap, by the way.) I am doing this to demolish your fatuous ethical pose, which I view as a menace. You didn't answer the question, SeeJames. Let's repose it. Either: - your willing participation in collateral deaths of sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is evil; or - your casual participation, a participation that is ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you evil. So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying, which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is evil? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>>>>A generalization... >>>> >>>>Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part. >>> >>>Your opinion. >> >>My well-reasoned opinion based on keen observance of others. Do you care >>to challenge it on its merits or just impugn it on its surface? > > > I'm not impugning anything, just disagreeing with your opinion. Your disagreement isn't based on any rational analysis of his opinion. It is based solely on your "feelings" that the opinion provokes. > > >>>>Is an egg sentient? >>> >>>I don't think so. >> >>When does an egg's contents become sentient? > > > I don't know. Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going to use sentience as the basis for deciding if it's right or wrong to kill something? > > >>>Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is >>>threatened are two examples that I can think of. >> >>I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a >>civil manner this time. > > >>>>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so >>>>taboo? >>> >>>I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" from?? >> >>Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. > > > Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider eggs to > be taboo. So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why would you intercede on behalf of someone who does? > > >>>>Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh -- >>>>unacceptable? >>> >>>Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to me. > >>The question was, Why is anything else... unacceptable? I can list >>plant-derived foods which are much more injurious to health than eggs or >>lean meats. Sugar comes to mind. Do you ever use sugar or sweeteners? > > > Can't you ever just respect people's opinions and preferences? I don't care > to eat meat - is that okay with you? Of course your choice not to eat meat is okay. It's the shoddy reasoning behind the choice that isn't okay. > > >>>>>Sorry... >>>> >>>>You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of >>>>"ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's. >>> >>>No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder. >> >>I see it as a fair point, not merely troll fodder. > > > It was troll fodder. In your feelings-based opinion. In fact, it was not troll fodder. > > >>>>Many restaurant managers will politely inform you of such laws if you >>>>try to take food into their restaurants. >>> >>>Did you ever try it? >> >>Some restaurants here, particularly near campus, have signs posted >>because students like to grab something from one establishment and join >>friends eating at another. One way they've accomodated customers is by >>putting tables outside, but this has caused some problems with the >>city's overzealous zone compliance officers. > > > Bummer... > > >>>>>Then I will. BK sucks. >>>> >>>>You're just mad because they don't have potato salad. >>> >>>Maybe so, but I wouldn't go there even if they did. >> >>Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars >>and turn your nose at BK? > > > I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose at BK? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>>>"Each to his own"; >>>>>> >>>>>>Moral relativism suits "vegans." They're hypocritical poseurs when it >>>>>>comes to ethics. >>>>> >>>>>A generalization... >>>> >>>>Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part. >>> >>>Your opinion. >> >>My well-reasoned opinion based on keen observance of others. Do you care >>to challenge it on its merits or just impugn it on its surface? > > I'm not impugning anything, just disagreeing with your opinion. Which part(s) and why? >>>>Is an egg sentient? >>> >>>I don't think so. >> >>When does an egg's contents become sentient? > > I don't know. Any guesses? At some point you wouldn't eat the egg. When? >>>Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is > threatened >>>are two examples that I can think of. >> >>I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a >>civil manner this time. Still waiting for you to be civil in your replies to him and to answer the question. <snip> >>>>Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh -- >>>>unacceptable? >>> >>>Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to > me. > >>The question was, Why is anything else... unacceptable? I can list >>plant-derived foods which are much more injurious to health than eggs or >>lean meats. Sugar comes to mind. Do you ever use sugar or sweeteners? > > Can't you ever just respect people's opinions and preferences? I ask the same of you. Find one post from me in which I ask others to leave their opinions behind. > I don't care to eat meat - is that okay with you? Sure. Why don't you eat it but still eat sugar and other unhealthy foods? >>>>>Sorry... >>>> >>>>You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of >>>>"ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's. >>> >>>No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder. >> >>I see it as a fair point, not merely troll fodder. > > It was troll fodder. Nuh uh. <snip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
Jonathan Ball wrote:
<...> >>> When does an egg's contents become sentient? >> >> I don't know. > > Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going to use sentience as > the basis for deciding if it's right or wrong to kill something? It's an arbitrary basis and his moral relativism is content with that. It *is* funny that he makes categorical moral claims about it, though. >>>> Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is >>>> threatened are two examples that I can think of. >>> >>> I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a >>> civil manner this time. I doubt he'll address the issue, much less in a civil manner. >>>>> If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so >>>>> taboo? >>>> >>>> I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" >>>> from?? >>> >>> Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. >> >> Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider >> eggs to be taboo. > > So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why would > you intercede on behalf of someone who does? A: To stir the shit. This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that subject down already. <...> >>> Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars >>> and turn your nose at BK? >> >> I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. > > Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose > at BK? Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > snippage... > > They serve a decent hamburger. > > BK is one of the reasons why such a large percentage of the American people > are overweight and unhealthy. =============== Then that must make veganism one of the reason such a large number of hypocritical veg*ns are so ignorant and dishonest, eh? > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Jonathan Ball wrote: > <...> > >>> When does an egg's contents become sentient? > >> > >> I don't know. > > > > Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going to use sentience as > > the basis for deciding if it's right or wrong to kill something? > > It's an arbitrary basis and his moral relativism is content with that. > It *is* funny that he makes categorical moral claims about it, though. > > >>>> Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is > >>>> threatened are two examples that I can think of. > >>> > >>> I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a > >>> civil manner this time. > > I doubt he'll address the issue, much less in a civil manner. I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. I don't see any reason why I should repeat myself, expecially to silly questions that are meant only to provoke and antagonize me. > > >>>>> If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so > >>>>> taboo? > >>>> > >>>> I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" > >>>> from?? > >>> > >>> Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. > >> > >> Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider > >> eggs to be taboo. > > > > So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why would > > you intercede on behalf of someone who does? > > A: To stir the shit. > > This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are > the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that > subject down already. Why do you write threatening posts then? > >>> Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars > >>> and turn your nose at BK? > >> > >> I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. > > > > Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose > > at BK? > > Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>When does an egg's contents become sentient? >>>> >>>>I don't know. >>> >>>Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going to use sentience as >>>the basis for deciding if it's right or wrong to kill something? >> >>It's an arbitrary basis and his moral relativism is content with that. >>It *is* funny that he makes categorical moral claims about it, though. >> >>>>>>Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is >>>>>>threatened are two examples that I can think of. >>>>> >>>>>I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a >>>>>civil manner this time. >> >>I doubt he'll address the issue, much less in a civil manner. > > I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions. > I don't see any > reason why I should repeat myself, I do. You're the one who jumped into a discussion about mayonnaise and you refuse to state your own position. > expecially to silly questions that are > meant only to provoke and antagonize me. First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you. >>>>>>>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so >>>>>>>taboo? >>>>>> >>>>>>I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" >>>>>>from?? >>>>> >>>>>Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. >>>> >>>>Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider >>>>eggs to be taboo. >>> >>>So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why would >>>you intercede on behalf of someone who does? >> >>A: To stir the shit. >> >>This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are >>the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that >>subject down already. > > Why do you write threatening posts then? They only seem to be threatening to you, James. Seems like the only time you can be civil with me is if I write about Clif Bars. The rest of the time you get really nasty. >>>>>Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars >>>>>and turn your nose at BK? >>>> >>>>I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. >>> >>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose >>>at BK? >> >>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. > > Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. What's wrong with their food? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>Jonathan Ball wrote: >><...> >> >>>>>When does an egg's contents become sentient? >>>> >>>>I don't know. >>> >>>Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going to use sentience as >>>the basis for deciding if it's right or wrong to kill something? >> >>It's an arbitrary basis and his moral relativism is content with that. >>It *is* funny that he makes categorical moral claims about it, though. >> >> >>>>>>Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is >>>>>>threatened are two examples that I can think of. >>>>> >>>>>I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in a >>>>>civil manner this time. >> >>I doubt he'll address the issue, much less in a civil manner. > > > I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. No, you didn't answer it. You snipped it out when you replied to the post containing the question, and you never subsequently answered. Let's try again: SeeJames: >>> I think it's wrong to take the life of a sentient >>>being except under extenuating circumstances. Usual Suspect: >> Which extenuating circumstances are those? SeeJames: > Capital punishment, and in self defense when > someone's life is threatened are two examples that > I can think of. Jon Ball: So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the course of that production is, unequivocally in your view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as morally wrong? That's the question to which he's referring, and I assure you you never answered it. When you replied to the post in which I posed the question, you snipped it out. I can see why you wouldn't WANT to answer it, as the question poses an all-but-impossible moral dilemma for you. Later in the same post, I made the dilemma more explicit, and although you "answered" it, the answer was entirely evasive and unsatisfactory. Let's try that again, too: [P]erhaps I should point out that you are on the horns of a classic dilemma. Either: - your willing participation in collateral deaths of sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is evil; or - your casual participation, a participation that is ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you evil. So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying, which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is evil? </repost> Come on, SeeJames. > I don't see any > reason why I should repeat myself, expecially to silly questions that are > meant only to provoke and antagonize me. You didn't answer before, so you are not repeating yourself. They are not silly questions, SeeJames. They go to the fundamental, fatal flaw of "veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem. They illustrate that "veganism", which is the blind following of a mere rule, does not solve the perceived problem AT ALL. I really believe you need to answer the questions. >>>>>>>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so >>>>>>>taboo? >>>>>> >>>>>>I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" >>>>>>from?? >>>>> >>>>>Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. >>>> >>>>Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider >>>>eggs to be taboo. >>> >>>So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why would >>>you intercede on behalf of someone who does? >> >>A: To stir the shit. >> >>This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are >>the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that >>subject down already. > > > Why do you write threatening posts then? Because your intellectually shabby beliefs OUGHT to be threatened. > > >>>>>Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars >>>>>and turn your nose at BK? >>>> >>>>I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. >>> >>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose >>>at BK? >> >>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. > > > Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>>>>>>>Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is >>>>>>>>threatened are two examples that I can think of. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in >>>>>>>a civil manner this time. >>>> >>>>I doubt he'll address the issue, much less in a civil manner. >>> >>>I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. >> >>No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions. > > > That's untrue. No, it's true, SeeJames. You did not answer my questions. The first one you snipped out entire, and never answered at all. The second you answered with "What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap amusement is evil." That wasn't an answer to the question. I posed a legitimate question in the form of a dilemma, and asked how you handled the dilemma. You didn't answer. Now, you're lying when you claim you did answer. > I've tried to answer his questions as well as yours. No, SeeJames, you haven't tried to answer at all. Separately, I'm going to repost that entire post, and you can have a go at it - a FIRST attempt, I should point out. > The exception is when I am repeatedly asked the same questions - I don't care to > repeat myself. You won't be; you never answered them before. > > >>>I don't see any >>>reason why I should repeat myself, >> >>I do. You're the one who jumped into a discussion about mayonnaise and >>you refuse to state your own position. >> >> >>>expecially to silly questions that are >>>meant only to provoke and antagonize me. >> >>First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you. > > > That's also untrue. No, it's absolutely true. The questions are not intended to inflict torment. I believe they illustrate a fatal flaw in "veganism", a flaw that you haven't addressed. The intent of the questions is to get you to address the fatal flaw. > > >>>>>>>>>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so >>>>>>>>>taboo? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" >>>>>>>>from?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. >>>>>> >>>>>>Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider >>>>>>eggs to be taboo. >>>>> >>>>>So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why >>>>>would you intercede on behalf of someone who does? >>>> >>>>A: To stir the shit. >>>> >>>>This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are >>>>the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that >>>>subject down already. >>> >>>Why do you write threatening posts then? >> >>They only seem to be threatening to you, James. Seems like the only time >>you can be civil with me is if I write about Clif Bars. The rest of the >>time you get really nasty. > > > I have not been nasty in a long time. If you have evidence to the contrary > then produce it. Jonathon Ball, on the other hand, has been provocative, > abusive, ridiculing, has called me names, and he attacks me at every > opportunity. I'm attacking your position, SeeJames. If you are clinging to an untenable position, I can see why you would feel that you are being attacked, but you're not; only your position is being attacked, and you have not responsibly answered. > He is like that with most other people as well. Yet you falsely > accuse me of being nasty. It's not a level playing field with you. Why is > that? It is a perfectly level playing field, SeeJames. > > >>>>>>>Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars >>>>>>>and turn your nose at BK? >>>>>> >>>>>>I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. >>>>> >>>>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose >>>>>at BK? >>>> >>>>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. >>> >>>Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. >> >>What's wrong with their food? > > > I never said that anything's wrong with their food. Right: it's a snob thing with you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise (REPOST for Strutz - ANSWER the questions this time)
This is the post containing the questions you refused
to answer the first time, SeeJames. C. James Strutz wrote: > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > news
>>>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>>>>"Each to his own"; >>>> >>>>Moral relativism suits "vegans." They're hypocritical poseurs when it >>>>comes to ethics. >>> >>>A generalization... >> >>Yes, James, a very fair, observant generalization on my part. > > > Your opinion. He has demonstrated that his opinions merit consideration. Yours don't. Your belief that a generalization is only a ("mere") opinion is false. Try this one: "Americans speak English." "Fact" or "'mere' opinion"? GENERALLY true, or GENERALLY false? You stupid putz. I have a friend who used to be like you. I'd make a generalization, and after moment's reflection - but he should have taken 10 minutes - he'd complain that I had made a generalization. I'd always laugh and say, "You don't *really* object to my having made a generalization; you merely don't LIKE the generalization I made!" And that's true with you, SeeJames. You don't *really* object to generalizations, whether of fact or opinion, because you make them yourself: "Generalizing specific groups of people is always a bad thing to do" is, itself, a generalization. It is a generalized OPINION, not a "fact" as you stupidly claimed. No, you (I can't resist!) generally don't object to generalizations; you merely objected to the PARTICULAR generalization I made, because you felt, correctly, that it was saying something unflattering about you. Your feeling, however, does not alter the truth and usefulness of the generalization. In fact, your feeling is wholly irrelevant. >>>I eat eggs, albiet infrequently. I guess I draw my line with sentience. >> >>Is an egg sentient? > > > I don't think so. So you approve of human abortion, then. > > >>>I think it's wrong to take the life of a sentient being except under >>>extenuating circumstances. >> >>Which extenuating circumstances are those? > > > Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is threatened > are two examples that I can think of. So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the course of that production is, unequivocally in your view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as morally wrong? > > >>>Attn: Jon Ball, et. al. Okay, I understand the >>>issue that thousands of sentient lives are lost as a result of producing >>>the vegetables I buy. That's just the way it is right now. >> >>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to you, why are eggs so >>taboo? > > > I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" from?? More to the point, why are the collateral deaths of animals that are NOT covered by your weasel-worded "extenuating circumstances" morally acceptable to you? > > >>Indeed, why is anything else -- even *eating* animal flesh -- >>unacceptable? > > > Mostly for health concerns. Eating animal flesh also doesn't appeal to me. What's the difference between that and eggs? Animal protein is animal protein. > > >>>Sorry... >> >>You're only apologizing to yourself. It's your own peculiar sense of >>"ethics" you're violating, not anyone else's. > > > No, I was apologizing for obviating their troll fodder. You didn't obviate anything, SeeJames; I don't believe you even know what the word means. What you did was jump into a stinking cesspool of hypocrisy, so that your nose is almost covered by the slime. You have said you think it's wrong to kill sentient animals except "under [SIC] extenuating circumstances", yet you cheerily participate in the killing of massive numbers of sentient animals whose deaths aren't covered by your "extenuating circumstances". Maybe my cesspool metaphor isn't the best; perhaps I should point out that you are on the horns of a classic dilemma. Either: - your willing participation in collateral deaths of sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is evil; or - your casual participation, a participation that is ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you evil. So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying, which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is evil? > > >>>>>You can always take your own potato salad to BK. >>>> >>>>Maybe where *you* live, but most locales have food safety laws which >>>>forbid taking food from other sources (home, other restaurants) into >>>>restaurants. >>> >>>Well, maybe so. Guess I just assumed since I've never seen the food >>>police in any of the restaurants here. >> >>Many restaurant managers will politely inform you of such laws if you >>try to take food into their restaurants. Those laws, of course, are shams. Their intent isn't really to protect public health; it's to prevent competition. > > > Did you ever try it? > > >>>>>>BK does have veggie burgers, >>>>>>and vegan activists like Erik Marcus like them. >>>>> >>>>>And the point is?? >>>> >>>>The OP mentioned BK. I wanted him to know vegan "experts" like Mr Marcus >>>>approve of BK. He can stop disparaging the place. >>> >>>Then I will. BK sucks. >> >>You're just mad because they don't have potato salad. > > > Maybe so, but I wouldn't go there even if they did. This is an aesthetic judgment, that's all. You don't have any substantive objection to the place, you're just trying to show you're stylish, according to your political beliefs. Ho-hum. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>>>>>>>Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is >>>>>>>>threatened are two examples that I can think of. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in >>>>>>>a civil manner this time. >>>> >>>>I doubt he'll address the issue, much less in a civil manner. >>> >>>I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. >> >>No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions. > > > That's untrue. No, it's true, SeeJames. You did not answer my questions. The first one you snipped out entire, and never answered at all. The second you answered with "What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap amusement is evil." That wasn't an answer to the question. I posed a legitimate question in the form of a dilemma, and asked how you handled the dilemma. You didn't answer. Now, you're lying when you claim you did answer. > I've tried to answer his questions as well as yours. No, SeeJames, you haven't tried to answer at all. Separately, I'm going to repost that entire post, and you can have a go at it - a FIRST attempt, I should point out. > The exception is when I am repeatedly asked the same questions - I don't care to > repeat myself. You won't be; you never answered them before. > > >>>I don't see any >>>reason why I should repeat myself, >> >>I do. You're the one who jumped into a discussion about mayonnaise and >>you refuse to state your own position. >> >> >>>expecially to silly questions that are >>>meant only to provoke and antagonize me. >> >>First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you. > > > That's also untrue. No, it's absolutely true. The questions are not intended to inflict torment. I believe they illustrate a fatal flaw in "veganism", a flaw that you haven't addressed. The intent of the questions is to get you to address the fatal flaw. > > >>>>>>>>>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so >>>>>>>>>taboo? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" >>>>>>>>from?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. >>>>>> >>>>>>Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider >>>>>>eggs to be taboo. >>>>> >>>>>So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why >>>>>would you intercede on behalf of someone who does? >>>> >>>>A: To stir the shit. >>>> >>>>This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are >>>>the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that >>>>subject down already. >>> >>>Why do you write threatening posts then? >> >>They only seem to be threatening to you, James. Seems like the only time >>you can be civil with me is if I write about Clif Bars. The rest of the >>time you get really nasty. > > > I have not been nasty in a long time. If you have evidence to the contrary > then produce it. Jonathon Ball, on the other hand, has been provocative, > abusive, ridiculing, has called me names, and he attacks me at every > opportunity. I'm attacking your position, SeeJames. If you are clinging to an untenable position, I can see why you would feel that you are being attacked, but you're not; only your position is being attacked, and you have not responsibly answered. > He is like that with most other people as well. Yet you falsely > accuse me of being nasty. It's not a level playing field with you. Why is > that? It is a perfectly level playing field, SeeJames. > > >>>>>>>Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars >>>>>>>and turn your nose at BK? >>>>>> >>>>>>I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. >>>>> >>>>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose >>>>>at BK? >>>> >>>>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. >>> >>>Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. >> >>What's wrong with their food? > > > I never said that anything's wrong with their food. Right: it's a snob thing with you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
David Marx > wrote in message k.net>...
> Jon Lindsay, an AMERICAN, wrote: > > > "Richard Miller" > wrote in message thlink.net>... > > > >>Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's > >>place? > >> > >>Richard > > > > > > Making your own is always fun, that way you can experiment with the > > flavours you like. > > Stop with the affected British spellings, Jon. Write > FLAVORS, not "flavours". You are not British. Hey look! It's my fan club! :wave: FYI the UK Home Office has granted me a UK passport and all rights and privileges of a UK citizen. So, I can post in 'british' english as much as I like. It's officially sanctioned by David Blunkett. I post american recipes in 'american', british recipes in 'british' and I've even posted german recipes in german... Isn't the diversity of the english language grand? 'Spelling trolls' is beneath even you folks. May I suggest a hobby of some sort? Perhaps some fresh air? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
MrFalafel wrote:
> David Marx > wrote in message k.net>... > >>Jon Lindsay, an AMERICAN, wrote: >> >> >>>"Richard Miller" > wrote in message thlink.net>... >>> >>> >>>>Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's >>>>place? >>>> >>>>Richard >>> >>> >>>Making your own is always fun, that way you can experiment with the >>>flavours you like. >> >>Stop with the affected British spellings, Jon. Write >>FLAVORS, not "flavours". You are not British. > > > Hey look! It's my fan club! :wave: > > FYI the UK Home Office has granted me a UK passport and all rights and > privileges of a UK citizen. No, of a legally resident alien. > So, I can post in 'british' english as > much as I like. You can post in pig-latin, for all I give a crap. However, it's pretentious for you to post in British English, especially when it's excruciatingly obvious that you're only doing so as an affectation. By the way, the British and the Americans both write "'British' English", as both are proper names. > It's officially sanctioned by David Blunkett. > > I post american recipes in 'american', british recipes in 'british' > and I've even posted german recipes in german... Isn't the diversity > of the english language grand? > > 'Spelling trolls' is beneath even you folks. May I suggest a hobby of > some sort? Perhaps some fresh air? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
<...> >>>I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. >> >>No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions. > > That's untrue. No, James, it's true. > I've tried to answer his questions as well as yours. I've asked a couple times what part(s) of my opinion you found objectionable. > The > exception is when I am repeatedly asked the same questions - I don't care to > repeat myself. You only repeat yourself if you actually answer the question. You didn't. <...> >>First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you. > > That's also untrue. No, both sentences are true. Asking someone to support statements isn't an act of torment, it's a form of discussion, debate, and even intellectual curiosity. <...> >>>>This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are >>>>the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that >>>>subject down already. >>> >>>Why do you write threatening posts then? >> >>They only seem to be threatening to you, James. Seems like the only time >>you can be civil with me is if I write about Clif Bars. The rest of the >>time you get really nasty. > > I have not been nasty in a long time. At least you admit that you have been nasty. Let me modify what I said. The rest of the time you get really snippy. > If you have evidence to the contrary > then produce it. Jonathon Ball, on the other hand, has been provocative, > abusive, ridiculing, has called me names, and he attacks me at every > opportunity. He is like that with most other people as well. Yet you falsely > accuse me of being nasty. I read what he's written this morning to this, and I think it shows he's behaving with civility. > It's not a level playing field with you. Why is that? A level playing field between you and me or between you and another person? >>>>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose >>>>>at BK? >>>> >>>>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. >>> >>>Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. >> >>What's wrong with their food? > > I never said that anything's wrong with their food. If there's nothing wrong with their food, why won't you go to their restaurants? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > <...> > >>>I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. > >> > >>No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions. > > > > That's untrue. > > No, James, it's true. > > > I've tried to answer his questions as well as yours. > > I've asked a couple times what part(s) of my opinion you found > objectionable. I've lost the context of what you asked. Ask me a specific question and I will answer it. > > The > > exception is when I am repeatedly asked the same questions - I don't care to > > repeat myself. > > You only repeat yourself if you actually answer the question. You didn't. Guess you got me there. Let me modify my statement. I'll answer your questions as long as they're not repetitive. > >>First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you. > > > > That's also untrue. > > No, both sentences are true. Asking someone to support statements isn't > an act of torment, it's a form of discussion, debate, and even > intellectual curiosity. It's very obvious that his questions are intended to provoke and antagonize people. If he were to ask them in a civil and respectful manner, more people would respond in kind. Trust me, I'm not the only one who notices this. You are being preferential. > > I have not been nasty in a long time. > > At least you admit that you have been nasty. I never denied it. > Let me modify what I said. > The rest of the time you get really snippy. Well, snippy is a far cry from nasty, isn't it? I tend to get "snippy" when I feel provoked. I just want to be treated respectfully and without the games. It's not too much to ask... > > If you have evidence to the contrary > > then produce it. Jonathon Ball, on the other hand, has been provocative, > > abusive, ridiculing, has called me names, and he attacks me at every > > opportunity. He is like that with most other people as well. Yet you falsely > > accuse me of being nasty. > > I read what he's written this morning to this, and I think it shows he's > behaving with civility. Barely. How about yesterday, or the day before? > > It's not a level playing field with you. Why is that? > > A level playing field between you and me or between you and another person? I was talking about the dialog between you and me in this case. You side with Jon, ignore his abuse of people and even participate in it yourself, and play games to disadvantage other people (see the following response to the BK part of this thread as an example). > >>>>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose > >>>>>at BK? > >>>> > >>>>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. > >>> > >>>Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. > >> > >>What's wrong with their food? > > > > I never said that anything's wrong with their food. > > If there's nothing wrong with their food, why won't you go to their > restaurants? Go back and read it. I wrote: "I never said that anything's wrong with their food", not "there's nothing wrong with their food". You subtly twist things around to make it sound like I said something I didn't. Then you ask the question: "why won't you go to their restaurants?" based on your faulty premise. I answered it previously with "because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat". It's an example of me having to repeat myself to your questions. And you wonder why I get "snippy"... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > C. James Strutz wrote: > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > >>>>>>>>Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is > >>>>>>>>threatened are two examples that I can think of. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it in > >>>>>>>a civil manner this time. > >>>> > >>>>I doubt he'll address the issue, much less in a civil manner. > >>> > >>>I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. > >> > >>No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions. > > > > > > That's untrue. > > No, it's true, SeeJames. You did not answer my > questions. The first one you snipped out entire, and > never answered at all. The second you answered with > "What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap > amusement is evil." That wasn't an answer to the > question. I posed a legitimate question in the form of > a dilemma, and asked how you handled the dilemma. You > didn't answer. Now, you're lying when you claim you > did answer. > > > I've tried to answer his questions as well as yours. > > No, SeeJames, you haven't tried to answer at all. > Separately, I'm going to repost that entire post, and > you can have a go at it - a FIRST attempt, I should > point out. > > > The exception is when I am repeatedly asked the same questions - I don't care to > > repeat myself. > > You won't be; you never answered them before. > > > > > > >>>I don't see any > >>>reason why I should repeat myself, > >> > >>I do. You're the one who jumped into a discussion about mayonnaise and > >>you refuse to state your own position. > >> > >> > >>>expecially to silly questions that are > >>>meant only to provoke and antagonize me. > >> > >>First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you. > > > > > > That's also untrue. > > No, it's absolutely true. The questions are not > intended to inflict torment. I believe they illustrate > a fatal flaw in "veganism", a flaw that you haven't > addressed. The intent of the questions is to get you > to address the fatal flaw. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs so > >>>>>>>>>taboo? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" > >>>>>>>>from?? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider > >>>>>>eggs to be taboo. > >>>>> > >>>>>So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why > >>>>>would you intercede on behalf of someone who does? > >>>> > >>>>A: To stir the shit. > >>>> > >>>>This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are > >>>>the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that > >>>>subject down already. > >>> > >>>Why do you write threatening posts then? > >> > >>They only seem to be threatening to you, James. Seems like the only time > >>you can be civil with me is if I write about Clif Bars. The rest of the > >>time you get really nasty. > > > > > > I have not been nasty in a long time. If you have evidence to the contrary > > then produce it. Jonathon Ball, on the other hand, has been provocative, > > abusive, ridiculing, has called me names, and he attacks me at every > > opportunity. > > I'm attacking your position, SeeJames. If you are > clinging to an untenable position, I can see why you > would feel that you are being attacked, but you're not; > only your position is being attacked, and you have not > responsibly answered. > > > He is like that with most other people as well. Yet you falsely > > accuse me of being nasty. It's not a level playing field with you. Why is > > that? > > It is a perfectly level playing field, SeeJames. > > > > > > >>>>>>>Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like PowerBars > >>>>>>>and turn your nose at BK? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. > >>>>> > >>>>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your nose > >>>>>at BK? > >>>> > >>>>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. > >>> > >>>Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. > >> > >>What's wrong with their food? > > > > > > I never said that anything's wrong with their food. > > Right: it's a snob thing with you. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
Nothing. You didn't add anything, SeeJames. You clicked to Reply to my post, but you didn't add anything before clicking on Send. You still should address the questions, SeeJames: the ones you have not to date addressed. They were posed honestly and civilly, even if the reality they are intended to illuminate is a harsh one. > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>Capital punishment, and in self defense when someone's life is >>>>>>>>>>threatened are two examples that I can think of. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I just read Jon's response. Answer his question, and please do it >>>>>>>>>in a civil manner this time. >>>>>> >>>>>>I doubt he'll address the issue, much less in a civil manner. >>>>> >>>>>I did answer his question in other posts in this thread. >>>> >>>>No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions. >>> >>> >>>That's untrue. >> >>No, it's true, SeeJames. You did not answer my >>questions. The first one you snipped out entire, and >>never answered at all. The second you answered with >>"What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap >>amusement is evil." That wasn't an answer to the >>question. I posed a legitimate question in the form of >>a dilemma, and asked how you handled the dilemma. You >>didn't answer. Now, you're lying when you claim you >>did answer. >> >> >>>I've tried to answer his questions as well as yours. >> >>No, SeeJames, you haven't tried to answer at all. >>Separately, I'm going to repost that entire post, and >>you can have a go at it - a FIRST attempt, I should >>point out. >> >> >>>The exception is when I am repeatedly asked the same questions - I don't >>>care to repeat myself. >> >>You won't be; you never answered them before. >> >> >>> >>>>>I don't see any >>>>>reason why I should repeat myself, >>>> >>>>I do. You're the one who jumped into a discussion about mayonnaise and >>>>you refuse to state your own position. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>expecially to silly questions that are >>>>>meant only to provoke and antagonize me. >>>> >>>>First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you. >>> >>> >>>That's also untrue. >> >>No, it's absolutely true. The questions are not >>intended to inflict torment. I believe they illustrate >>a fatal flaw in "veganism", a flaw that you haven't >>addressed. The intent of the questions is to get you >>to address the fatal flaw. >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>If such loss of sentient life is acceptable to yuo, why are eggs >>>>>>>>>>>so taboo? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I told you that I occasionally eat eggs. Where do you get "taboo" >>>>>>>>>>from?? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Re-read this thread and note your point of interjection. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Whatever you're reading into what I wrote is wrong. I don't consider >>>>>>>>eggs to be taboo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So, you have no ethical problem with eating mayonnaise. Then, why >>>>>>>would you intercede on behalf of someone who does? >>>>>> >>>>>>A: To stir the shit. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is getting to be silly. I guess my only non-threatening posts are >>>>>>the ones about Clif Bars and I'm afraid I've just about worn that >>>>>>subject down already. >>>>> >>>>>Why do you write threatening posts then? >>>> >>>>They only seem to be threatening to you, James. Seems like the only time >>>>you can be civil with me is if I write about Clif Bars. The rest of the >>>>time you get really nasty. >>> >>> >>>I have not been nasty in a long time. If you have evidence to the contrary >>>then produce it. Jonathon Ball, on the other hand, has been provocative, >>>abusive, ridiculing, has called me names, and he attacks me at every >>>opportunity. >> >>I'm attacking your position, SeeJames. If you are >>clinging to an untenable position, I can see why you >>would feel that you are being attacked, but you're not; >>only your position is being attacked, and you have not >>responsibly answered. >> >> >>>He is like that with most other people as well. Yet you falsely >>>accuse me of being nasty. It's not a level playing field with you. Why >>>is that? >> >>It is a perfectly level playing field, SeeJames. >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>Why not? Why would you eat commercially prepared foods like >>>>>>>>>PowerBars and turn your nose at BK? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I hardly ever eat PowerBars and I never eat at BK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your >>>>>>>nose at BK? >>>>>> >>>>>>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner. >>>>> >>>>>Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat. >>>> >>>>What's wrong with their food? >>> >>> >>>I never said that anything's wrong with their food. >> >>Right: it's a snob thing with you. >> >> > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... Oops, I accidentally pressed the "send" button before replying... > No, SeeJames, you haven't tried to answer at all. > Separately, I'm going to repost that entire post, and > you can have a go at it - a FIRST attempt, I should > point out. Either my news server hasn't posted this or you didn't post. In any event, I think this is the question you're asking. > So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and > the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the course > of that production is, unequivocally in your view, > morally wrong. So, why do you participate in this orgy > of death that you *necessarily* view as morally wrong? I had written this previously... "Our very existence somehow results in the collateral deaths of animals - there's nothing we can do about that." And you responded... "That's false. There is MUCH you COULD do about it, but choose not to do." I did answer your question. You just didn't like my answer -- that's your problem. I will slightly modify my statement to "there's very little we can practically do to avoid collateral animal deaths". I enjoy a certain quality of lifestyle while constantly trying to minimize my impact on the earth and other living things. That's about as good as I can be expected to do. You also wrote... "Not only is your statement false, it's also a lie, as you've been informed of this befo collateral deaths are not necessary or inevitable." I take this as proof that this is a repetition of previous discussions, as I said. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > nk.net... > > Oops, I accidentally pressed the "send" button before replying... > > >>No, SeeJames, you haven't tried to answer at all. >>Separately, I'm going to repost that entire post, and >>you can have a go at it - a FIRST attempt, I should >>point out. > > > Either my news server hasn't posted this or you didn't post. In any event, I > think this is the question you're asking. > > >>So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and >>the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the course >>of that production is, unequivocally in your view, >>morally wrong. So, why do you participate in this orgy >>of death that you *necessarily* view as morally wrong? > > > I had written this previously... > > "Our very existence somehow results > in the collateral deaths of animals - there's nothing we can > do about that." > > And you responded... > > "That's false. There is MUCH you COULD do about it, but > choose not to do." That response of mine PRECEDED the question you correclty identify, above, as the one I asked and that you didn't answer. > > I did answer your question. You did not. You are getting the order of the posts, questions and answers wrong. > You just didn't like my answer -- that's your > problem. I will slightly modify my statement to "there's very little we can > practically do to avoid collateral animal deaths". That's still false. There is MUCH you could do, but CHOOSE not to do, because of your wish for comfort and ease. Comfort and ease are nice, but when you have asserted that it is morally WRONG to kill animals except in extenuating circumstances, and when you are NOT in extenuating circumstance yet still are killing animals, then in any just moral order, your comfort and ease must be discarded. Why aren't you doing it? > I enjoy a certain quality of lifestyle ....that needlessly causes animals to die. Thanks for clarifying this. Your ease and comfort take precedence over the suffering and death of sentient animals. > while constantly trying to minimize my impact on the earth and > other living things. No, you are not trying to "minimize" anything. To minimize you must first measure, and you haven't. Even WITHIN a strictly vegetarian diet, some foods cause more animal suffering and death than others. We've been over this before, SeeJames: I have asked you how much rice - a notoriously animal-lethal crop to produce - you eat, and you refused to answer. You are not minimizing anything, SeeJames, except the extent to which you can be bothered to ACT on what you claim to be your moral beliefs. We see that your statements of moral belief are hollow. > That's about as good as I can be expected to do. You're not even doing THAT well, SeeJames, yet your stated moral beliefs demand that you do MUCH better than that. > > You also wrote... > > "Not only is your statement false, > it's also a lie, as you've been informed of this > befo collateral deaths are not necessary or inevitable." > > I take this as proof that this is a repetition of previous discussions, as I > said. Some of it is repetetive, but you chose to rejoin the discussion in this thread, and now you're whiffing off. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
> Hmmm...good question. I guess it really hasn't been a big issue with me. I
> eat eggs, albiet infrequently. I guess I draw my line with sentience. I > think it's wrong to take the life of a sentient being except under > extenuating circumstances. Personally, I only buy eggs that come from free-range hens. IMO, the treatment of 'factory-farmed' hens is shameful and should not be tolerated in today's world. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
David Marx > wrote in message ink.net>...
> MrFalafel wrote: > > > David Marx > wrote in message k.net>... > > > >>Jon Lindsay, an AMERICAN, wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Richard Miller" > wrote in message thlink.net>... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's > >>>>place? > >>>> > >>>>Richard > >>> > >>> > >>>Making your own is always fun, that way you can experiment with the > >>>flavours you like. > >> > >>Stop with the affected British spellings, Jon. Write > >>FLAVORS, not "flavours". You are not British. > > > > > > Hey look! It's my fan club! :wave: > > > > FYI the UK Home Office has granted me a UK passport and all rights and > > privileges of a UK citizen. > > No, of a legally resident alien. No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK. I can vote, run for office and all the rest. And I can write in british english! > > > So, I can post in 'british' english as > > much as I like. > > You can post in pig-latin, for all I give a crap. > However, it's pretentious for you to post in British > English, especially when it's excruciatingly obvious > that you're only doing so as an affectation. By the > way, the British and the Americans both write > "'British' English", as both are proper names. > So, you don't give a crap if I post in pig latin but you do give a crap if I post in british english? How bizarre. I produce documentation as part of my job. My employer obviously prefers to recieve this documentation in british english. I have painstakingly re-trained myself to write in british english as most of my written correspondence is with british folks. I am not going to re-train myself to write in american english as there is no point. I'm amazed to see someone so bothered by this. You must have a very simple life. > > It's officially sanctioned by David Blunkett. > > > > I post american recipes in 'american', british recipes in 'british' > > and I've even posted german recipes in german... Isn't the diversity > > of the english language grand? > > > > 'Spelling trolls' is beneath even you folks. May I suggest a hobby of > > some sort? Perhaps some fresh air? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
MrFalafel wrote:
> David Marx > wrote in message ink.net>... > >>MrFalafel wrote: >> >> >>>David Marx > wrote in message k.net>... >>> >>> >>>>Jon Lindsay, an AMERICAN, wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Richard Miller" > wrote in message thlink.net>... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's >>>>>>place? >>>>>> >>>>>>Richard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Making your own is always fun, that way you can experiment with the >>>>>flavours you like. >>>> >>>>Stop with the affected British spellings, Jon. Write >>>>FLAVORS, not "flavours". You are not British. >>> >>> >>>Hey look! It's my fan club! :wave: >>> >>>FYI the UK Home Office has granted me a UK passport and all rights and >>>privileges of a UK citizen. >> >>No, of a legally resident alien. > > > No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK. So, you renounced your American citizenship? > I can vote, run for office and all the rest. And I can write in british > english! > > >>>So, I can post in 'british' english as >>>much as I like. >> >>You can post in pig-latin, for all I give a crap. >>However, it's pretentious for you to post in British >>English, especially when it's excruciatingly obvious >>that you're only doing so as an affectation. By the >>way, the British and the Americans both write >>"'British' English", as both are proper names. >> > > > So, you don't give a crap if I post in pig latin but you do give a > crap if I post in british english? Your use of British English is affected. That kind of affectation is offensive per se. > > How bizarre. Not really. > > I produce documentation as part of my job. My employer obviously > prefers to recieve this documentation in british english. Usenet is not your employer. I expect your employer also expects you to write "British" and "English", and to spell the word "receive", not "recieve". You seem to play fast and loose with your written language, affecting British usage for some reason, being slovenly with your proper nouns for some other. > I have > painstakingly re-trained myself to write in british english as most of > my written correspondence is with british folks. I am not going to > re-train myself to write in american english as there is no point. Cut the crap. You're too inconsistent in your usage to get away with any "training" excuse. > > I'm amazed to see someone so bothered by this. You must have a very > simple life. I'm always greatly bothered by people with snobbish affectations. It calls their entire character into question. > > > >>>It's officially sanctioned by David Blunkett. >>> >>>I post american recipes in 'american', british recipes in 'british' >>>and I've even posted german recipes in german... Isn't the diversity >>>of the english language grand? >>> >>>'Spelling trolls' is beneath even you folks. May I suggest a hobby of >>>some sort? Perhaps some fresh air? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
Jon Lindsay, an American, wrote:
> David Marx > wrote in message ink.net>... > >>Jon Lindsay, an American, wrote: >> >> >>>David Marx > wrote in message k.net>... >>> >>> >>>>Jon Lindsay, an AMERICAN, wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Richard Miller" > wrote in message thlink.net>... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's >>>>>>place? >>>>>> >>>>>>Richard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Making your own is always fun, that way you can experiment with the >>>>>flavours you like. >>>> >>>>Stop with the affected British spellings, Jon. Write >>>>FLAVORS, not "flavours". You are not British. >>> >>> >>>Hey look! It's my fan club! :wave: >>> >>>FYI the UK Home Office has granted me a UK passport and all rights and >>>privileges of a UK citizen. >> >>No, of a legally resident alien. > > > No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK. I > can vote, run for office and all the rest. And I can write in british > english! > > >>>So, I can post in 'british' english as >>>much as I like. >> >>You can post in pig-latin, for all I give a crap. >>However, it's pretentious for you to post in British >>English, especially when it's excruciatingly obvious >>that you're only doing so as an affectation. By the >>way, the British and the Americans both write >>"'British' English", as both are proper names. >> > > > So, you don't give a crap if I post in pig latin but you do give a > crap if I post in british english? > > How bizarre. > > I produce documentation as part of my job. My employer obviously > prefers to recieve this documentation in british english. I have > painstakingly re-trained myself to write in british english as most of > my written correspondence is with british folks. I am not going to > re-train myself to write in american english as there is no point. What a joke! I think people are more concerned over food quality, additives and fat/sodium content which people finally realize are at unacceptable levels in fast food. Jon Lindsay - 13 Nov 2002 http://tinyurl.com/yu6ep Wouldn't your employer expect you to write 'realise', rather than 'realize'? The flavor really improves the longer it sits. Jon Lindsay - 11 June 2003 http://tinyurl.com/37gnr I imagine your employer would prefer you to write 'flavour' instead of 'flavor'. Quarter and slice the zucchini Coarsely chop spinach and onion and grate carrot In a large frying pan sauté onion until golden in color Jon Lindsay - 22 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/36jks I believe the correct British spelling is 'colour'. Either your original "re-training" [scoff!] wasn't very strong in the first place, or you can "re-train [your]self to write in american english" as the mood suits you. http://tinyurl.com/yuho4 > > I'm amazed to see someone so bothered by this. You must have a very > simple life. That's what usenet liars always say when someone takes the time to expose their lies. > > > >>>It's officially sanctioned by David Blunkett. >>> >>>I post american recipes in 'american', british recipes in 'british' >>>and I've even posted german recipes in german... Isn't the diversity >>>of the english language grand? >>> >>>'Spelling trolls' is beneath even you folks. May I suggest a hobby of >>>some sort? Perhaps some fresh air? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
<not going to do your homework; try Google> >>Let me modify what I said. >>The rest of the time you get really snippy. > > Well, snippy is a far cry from nasty, isn't it? Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty. > I tend to get "snippy" when I feel provoked. I'll try to remember that. I wasn't trying to provoke you, I was trying to find out why you acted disrespectfully about my opinion without telling me specifically what was wrong with it. > I just want to be treated respectfully and without the > games. It's not too much to ask... That works both ways. With me, you get exactly what you give. The least you can do when you criticize someone (me) is explain why. Otherwise, it comes across as disrespectful. >>I read what he's written this morning to this, and I think it shows he's >>behaving with civility. > > Barely. How about yesterday, or the day before? Shit, James, what do you want *me* to do about Mr Ball? Answer my questions if you can't answer his. >>>It's not a level playing field with you. Why is that? >> >>A level playing field between you and me or between you and another >>person? > > I was talking about the dialog between you and me in this case. You side > with Jon, ignore his abuse of people and even participate in it yourself, > and play games to disadvantage other people (see the following response to > the BK part of this thread as an example). Oh, grow up. >>>>What's wrong with their food? >>> >>>I never said that anything's wrong with their food. >> >>If there's nothing wrong with their food, why won't you go to their >>restaurants? > > Go back and read it. I wrote: "I never said that anything's wrong with their > food", not "there's nothing wrong with their food". What's the qualitative difference? > You subtly twist things > around to make it sound like I said something I didn't. I asked a fair question based on what you wrote. Regardless of the ****ing reason, why won't you eat there??! > Then you ask the > question: "why won't you go to their restaurants?" based on your faulty > premise. Not faulty. > I answered it previously with "because there's nothing at BK that I > care to eat". Not even a veggie whopper? Or fries? Or a shake? Or a salad? > It's an example of me having to repeat myself to your > questions. Stop blaming me. If you'd answer the questions you'd save yourself and me and Jon and everyone else a lot of time. > And you wonder why I get "snippy"... No, I don't wonder why. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > <not going to do your homework; try Google> > >>Let me modify what I said. > >>The rest of the time you get really snippy. > > > > Well, snippy is a far cry from nasty, isn't it? > > Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty. Yeah, yeah... > > I tend to get "snippy" when I feel provoked. > > I'll try to remember that. I wasn't trying to provoke you, I was trying > to find out why you acted disrespectfully about my opinion without > telling me specifically what was wrong with it. Fair enough. remind me how I acted disrepectfully about your opinon and I will explain myself as best I can. > > I just want to be treated respectfully and without the > > games. It's not too much to ask... > > That works both ways. With me, you get exactly what you give. The least > you can do when you criticize someone (me) is explain why. Otherwise, it > comes across as disrespectful. You feel I'm playing games with you?! Tell me how. > >>I read what he's written this morning to this, and I think it shows he's > >>behaving with civility. > > > > Barely. How about yesterday, or the day before? > > Shit, James, what do you want *me* to do about Mr Ball? Answer my > questions if you can't answer his. I didn't ask you to do anything about him. I'm asking you to explain yourself. You write above you think "he's behaving with civility". Yet I can cite examples of him acting disrespectfully to me and calling me names. That's why I say it's not a level playing field with you. > >>>It's not a level playing field with you. Why is that? > >> > >>A level playing field between you and me or between you and another > >>person? > > > > I was talking about the dialog between you and me in this case. You side > > with Jon, ignore his abuse of people and even participate in it yourself, > > and play games to disadvantage other people (see the following response to > > the BK part of this thread as an example). > > Oh, grow up. Well, if you weren't so arrogant and subjective, you might be able to see things clearly. You are very Cartesean in your thinking. > > Go back and read it. I wrote: "I never said that anything's wrong with their > > food", not "there's nothing wrong with their food". > > What's the qualitative difference? It is very obvious. The first is a defensive statement, the second is a statement about the quality of their food. Two different things. > > You subtly twist things > > around to make it sound like I said something I didn't. > > I asked a fair question based on what you wrote. Regardless of the > ****ing reason, why won't you eat there??! See below... > > Then you ask the > > question: "why won't you go to their restaurants?" based on your faulty > > premise. > > Not faulty. Yes, faulty. > > I answered it previously with "because there's nothing at BK that I > > care to eat". > > Not even a veggie whopper? NO. > Or fries? NO. > Or a shake? NO. > Or a salad? NO. Well, maybe. But BK is far from my first choice of places to find a salad. Maybe in desparation. > > It's an example of me having to repeat myself to your > > questions. > > Stop blaming me. If you'd answer the questions you'd save yourself and > me and Jon and everyone else a lot of time. Then stop with your circular reasoning... > > And you wonder why I get "snippy"... > > No, I don't wonder why. Then stop playing games with me... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
C. James Strutz wrote:
>><not going to do your homework; try Google> You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs. What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING -- about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture? Why is veganism only about avoiding animal parts, not animal deaths or suffering? Why do vegans make ethical claims and present themselves as morally superior despite the fact that animals still die -- in greater numbers -- to make their food? >>>>Let me modify what I said. >>>>The rest of the time you get really snippy. >>> >>>Well, snippy is a far cry from nasty, isn't it? >> >>Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty. > > Yeah, yeah... You wear pastels? Do you like musicals? >>>I tend to get "snippy" when I feel provoked. >> >>I'll try to remember that. I wasn't trying to provoke you, I was trying >>to find out why you acted disrespectfully about my opinion without >>telling me specifically what was wrong with it. > > Fair enough. remind me how I acted disrepectfully about your opinon and I > will explain myself as best I can. See above. I have to do everything around here. >>>I just want to be treated respectfully and without the >>>games. It's not too much to ask... >> >>That works both ways. With me, you get exactly what you give. The least >>you can do when you criticize someone (me) is explain why. Otherwise, it >>comes across as disrespectful. > > You feel I'm playing games with you?! Tell me how. I didn't say playing games, just disrespectful. Now I know how Jon feels. >>>>I read what he's written this morning to this, and I think it shows he's >>>>behaving with civility. >>> >>>Barely. How about yesterday, or the day before? >> >>Shit, James, what do you want *me* to do about Mr Ball? Answer my >>questions if you can't answer his. > > I didn't ask you to do anything about him. I'm asking you to explain > yourself. About what? My posts or his? > You write above you think "he's behaving with civility". He was. He asked questions and you got all "snippy" with him. > Yet I can > cite examples of him acting disrespectfully to me and calling me names. What's your point? > That's why I say it's not a level playing field with you. Because you don't like someone else's (i.e., other than mine) attitude, lol? I don't get what you're bitching about. >>>>>It's not a level playing field with you. Why is that? >>>> >>>>A level playing field between you and me or between you and another >>>>person? >>> >>>I was talking about the dialog between you and me in this case. You side >>>with Jon, ignore his abuse of people and even participate in it > yourself, >>>and play games to disadvantage other people (see the following response > to >>>the BK part of this thread as an example). >> >>Oh, grow up. > > Well, if you weren't so arrogant and subjective, you might be able to see > things clearly. I asked that question about BK. He repeated it when you deliberately didn't answer it. Stop blaming him, stop blaming me, and just answer the question. > You are very Cartesean in your thinking. Well at least *I* think. >>>Go back and read it. I wrote: "I never said that anything's wrong with > their >>>food", not "there's nothing wrong with their food". >> >>What's the qualitative difference? > > It is very obvious. The first is a defensive statement, the second is a > statement about the quality of their food. Two different things. No, no qualitative difference. >>>You subtly twist things >>>around to make it sound like I said something I didn't. >> >>I asked a fair question based on what you wrote. Regardless of the >>****ing reason, why won't you eat there??! > > See below... > >>>Then you ask the >>>question: "why won't you go to their restaurants?" based on your faulty >>>premise. >> >>Not faulty. > > Yes, faulty. No, it isn't. >>>I answered it previously with "because there's nothing at BK that I >>>care to eat". >> >>Not even a veggie whopper? > > NO. Why not? They'll nuke the "patty" so it won't get animal parts on it. >>Or fries? > > NO. Never? >>Or a shake? > > NO. Why not? You consume dairy. That's all it is. >>Or a salad? > > NO. Well, maybe. But BK is far from my first choice of places to find a > salad. Maybe in desparation. But not a veggie whopper or fries? >>>It's an example of me having to repeat myself to your >>>questions. >> >>Stop blaming me. If you'd answer the questions you'd save yourself and >>me and Jon and everyone else a lot of time. > > Then stop with your circular reasoning... My reasoning isn't circular. >>>And you wonder why I get "snippy"... >> >>No, I don't wonder why. > > Then stop playing games with me... Who's playing games? I'm asking questions. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mayonnaise
usual suspect wrote:
> David Marx wrote: > <...> > >>> No, I'm not a legally resident alien, I am a full citizen of the UK. >> >> >> So, you renounced your American citizenship? > > > Very interesting. Did he ever answer this question? No, Jon Lindsay did not answer the question. I doubt he understands the implication of it. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| a mayonnaise for the BLT!! | General Cooking | |||
| OMG: a mayonnaise for the BLT!! | General Cooking | |||
| OMG: a mayonnaise for the BLT!! | General Cooking | |||
| Mayonnaise? | General Cooking | |||
| LC-REC Mayonnaise | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
