Hi there,

Having sourced a vegan car wash liquid (Betterware) I can now keep my
car resonable clean however I would like to apply a "wax" type product
to protect it. Anybody any ideas / recommendations?

There's nothing in the Vegan shopper and a good internet search revealed
not a lot.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Mark,
Hull

Mark Evans wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> Having sourced a vegan car wash liquid (Betterware) I can now keep my
> car resonable clean however I would like to apply a "wax" type product
> to protect it. Anybody any ideas / recommendations?
>
> There's nothing in the Vegan shopper and a good internet search revealed
> not a lot.

Why don't you try to buy a life instead?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Mark Evans wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Having sourced a vegan car wash liquid (Betterware) I can now keep my
> > car resonable clean however I would like to apply a "wax" type product
> > to protect it. Anybody any ideas / recommendations?
> >
> > There's nothing in the Vegan shopper and a good internet search revealed
> > not a lot.
>
> Why don't you try to buy a life instead?
>

come on...
the guy didn't ask for shopping suggestions that fall outside the realm of
car care products.
if you don't have anything useful to contribute to answering his question,
why be unkind?

katie > wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Mark Evans wrote:
> >
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > Having sourced a vegan car wash liquid (Betterware) I can now keep my
> > > car resonable clean however I would like to apply a "wax" type product
> > > to protect it. Anybody any ideas / recommendations?
> > >
> > > There's nothing in the Vegan shopper and a good internet search revealed
> > > not a lot.
> >
> > Why don't you try to buy a life instead?
> >
>
> come on...
> the guy didn't ask for shopping suggestions that fall outside the realm of
> car care products.
> if you don't have anything useful to contribute to answering his question,
> why be unkind?

Cheers for that Kattie - as you say I really don't know what people get
out of this kind of reply.

And actually Jonofun I do have a life. Sometimes when I go out I drive
there and when I do drive I like a nice clean car. I find getting out,
meeting people, exploring the world and eating at good vegan restaurants
very enjoyable. Maybe you should try leaving your computer alone for a
few minutes and instead of spitting venom and snearing at others try to
do something out in that place the rest of us call the world.


Cheers,
Mark

PS Jonofun you're on my kill file list so I won't be reading your reply.

Mark Evans wrote:

> katie > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>
>>>Mark Evans wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi there,
>>>>
>>>>Having sourced a vegan car wash liquid (Betterware) I can now keep my
>>>>car resonable clean however I would like to apply a "wax" type product
>>>>to protect it. Anybody any ideas / recommendations?
>>>>
>>>>There's nothing in the Vegan shopper and a good internet search revealed
>>>>not a lot.
>>>
>>>Why don't you try to buy a life instead?
>>>
>>
>>come on...
>>the guy didn't ask for shopping suggestions that fall outside the realm of
>>car care products.
>>if you don't have anything useful to contribute to answering his question,
>>why be unkind?
>
>
> Cheers for that Kattie - as you say I really don't know what people get
> out of this kind of reply.
>
> And actually Jonofun I do have a life.

Not much of one, if you're fretting and obsessing over
whether or not car wax - ****ing CAR WAX, for
chrissake! - is "vegan" or not.

> Sometimes when I go out I drive
> there and when I do drive I like a nice clean car.

That's wonderful.

> I find getting out,
> meeting people, exploring the world and eating at good vegan restaurants
> very enjoyable. Maybe you should try leaving your computer alone for a
> few minutes and instead of spitting venom and snearing at others try to
> do something out in that place the rest of us call the world.

"veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
over stupid minutiae.

>
> PS Jonofun you're on my kill file list so I won't be reading your reply.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
<snip>
> "veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
> Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
> over stupid minutiae.
<snip>

Tell me this, how are they supposed to win? If they don't obssess over
micrograms/minutiae, and wear leather shoes, or eat vegetable soup in
chicken broth etc. the anti-vegans call them hypocrites, and if they do try
to be consistent with their stated beliefs, then the anti-vegans accuse them
of having no life.

That doesn't seem very fair.

This is a vegan newsgroup, so it seems like if there were any place for a
vegan to ask about animal free products (whether it be car wax, shoes, or
other things) that this would be the place to do it.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
> "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>"veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
>>Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
>>over stupid minutiae.
>
> <snip>
>
> Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?

Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.

> If they don't obssess over
> micrograms/minutiae, and wear leather shoes, or eat vegetable soup in
> chicken broth etc. the anti-vegans call them hypocrites, and if they do try
> to be consistent with their stated beliefs, then the anti-vegans accuse them
> of having no life.
>
> That doesn't seem very fair.

That's their problem, for thinking in the first place
that a consumption rule will lead to ethical virtue.

>
> This is a vegan newsgroup, so it seems like if there were any place for a
> vegan to ask about animal free products (whether it be car wax, shoes, or
> other things) that this would be the place to do it.
>
> -Rubystars
>
>

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m...
>
> This is a vegan newsgroup, so it seems like if there were any place for a
> vegan to ask about animal free products (whether it be car wax, shoes, or
> other things) that this would be the place to do it.
>
> -Rubystars
>

I gotta admit, that's a pretty good point. I suppose the response might be
that there is NO place one should ask about what someone else considers
minutia, but one person's minutia might be something very important to
another.
I for one, think it's kinda silly, but my priorities in life don't have to
be applied to anyone else.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:38:00 GMT, "Fredrick L. Rice"
> wrote:

>Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
>one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
>rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
>going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
>from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.


This guys hangs out on sci.skeptic, He lives in the
desert in a trailer, and comes into town sometimes.

*I* know Mitch Kalish, and I thought well of him, until
he joined the anti-poetry bridge terrorists.

Frederick may not even remember Mitch, but they
met once.

Frederick is thought to be a bit of a crank.

"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
> > "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> > <snip>
> >
> >>"veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
> >>Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
> >>over stupid minutiae.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?
>
> Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
> one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
> rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
> going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
> from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.

Regardless of whether you feel it's a legitimate moral position, they've
chosen to abstain from these products as a moral choice. This is a newsgroup
dedicated to vegans so it's really silly for you to complain that vegans
come here and ask vegan-related questions.

> > If they don't obssess over
> > micrograms/minutiae, and wear leather shoes, or eat vegetable soup in
> > chicken broth etc. the anti-vegans call them hypocrites, and if they do
try
> > to be consistent with their stated beliefs, then the anti-vegans accuse
them
> > of having no life.
> >
> > That doesn't seem very fair.
>
> That's their problem, for thinking in the first place
> that a consumption rule will lead to ethical virtue.

Abstaining from animal products is a part of their philosophy, a philosophy
this newsgroup is about. It doesn't matter if you think it's the dumbest
idea you've ever heard. They have a right to hold it.

-Rubystars

"William Hershman" > wrote in message
news:fJp7c.55620$_w.884881@attbi_s53...
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > This is a vegan newsgroup, so it seems like if there were any place for
a
> > vegan to ask about animal free products (whether it be car wax, shoes,
or
> > other things) that this would be the place to do it.
> >
> > -Rubystars
> >
>
> I gotta admit, that's a pretty good point. I suppose the response might
be
> that there is NO place one should ask about what someone else considers
> minutia, but one person's minutia might be something very important to
> another.
> I for one, think it's kinda silly, but my priorities in life don't have to
> be applied to anyone else.

Exactly.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
> "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>"veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
>>>>Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
>>>>over stupid minutiae.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?
>>
>>Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
>>one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
>>rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
>>going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
>>from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.
>
>
> Regardless of whether you feel it's a legitimate moral position, they've
> chosen to abstain from these products as a moral choice. This is a newsgroup
> dedicated to vegans

It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
"vegan" CAR WAX!

> so it's really silly for you to complain that vegans
> come here and ask vegan-related questions.

I'm here, and I'm not leaving. I think "veganism" in
general is stupid, and I think the degree of
shit-minded obsession that leads some moron to worry
himself sick over "vegan" CAR ****ING WAX is evidence
of mental illness.

>
>
>>>If they don't obssess over
>>>micrograms/minutiae, and wear leather shoes, or eat vegetable soup in
>>>chicken broth etc. the anti-vegans call them hypocrites, and if they do try
>>>to be consistent with their stated beliefs, then the anti-vegans accuse
>>> them of having no life.
>>>
>>>That doesn't seem very fair.
>>
>>That's their problem, for thinking in the first place
>>that a consumption rule will lead to ethical virtue.
>
>
> Abstaining from animal products is a part of their philosophy,

A bad, invalid, bankrupt philosophy. Extending it to
****ING CAR WAX is all the proof you need.

> a philosophy
> this newsgroup is about. It doesn't matter if you think it's the dumbest
> idea you've ever heard. They have a right to hold it.

And in no way, nor at any time, did I suggest they
didn't. This isn't about their "right" to think weird
thoughts; it's about my entirely on-target criticism of
the weird, irrational thoughts themselves.

"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
> > "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>>"veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
> >>>>Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
> >>>>over stupid minutiae.
> >>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?
> >>
> >>Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
> >>one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
> >>rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
> >>going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
> >>from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.
> >
> >
> > Regardless of whether you feel it's a legitimate moral position, they've
> > chosen to abstain from these products as a moral choice. This is a
newsgroup
> > dedicated to vegans
>
> It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> "vegan" CAR WAX!

don't you think it's kinda funny that you're reaming this guy out for asking
about a non-food vegan item on a vegan food site (presumably the problem
being that he's off-topic) when you're debating vegan philosophy on a vegan
food site?

> so it's really silly for you to complain that vegans
> > come here and ask vegan-related questions.
>
> I'm here, and I'm not leaving. I think "veganism" in
> general is stupid, and I think the degree of
> shit-minded obsession that leads some moron to worry
> himself sick over "vegan" CAR ****ING WAX is evidence
> of mental illness.
>
> >
> >
> >>>If they don't obssess over
> >>>micrograms/minutiae, and wear leather shoes, or eat vegetable soup in
> >>>chicken broth etc. the anti-vegans call them hypocrites, and if they do
try
> >>>to be consistent with their stated beliefs, then the anti-vegans accuse
> >>> them of having no life.
> >>>
> >>>That doesn't seem very fair.
> >>
> >>That's their problem, for thinking in the first place
> >>that a consumption rule will lead to ethical virtue.
> >
> >
> > Abstaining from animal products is a part of their philosophy,
>
> A bad, invalid, bankrupt philosophy. Extending it to
> ****ING CAR WAX is all the proof you need.
>
> > a philosophy
> > this newsgroup is about. It doesn't matter if you think it's the
dumbest
> > idea you've ever heard. They have a right to hold it.
>
> And in no way, nor at any time, did I suggest they
> didn't. This isn't about their "right" to think weird
> thoughts; it's about my entirely on-target criticism of
> the weird, irrational thoughts themselves.
>

katie wrote:

> "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>

>>>>>Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?
>>>>
>>>>Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
>>>>one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
>>>>rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
>>>>going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
>>>
>>>>from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regardless of whether you feel it's a legitimate moral position, they've
>>>chosen to abstain from these products as a moral choice. This is a
>>>newsgroup dedicated to vegans
>>
>>It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
>>This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
>>"vegan" CAR WAX!
>
>
> don't you think it's kinda funny that you're reaming this guy out for asking
> about a non-food vegan item on a vegan food site (presumably the problem
> being that he's off-topic) when you're debating vegan philosophy on a vegan
> food site?

No, dummy. The problem is not one of being off-topic,
although he is. The problem is "veganism" in general,
with its attendant Irrational Search for Micrograms,
and the problem is compounded by this asshole obsessing
over ****ing CAR WAX!

"veganism" is a thoroughly bogus "philosophy"; the word
"philosophy" must be put in quotes (of derision) when
using it to describe "veganism", as it isn't a
philosophy at all. It's a pseudo-philosophy. The idea
that avoiding the consumption of Animal Parts makes one
"more ethical" is patently absurd. That this ****wit
extends it all the way to ****ING CAR WAX! illustrates
the depths of depravity to which people will sink in
their search for easy solutions.

"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> Rubystars wrote:
> > "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>>"veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
> >>>>Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
> >>>>over stupid minutiae.
> >>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?
> >>
> >>Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
> >>one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
> >>rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
> >>going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
> >>from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.
> >
> >
> > Regardless of whether you feel it's a legitimate moral position, they've
> > chosen to abstain from these products as a moral choice. This is a newsgroup
> > dedicated to vegans
>
> It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> "vegan" CAR WAX!
>
> > so it's really silly for you to complain that vegans
> > come here and ask vegan-related questions.
>
> I'm here, and I'm not leaving. I think "veganism" in
> general is stupid, and I think the degree of
> shit-minded obsession that leads some moron to worry
> himself sick over "vegan" CAR ****ING WAX is evidence
> of mental illness.
>
> >
> >
> >>>If they don't obssess over
> >>>micrograms/minutiae, and wear leather shoes, or eat vegetable soup in
> >>>chicken broth etc. the anti-vegans call them hypocrites, and if they do try
> >>>to be consistent with their stated beliefs, then the anti-vegans accuse
> >>> them of having no life.
> >>>
> >>>That doesn't seem very fair.
> >>
> >>That's their problem, for thinking in the first place
> >>that a consumption rule will lead to ethical virtue.
> >
> >
> > Abstaining from animal products is a part of their philosophy,
>
> A bad, invalid, bankrupt philosophy. Extending it to
> ****ING CAR WAX is all the proof you need.
>
> > a philosophy
> > this newsgroup is about. It doesn't matter if you think it's the dumbest
> > idea you've ever heard. They have a right to hold it.
>
> And in no way, nor at any time, did I suggest they
> didn't. This isn't about their "right" to think weird
> thoughts; it's about my entirely on-target criticism of
> the weird, irrational thoughts themselves.



Is that idiot Ball now posing as Freddy Rice?

On 22 Mar 2004 10:55:25 -0800, (Ron) wrote:

> Is that idiot Ball now posing as Freddy Rice?


I would doubt it - this guy is much more vitriolic.

I guess the trailer in the desert lifestyle gets
to the brain after a while.

Funny how small a place the world is .

by how

Ron wrote:

> "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message hlink.net>...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rubystars wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
>>>>>>Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
>>>>>>over stupid minutiae.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?
>>>>
>>>>Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
>>>>one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
>>>>rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
>>>>going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
>>>
>>>>from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regardless of whether you feel it's a legitimate moral position, they've
>>>chosen to abstain from these products as a moral choice. This is a newsgroup
>>>dedicated to vegans
>>
>>It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
>> This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
>>"vegan" CAR WAX!
>>
>>
>>>so it's really silly for you to complain that vegans
>>>come here and ask vegan-related questions.
>>
>>I'm here, and I'm not leaving. I think "veganism" in
>>general is stupid, and I think the degree of
>>shit-minded obsession that leads some moron to worry
>>himself sick over "vegan" CAR ****ING WAX is evidence
>>of mental illness.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>If they don't obssess over
>>>>>micrograms/minutiae, and wear leather shoes, or eat vegetable soup in
>>>>>chicken broth etc. the anti-vegans call them hypocrites, and if they do try
>>>>>to be consistent with their stated beliefs, then the anti-vegans accuse
>>>>>them of having no life.
>>>>>
>>>>>That doesn't seem very fair.
>>>>
>>>>That's their problem, for thinking in the first place
>>>>that a consumption rule will lead to ethical virtue.
>>>
>>>
>>>Abstaining from animal products is a part of their philosophy,
>>
>>A bad, invalid, bankrupt philosophy. Extending it to
>>****ING CAR WAX is all the proof you need.
>>
>>
>>>a philosophy
>>>this newsgroup is about. It doesn't matter if you think it's the dumbest
>>>idea you've ever heard. They have a right to hold it.
>>
>>And in no way, nor at any time, did I suggest they
>>didn't. This isn't about their "right" to think weird
>>thoughts; it's about my entirely on-target criticism of
>>the weird, irrational thoughts themselves.
>
>
>
>
> Is that idiot Ball now posing as Freddy Rice?

It wouldn't occur to you to address the issue of the
Irrational Search for Micrograms itself, would it, Ronnie?

Mark Evans wrote:
<...>
> Cheers for that Kattie - as you say I really don't know what people get
> out of this kind of reply.
>
> And actually Jonofun I do have a life. Sometimes when I go out I drive
> there and when I do drive I like a nice clean car.

Tell us, vegan, how many animals have you run over?

<...>
> PS Jonofun you're on my kill file list so I won't be reading your reply.

Like a silly little bitch to hit someone, then run and hide. Why can't you be
man enough to hang around long enough to take what you dish out?

Fredrick L. Rice wrote:
<...>
> It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD. This asswipe
> started asking about (jesus christ!) "vegan" CAR WAX!

I have to agree with you. This ranks as one of the silliest requests yet at AFV.

>> so it's really silly for you to complain that vegans
>> come here and ask vegan-related questions.
>
> I'm here, and I'm not leaving. I think "veganism" in general is stupid,
> and I think the degree of shit-minded obsession that leads some moron to
> worry himself sick over "vegan" CAR ****ING WAX is evidence of mental
> illness.

The funny part is his accusing ANYONE ELSE of not having a life.

<...>

katie wrote:

Thank you for not top-posting.

<...>
> don't you think it's kinda funny that you're reaming this guy out for asking
> about a non-food vegan item on a vegan food site (presumably the problem
> being that he's off-topic) when you're debating vegan philosophy on a vegan
> food site?

No, but it's hilarious that someone cares so much about finding a vegan car wax.

<...>

"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> katie wrote:
>
> > "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>>>Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?
> >>>>
> >>>>Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
> >>>>one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
> >>>>rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
> >>>>going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
> >>>
> >>>>from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Regardless of whether you feel it's a legitimate moral position,
they've
> >>>chosen to abstain from these products as a moral choice. This is a
> >>>newsgroup dedicated to vegans
> >>
> >>It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> >>This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> >>"vegan" CAR WAX!
> >
> >
> > don't you think it's kinda funny that you're reaming this guy out for
asking
> > about a non-food vegan item on a vegan food site (presumably the problem
> > being that he's off-topic) when you're debating vegan philosophy on a
vegan
> > food site?
>
> No, dummy. The problem is not one of being off-topic,

pardon me. i assumed that the problem was that he was off-topic,
considering your reply:
"It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
"vegan" CAR WAX!"
you can see why the emphasis on 'food' and 'car wax' would lead me to this
conclusion. i hardly think that this justifies calling me a 'dummy.' there
is no need to name-call. you people need to learn to get along with others.

> although he is. The problem is "veganism" in general,
> with its attendant Irrational Search for Micrograms,
> and the problem is compounded by this asshole obsessing
> over ****ing CAR WAX!
>
> "veganism" is a thoroughly bogus "philosophy"; the word
> "philosophy" must be put in quotes (of derision) when
> using it to describe "veganism", as it isn't a
> philosophy at all. It's a pseudo-philosophy. The idea
> that avoiding the consumption of Animal Parts makes one
> "more ethical" is patently absurd. That this ****wit
> extends it all the way to ****ING CAR WAX! illustrates
> the depths of depravity to which people will sink in
> their search for easy solutions.

katie wrote:

> "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>katie wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
>>>>This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
>>>>"vegan" CAR WAX!
>>>
>>>
>>>don't you think it's kinda funny that you're reaming this guy out for asking
>>>about a non-food vegan item on a vegan food site (presumably the problem
>>>being that he's off-topic) when you're debating vegan philosophy on a vegan
>>>food site?
>>
>>No, dummy. The problem is not one of being off-topic,
>
>
> pardon me. i assumed that the problem was that he was off-topic,
> considering your reply:
> "It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> "vegan" CAR WAX!"

The problem is that he is agonizing over a great big
moral NOTHING.

> you can see why the emphasis on 'food' and 'car wax' would lead me to this
> conclusion. i hardly think that this justifies calling me a 'dummy.' there
> is no need to name-call. you people need to learn to get along with others.
>
>
>>although he is. The problem is "veganism" in general,
>>with its attendant Irrational Search for Micrograms,
>>and the problem is compounded by this asshole obsessing
>>over ****ing CAR WAX!
>>
>>"veganism" is a thoroughly bogus "philosophy"; the word
>>"philosophy" must be put in quotes (of derision) when
>>using it to describe "veganism", as it isn't a
>>philosophy at all. It's a pseudo-philosophy. The idea
>>that avoiding the consumption of Animal Parts makes one
>>"more ethical" is patently absurd. That this ****wit
>>extends it all the way to ****ING CAR WAX! illustrates
>>the depths of depravity to which people will sink in
>>their search for easy solutions.
>
>
>
>

"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> katie wrote:
>
> > "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>katie wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
> >>>>It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> >>>>This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> >>>>"vegan" CAR WAX!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>don't you think it's kinda funny that you're reaming this guy out for
asking
> >>>about a non-food vegan item on a vegan food site (presumably the
problem
> >>>being that he's off-topic) when you're debating vegan philosophy on a
vegan
> >>>food site?
> >>
> >>No, dummy. The problem is not one of being off-topic,
> >
> >
> > pardon me. i assumed that the problem was that he was off-topic,
> > considering your reply:
> > "It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> > This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> > "vegan" CAR WAX!"
>
> The problem is that he is agonizing over a great big
> moral NOTHING.

what do you care? lots of people agonize over what are moral 'nothings' in
the eyes of others, not just vegans. personally, i think it's pretty odd
that strict jewish folks have whole different sides of the kitchen and whole
different sets of dishes even, for keeping dairy and meat separate. but
hey, they believe in it, so what if it makes no sense to me? that may be a
religious thing, but it is a moral issue to them, just like vegansim is a
moral issue to this guy. if he wants to spend countless hours lamenting
over finding just the right car wax to make his beloved car pretty, then
hey, that's his thing. why waste so much energy giving a damn about what he
does?

>
> > you can see why the emphasis on 'food' and 'car wax' would lead me to
this
> > conclusion. i hardly think that this justifies calling me a 'dummy.'
there
> > is no need to name-call. you people need to learn to get along with
others.
> >
> >
> >>although he is. The problem is "veganism" in general,
> >>with its attendant Irrational Search for Micrograms,
> >>and the problem is compounded by this asshole obsessing
> >>over ****ing CAR WAX!
> >>
> >>"veganism" is a thoroughly bogus "philosophy"; the word
> >>"philosophy" must be put in quotes (of derision) when
> >>using it to describe "veganism", as it isn't a
> >>philosophy at all. It's a pseudo-philosophy. The idea
> >>that avoiding the consumption of Animal Parts makes one
> >>"more ethical" is patently absurd. That this ****wit
> >>extends it all the way to ****ING CAR WAX! illustrates
> >>the depths of depravity to which people will sink in
> >>their search for easy solutions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

katie wrote:

> "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>katie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>katie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
>>>>>>This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
>>>>>>"vegan" CAR WAX!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>don't you think it's kinda funny that you're reaming this guy out for
>
> asking
>
>>>>>about a non-food vegan item on a vegan food site (presumably the
>
> problem
>
>>>>>being that he's off-topic) when you're debating vegan philosophy on a
>
> vegan
>
>>>>>food site?
>>>>
>>>>No, dummy. The problem is not one of being off-topic,
>>>
>>>
>>>pardon me. i assumed that the problem was that he was off-topic,
>>>considering your reply:
>>>"It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
>>> This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
>>>"vegan" CAR WAX!"
>>
>>The problem is that he is agonizing over a great big
>>moral NOTHING.
>
>
> what do you care?

What do YOU care that I care?

> lots of people agonize over what are moral 'nothings' in
> the eyes of others, not just vegans.

I criticize them, too.

> personally, i think it's pretty odd
> that strict jewish folks have whole different sides of the kitchen and whole
> different sets of dishes even, for keeping dairy and meat separate. but
> hey, they believe in it, so what if it makes no sense to me? that may be a
> religious thing, but it is a moral issue to them,

No, it is purely a religious issue.

> just like vegansim is a
> moral issue to this guy. if he wants to spend countless hours lamenting
> over finding just the right car wax to make his beloved car pretty, then
> hey, that's his thing.

It's my thing to rip him for it, and to use it as a
vehicle for pointing out the overall stupidity of
"veganism".

> why waste so much energy giving a damn about what he
> does?

Not much energy at all.

"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> katie wrote:
>
> > "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>katie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>katie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> >>>>>>This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> >>>>>>"vegan" CAR WAX!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>don't you think it's kinda funny that you're reaming this guy out for
> >
> > asking
> >
> >>>>>about a non-food vegan item on a vegan food site (presumably the
> >
> > problem
> >
> >>>>>being that he's off-topic) when you're debating vegan philosophy on a
> >
> > vegan
> >
> >>>>>food site?
> >>>>
> >>>>No, dummy. The problem is not one of being off-topic,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>pardon me. i assumed that the problem was that he was off-topic,
> >>>considering your reply:
> >>>"It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> >>> This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> >>>"vegan" CAR WAX!"
> >>
> >>The problem is that he is agonizing over a great big
> >>moral NOTHING.
> >
> >
> > what do you care?
>
> What do YOU care that I care?

i guess i just care because being unkind to others isn't cool, especially
when they are just asking for product advice, rather than a lifestyle
critique.

>
> > lots of people agonize over what are moral 'nothings' in
> > the eyes of others, not just vegans.
>
> I criticize them, too.
>
> > personally, i think it's pretty odd
> > that strict jewish folks have whole different sides of the kitchen and
whole
> > different sets of dishes even, for keeping dairy and meat separate. but
> > hey, they believe in it, so what if it makes no sense to me? that may
be a
> > religious thing, but it is a moral issue to them,
>
> No, it is purely a religious issue.
>
> > just like vegansim is a
> > moral issue to this guy. if he wants to spend countless hours lamenting
> > over finding just the right car wax to make his beloved car pretty, then
> > hey, that's his thing.
>
> It's my thing to rip him for it, and to use it as a
> vehicle for pointing out the overall stupidity of
> "veganism".
>
> > why waste so much energy giving a damn about what he
> > does?
>
> Not much energy at all.
>

"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> Ron wrote:
>
> > "Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rubystars wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message
> >>>>><snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"veganism" is an irrational way of thinking. The
> >>>>>>Search for Micrograms is proof. You are *obsessing*
> >>>>>>over stupid minutiae.
> >>>>>
> >>>>><snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tell me this, how are they supposed to win?
> >>>>
> >>>>Abandon their belief in a fatally flawed "philosophy",
> >>>>one that is PURELY about adhering to a consumption
> >>>>rule. THAT'S how they win. They can't win if they're
> >>>>going to stand by their WRONG belief that refraining
>
> >>>>from consuming animal parts is a moral choice. It isn't.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Regardless of whether you feel it's a legitimate moral position, they've
> >>>chosen to abstain from these products as a moral choice. This is a newsgroup
> >>>dedicated to vegans
> >>
> >>It's a newsgroup ostensibly dedicated to "vegan" FOOD.
> >> This asswipe started asking about (jesus christ!)
> >>"vegan" CAR WAX!
> >>
> >>
> >>>so it's really silly for you to complain that vegans
> >>>come here and ask vegan-related questions.
> >>
> >>I'm here, and I'm not leaving. I think "veganism" in
> >>general is stupid, and I think the degree of
> >>shit-minded obsession that leads some moron to worry
> >>himself sick over "vegan" CAR ****ING WAX is evidence
> >>of mental illness.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>If they don't obssess over
> >>>>>micrograms/minutiae, and wear leather shoes, or eat vegetable soup in
> >>>>>chicken broth etc. the anti-vegans call them hypocrites, and if they do try
> >>>>>to be consistent with their stated beliefs, then the anti-vegans accuse
> >>>>>them of having no life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That doesn't seem very fair.
> >>>>
> >>>>That's their problem, for thinking in the first place
> >>>>that a consumption rule will lead to ethical virtue.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Abstaining from animal products is a part of their philosophy,
> >>
> >>A bad, invalid, bankrupt philosophy. Extending it to
> >>****ING CAR WAX is all the proof you need.
> >>
> >>
> >>>a philosophy
> >>>this newsgroup is about. It doesn't matter if you think it's the dumbest
> >>>idea you've ever heard. They have a right to hold it.
> >>
> >>And in no way, nor at any time, did I suggest they
> >>didn't. This isn't about their "right" to think weird
> >>thoughts; it's about my entirely on-target criticism of
> >>the weird, irrational thoughts themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Is that idiot Ball now posing as Freddy Rice?
>
> It wouldn't occur to you to address the issue of the
> Irrational Search for Micrograms itself, would it, Ronnie?







Wouldn't I be "*obsessing* over stupid minutiae" if I did that?