what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
custoimer when say they this or that.

Is many time customer tellme not to use oil of animal when to fry things.
Ming not to do! Use only of vegatable oils to make for good crispy, but
some say they not even want that.
ok then to make for salad of fruits to be happy

"Ming with eggroll" >
wrote in message
ink.net...
> what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
> custoimer when say they this or that.

The difference is that vegetarians will typically eat some combination
of dairy and eggs while vegans will eat neither. However there is a
lot of variability in people who call themselves vegetarian. It's
probably a good idea to just ask them what their specific eating
preferences are.

> Is many time customer tellme not to use oil of animal when to fry
things.
> Ming not to do! Use only of vegatable oils to make for good crispy,
but
> some say they not even want that.

Vegetable oil is okay for most vegetarians. However, some health
conscious people prefer no fried foods at all.

> ok then to make for salad of fruits to be happy

I don't think anyone would complain about that!

Ming with eggroll wrote:

> what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
> custoimer when say they this or that.
>
> Is many time customer tellme not to use oil of animal when to fry things.
> Ming not to do! Use only of vegatable oils to make for good crispy, but
> some say they not even want that.
> ok then to make for salad of fruits to be happy
>
>


From
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...smDefined.html


There has been a lot of confusion over what "vegetarians" do and do not
eat. Basically vegetarians do not eat animals. Science defines kingdom
"Animalia" more or less as any life form that is not a plant including
fish, birds, pigs, cows, lobsters etc.


Definition: quoted from WWWebster http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary :
Main Entry: veg·e·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: -E-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: circa 1851
: the theory or practice of living on a diet made up of vegetables,
fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products


Definition: quoted from WWWebster http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary :

Main Entry: veg·an
Pronunciation: 'vE-g&n also 'vA- also 've-j&n or -"jan
Function: noun
Etymology: by contraction from vegetarian
Date: 1944
: a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products;
also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather)



Definition: quoted from Britannica.com
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/ar...html?kw=animal
animal (kingdom Animalia),
any of a group of multicellular eukaryotic organisms (i.e., as distinct
from bacteria, their deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is contained in a
membrane-bound nucleus). They are thought to have evolved independently
from the unicellular eukaryotes. Animals differ from members of the two
other kingdoms of multicellular eukaryotes, the plants (Plantae) and the
fungi (Mycota), in fundamental variations in morphology and physiology.
This is largely because animals have developed muscles and hence
mobility, a characteristic that has stimulated the further development
of tissues and organ systems.



Definitions: quoted from the FAQ at The International Vegetarian Union site:
Vegan: excludes animal flesh (meat, poultry, fish and seafood), animal
products (eggs and dairy), and usually excludes honey and the wearing
and use of animal products (leather, silk, wool, lanolin, gelatin...).
The major vegan societies all disallow honey, but some "vegans" still
use it. Some "vegans" also refuse to eat yeast products.

Dietary Vegan: follows a vegan diet, but doesn't necessarily try and
exclude non-food uses of animals.

Vegetarian: usually broken down further into OVO-LACTO, and LACTO.
Vegetarians may or may not try and minimize their non food use of
animals like vegans.

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk
products. This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism.

Lacto Vegetarian: Same as VEGAN, but also eats milk products.

Veggie -- Shortened nick-name for a VEGETARIAN; often includes VEGANs.

Strict vegetarian: originally meant vegan, now can mean vegan or vegetarian.

The term 'Vegetarian' was coined in 1847. It was first formally used on
September 30th of that year by Joseph Brotherton and others, at
Northwood Villa in Kent, England. The occasion being the inaugural
meeting of the Vegetarian Society of the United Kingdom.

The word was derived from the Latin 'vegetus', meaning whole, sound,
fresh, lively; (it should not be confused with 'vegetable-arian' - a
mythical human whom some imagine subsisting entirely on vegetables but
no nuts, fruits, grains etc.!)

Prior to 1847, non-meat eaters were generally known as 'Pythagoreans' or
adherents of the 'Pythagorean System', after the ancient Greek
'vegetarian' Pythagoras.

The original definition of 'vegetarian' was "with or without eggs or
dairy products" and that definition is still used by the Vegetarian
Society today. However, most vegetarians in India exclude eggs from
their diet as did those in the classical Mediterranean lands, such as
Pythagoras.

Definitions of some other confusing terms

Semi-Vegetarian: Eats less meat than average person. See also PSEUDO
VEGETARIAN.

Pseudo Vegetarian: Claims to be vegetarian, but isn't. Often used by
VEGETARIANS to describe SEMI-VEGETARIANs, and PESCETARIANs.

Pescetarian: Same as VEGETARIAN, but also consumes fish. (often is a
person avoiding factory farming techniques...) See also PSEUDO VEGETARIAN.

Fruitarian: Same as VEGAN, but only eats foods that don't kill the plant
(apples can be picked without killing plant, carrots cannot).

Vegetable Consumer: Means anyone who consumes vegetables. Not
necessarily a VEGETARIAN.

Herbivo Mainly eats grass or plants. Not necessarily a VEGETARIAN.

Plant Eater: Mainly eats plants. Not necessarily a VEGETARIAN.

Nonmeat-Eater: Does not eat meat. Most definitions do not consider fish,
fowl or seafood to be meat. Animal fats and oils, bone meal and skin are
not considered meat.

Kosher: Made according to a complex set of Jewish dietary laws. Does not
imply VEGAN in any case. Does not imply OVO-LACTO VEGETARIAN in any
case. Even KOSHER products containing milk products may contain some
types of animals which are not considered 'meat'.

Pareve/Parve: One category in KOSHER dietary laws. Made without meat or
milk products or their derivatives. Eggs and true fish are pareve,
shellfish are not.

Nondairy: Does not have enough percentage of milk fat to be called
dairy. May actually contain milk or milk derivatives.

Non meat: Made without meat. May include eggs, milk, cheese. Sometimes
even included animal fats, seafood, fish, fowl.
Why Vegan?

VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which seeks to exclude, as
far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing with *all*
animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, animal milks,
honey, and their derivatives.

Abhorrence of the cruel practices inherent in dairy, livestock and
poultry farming is probably the single most common reason for the
adoption of veganism, but many people are drawn to it for health,
ecological, spiritual and other reasons.

"Land, energy and water resources for livestock agriculture range
anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than those necessary to produce
an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock agriculture does not
merely *use* these resources, it *depletes* them. This is a matter of
historical record. Most of the world's soil, erosion, groundwater
depletion, and deforestation -- factors now threatening the very basis
of our food system -- are the result of this particularly destructive
form of food production" (Keith Akers, p. 81, "A Vegetarian Source
book", 1989).

Words commonly used:

Vegan: excludes animal flesh (meat, poultry, fish and seafood), animal
products (eggs and dairy), and usually excludes honey and the wearing
and use of animal products (leather, silk, wool, lanolin, gelatin...).
The major vegan societies all disallow honey, but some "vegans" still
use it.

Strict vegetarian: originally meant vegan, now can mean vegan or
vegetarian. Pure vegetarian: as per strict vegetarian.

How is "vegan" Pronounced?

The word was invented by Donald Watson in the 1940's. It is pronounced
"vee-gun". This is the most common pronunciation in the UK today. No one
can say this pronunciation in "wrong", so this is also the politically
correct pronunciation.

In the US, common pronunciations are "vee-jan" and "vay-gn" in addition
to "vee-gn", though the American Vegan Society says the correct
pronunciation is as per the UK.

The UK, and US and other places have other pronunciations. This is
sometimes a touchy subject, so be prepared to change your pronunciation....

A little history

Here are some of Donald's own words from the early years (1945):

'Vegetarian' and 'Fruitarian' are already associated with societies that
allow the 'fruits' of cows and fowls, therefore.. we must make a new and
appropriate word... I have used the title 'The Vegan News'. Should we
adopt this, our diet will soon become known as the vegan diet and we
should aspire to the rank of vegans.

--
Steve
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

"The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen
on television or bought in a shopping mall"

C. James Putz wrote:

>>what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
>>custoimer when say they this or that.
>
> The difference is that vegetarians will typically eat some combination
> of dairy and eggs while vegans will eat neither.

Wrong. Vegans make food political; veganism is an eating disorder characterized
by extreme leftwing ideology and dogma pertaining to micrograms of animal parts
in food. The politics of veganism is inseparable from the issue of food -- it is
sine qua non. There are also some vegetarians who are politically motivated, but
one can be a vegetarian without a political axe to grind. One cannot be vegan
without embracing the extremist politics of the far out left.

> However there is a
> lot of variability in people who call themselves vegetarian. It's
> probably a good idea to just ask them what their specific eating
> preferences are.

Which is why restaurants have menus in the first place.

<...>

Steve wrote:
<...>
> Semi-Vegetarian: Eats less meat than average person. See also PSEUDO
> VEGETARIAN.
>
> Pseudo Vegetarian: Claims to be vegetarian, but isn't. Often used by
> VEGETARIANS to describe SEMI-VEGETARIANs, and PESCETARIANs.
>
> Pescetarian: Same as VEGETARIAN, but also consumes fish. (often is a
> person avoiding factory farming techniques...) See also PSEUDO VEGETARIAN.

The word FLEXITARIAN ecompasses all the above.

http://www.wordspy.com/words/flexitarian.asp
http://healing.about.com/b/a/072788.htm
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...ies/01life.htm

<...>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ming with eggroll" >
> wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
> > custoimer when say they this or that.
>
> The difference is that vegetarians will typically eat some combination
> of dairy and eggs while vegans will eat neither. However there is a
> lot of variability in people who call themselves vegetarian. It's
> probably a good idea to just ask them what their specific eating
> preferences are.
>
> > Is many time customer tellme not to use oil of animal when to fry
> things.
> > Ming not to do! Use only of vegatable oils to make for good crispy,
> but
> > some say they not even want that.
>
> Vegetable oil is okay for most vegetarians. However, some health
> conscious people prefer no fried foods at all.
>
> > ok then to make for salad of fruits to be happy
>
> I don't think anyone would complain about that!
>
>
Thanks you for your kind input C. James Strutz. I see someonebody want to
argue with you, be he know also many things. Is not to argue, but to find
all ways of answers, so I talk to him too. I like your answer and can see
that way too. I use no MSG which peepole alltime ask not to use.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Putz wrote:
>
> >>what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
> >>custoimer when say they this or that.
> >
> > The difference is that vegetarians will typically eat some combination
> > of dairy and eggs while vegans will eat neither.
>
> Wrong. Vegans make food political; veganism is an eating disorder
characterized
> by extreme leftwing ideology and dogma pertaining to micrograms of animal
parts
> in food. The politics of veganism is inseparable from the issue of food --
it is
> sine qua non. There are also some vegetarians who are politically
motivated, but
> one can be a vegetarian without a political axe to grind. One cannot be
vegan
> without embracing the extremist politics of the far out left.
>
> > However there is a
> > lot of variability in people who call themselves vegetarian. It's
> > probably a good idea to just ask them what their specific eating
> > preferences are.
>
> Which is why restaurants have menus in the first place.
>
> <...>
>
First to say thank you for support our US troop in your maill address. My
son there in Afghanistan and then to Iraq now so he know all thing how you
feel and he gratefull too for everyone to support.

Ok this wonder now, if one to call self vegan, and then to eat of something
that not know have animal part in, is then not vegan? like this; if not
want to do, but then find out it done (like crab flavor of cream cheese,
since crab was used to make flavor, but then not know till swallow and too
late).
Is not like losing virginity not to have back ever, is this feeling of
person that one time do and feel let self down?
I think it only of practice regular to make vegan style or vegitarian or
even carnivorous way, so why someone wan to make only one way all time?
I may hard to understand and spelling not good, but I do make very best
vegable stir-fry.
Now I add sunflower seed to vegable stir-fry for everyone!
Hope you enjoy.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Ming with eggroll wrote:
>
> > what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
> > custoimer when say they this or that.
> >
> > Is many time customer tellme not to use oil of animal when to fry
things.
> > Ming not to do! Use only of vegatable oils to make for good crispy, but
> > some say they not even want that.
> > ok then to make for salad of fruits to be happy
> >
> >
>
>
> From
> http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...smDefined.html
>
>
> There has been a lot of confusion over what "vegetarians" do and do not
> eat. Basically vegetarians do not eat animals. Science defines kingdom
> "Animalia" more or less as any life form that is not a plant including
> fish, birds, pigs, cows, lobsters etc.
>
>
> Definition: quoted from WWWebster http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary :
> Main Entry: veg·e·tar·i·an·ism
> Pronunciation: -E-&-"ni-z&m
> Function: noun
> Date: circa 1851
> : the theory or practice of living on a diet made up of vegetables,
> fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products
>
>
> Definition: quoted from WWWebster http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary :
>
> Main Entry: veg·an
> Pronunciation: 'vE-g&n also 'vA- also 've-j&n or -"jan
> Function: noun
> Etymology: by contraction from vegetarian
> Date: 1944
> : a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products;
> also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather)
>
>
>
> Definition: quoted from Britannica.com
>
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/ar...html?kw=animal
> animal (kingdom Animalia),
> any of a group of multicellular eukaryotic organisms (i.e., as distinct
> from bacteria, their deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is contained in a
> membrane-bound nucleus). They are thought to have evolved independently
> from the unicellular eukaryotes. Animals differ from members of the two
> other kingdoms of multicellular eukaryotes, the plants (Plantae) and the
> fungi (Mycota), in fundamental variations in morphology and physiology.
> This is largely because animals have developed muscles and hence
> mobility, a characteristic that has stimulated the further development
> of tissues and organ systems.
>
>
>
> Definitions: quoted from the FAQ at The International Vegetarian Union
site:
> Vegan: excludes animal flesh (meat, poultry, fish and seafood), animal
> products (eggs and dairy), and usually excludes honey and the wearing
> and use of animal products (leather, silk, wool, lanolin, gelatin...).
> The major vegan societies all disallow honey, but some "vegans" still
> use it. Some "vegans" also refuse to eat yeast products.
>
> Dietary Vegan: follows a vegan diet, but doesn't necessarily try and
> exclude non-food uses of animals.
>
> Vegetarian: usually broken down further into OVO-LACTO, and LACTO.
> Vegetarians may or may not try and minimize their non food use of
> animals like vegans.
>
> Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk
> products. This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism.
>
> Lacto Vegetarian: Same as VEGAN, but also eats milk products.
>
> Veggie -- Shortened nick-name for a VEGETARIAN; often includes VEGANs.
>
> Strict vegetarian: originally meant vegan, now can mean vegan or
vegetarian.
>
> The term 'Vegetarian' was coined in 1847. It was first formally used on
> September 30th of that year by Joseph Brotherton and others, at
> Northwood Villa in Kent, England. The occasion being the inaugural
> meeting of the Vegetarian Society of the United Kingdom.
>
> The word was derived from the Latin 'vegetus', meaning whole, sound,
> fresh, lively; (it should not be confused with 'vegetable-arian' - a
> mythical human whom some imagine subsisting entirely on vegetables but
> no nuts, fruits, grains etc.!)
>
> Prior to 1847, non-meat eaters were generally known as 'Pythagoreans' or
> adherents of the 'Pythagorean System', after the ancient Greek
> 'vegetarian' Pythagoras.
>
> The original definition of 'vegetarian' was "with or without eggs or
> dairy products" and that definition is still used by the Vegetarian
> Society today. However, most vegetarians in India exclude eggs from
> their diet as did those in the classical Mediterranean lands, such as
> Pythagoras.
>
> Definitions of some other confusing terms
>
> Semi-Vegetarian: Eats less meat than average person. See also PSEUDO
> VEGETARIAN.
>
> Pseudo Vegetarian: Claims to be vegetarian, but isn't. Often used by
> VEGETARIANS to describe SEMI-VEGETARIANs, and PESCETARIANs.
>
> Pescetarian: Same as VEGETARIAN, but also consumes fish. (often is a
> person avoiding factory farming techniques...) See also PSEUDO VEGETARIAN.
>
> Fruitarian: Same as VEGAN, but only eats foods that don't kill the plant
> (apples can be picked without killing plant, carrots cannot).
>
> Vegetable Consumer: Means anyone who consumes vegetables. Not
> necessarily a VEGETARIAN.
>
> Herbivo Mainly eats grass or plants. Not necessarily a VEGETARIAN.
>
> Plant Eater: Mainly eats plants. Not necessarily a VEGETARIAN.
>
> Nonmeat-Eater: Does not eat meat. Most definitions do not consider fish,
> fowl or seafood to be meat. Animal fats and oils, bone meal and skin are
> not considered meat.
>
> Kosher: Made according to a complex set of Jewish dietary laws. Does not
> imply VEGAN in any case. Does not imply OVO-LACTO VEGETARIAN in any
> case. Even KOSHER products containing milk products may contain some
> types of animals which are not considered 'meat'.
>
> Pareve/Parve: One category in KOSHER dietary laws. Made without meat or
> milk products or their derivatives. Eggs and true fish are pareve,
> shellfish are not.
>
> Nondairy: Does not have enough percentage of milk fat to be called
> dairy. May actually contain milk or milk derivatives.
>
> Non meat: Made without meat. May include eggs, milk, cheese. Sometimes
> even included animal fats, seafood, fish, fowl.
> Why Vegan?
>
> VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which seeks to exclude, as
> far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
> to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
>
> In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing with *all*
> animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, animal milks,
> honey, and their derivatives.
>
> Abhorrence of the cruel practices inherent in dairy, livestock and
> poultry farming is probably the single most common reason for the
> adoption of veganism, but many people are drawn to it for health,
> ecological, spiritual and other reasons.
>
> "Land, energy and water resources for livestock agriculture range
> anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than those necessary to produce
> an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock agriculture does not
> merely *use* these resources, it *depletes* them. This is a matter of
> historical record. Most of the world's soil, erosion, groundwater
> depletion, and deforestation -- factors now threatening the very basis
> of our food system -- are the result of this particularly destructive
> form of food production" (Keith Akers, p. 81, "A Vegetarian Source
> book", 1989).
>
> Words commonly used:
>
> Vegan: excludes animal flesh (meat, poultry, fish and seafood), animal
> products (eggs and dairy), and usually excludes honey and the wearing
> and use of animal products (leather, silk, wool, lanolin, gelatin...).
> The major vegan societies all disallow honey, but some "vegans" still
> use it.
>
> Strict vegetarian: originally meant vegan, now can mean vegan or
> vegetarian. Pure vegetarian: as per strict vegetarian.
>
> How is "vegan" Pronounced?
>
> The word was invented by Donald Watson in the 1940's. It is pronounced
> "vee-gun". This is the most common pronunciation in the UK today. No one
> can say this pronunciation in "wrong", so this is also the politically
> correct pronunciation.
>
> In the US, common pronunciations are "vee-jan" and "vay-gn" in addition
> to "vee-gn", though the American Vegan Society says the correct
> pronunciation is as per the UK.
>
> The UK, and US and other places have other pronunciations. This is
> sometimes a touchy subject, so be prepared to change your
pronunciation....
>
> A little history
>
> Here are some of Donald's own words from the early years (1945):
>
> 'Vegetarian' and 'Fruitarian' are already associated with societies that
> allow the 'fruits' of cows and fowls, therefore.. we must make a new and
> appropriate word... I have used the title 'The Vegan News'. Should we
> adopt this, our diet will soon become known as the vegan diet and we
> should aspire to the rank of vegans.
>
> --
> Steve
> http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/
>
> "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen
> on television or bought in a shopping mall"

Thanks you Steve. This all very interesting and learned.
I make you special watermelon with grapes bowl.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Steve wrote:
> <...>
> > Semi-Vegetarian: Eats less meat than average person. See also PSEUDO
> > VEGETARIAN.
> >
> > Pseudo Vegetarian: Claims to be vegetarian, but isn't. Often used by
> > VEGETARIANS to describe SEMI-VEGETARIANs, and PESCETARIANs.
> >
> > Pescetarian: Same as VEGETARIAN, but also consumes fish. (often is a
> > person avoiding factory farming techniques...) See also PSEUDO
VEGETARIAN.
>
> The word FLEXITARIAN ecompasses all the above.
>
> http://www.wordspy.com/words/flexitarian.asp
> http://healing.about.com/b/a/072788.htm
> http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...ies/01life.htm
>
> <...>

this all good to know too. thanks you.

"RiverRat" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ming with eggroll"
>
> > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right
for
> > > custoimer when say they this or that.
> >
> > The difference is that vegetarians will typically eat some
combination
> > of dairy and eggs while vegans will eat neither. However there is
a
> > lot of variability in people who call themselves vegetarian. It's
> > probably a good idea to just ask them what their specific eating
> > preferences are.
> >
> > > Is many time customer tellme not to use oil of animal when to
fry
> > things.
> > > Ming not to do! Use only of vegatable oils to make for good
crispy,
> > but
> > > some say they not even want that.
> >
> > Vegetable oil is okay for most vegetarians. However, some health
> > conscious people prefer no fried foods at all.
> >
> > > ok then to make for salad of fruits to be happy
> >
> > I don't think anyone would complain about that!
> >
> >
> Thanks you for your kind input C. James Strutz. I see someonebody
want to
> argue with you, be he know also many things.

You're welcome. Usual Suspect argues with a lot of people. I certainly
don't feel singled out.

> Is not to argue, but to find
> all ways of answers, so I talk to him too. I like your answer and
can see
> that way too. I use no MSG which peepole alltime ask not to use.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Be warned, however, that Usual Suspect often
takes a position contrary to vegans because he disagrees with their
personal choices. Though he sometimes does offer good culinary advice,
it's up to you to decide whether his advice is politically charged or
not.

Where is your restaurant, Ming? It sounds like a place I would visit.

Ming with eggroll > wrote
in message ink.net...
> what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
> custoimer when say they this or that.
>
> Is many time customer tellme not to use oil of animal when to fry things.
> Ming not to do! Use only of vegatable oils to make for good crispy, but
> some say they not even want that.
> ok then to make for salad of fruits to be happy
>

A Vegetarian diet excludes meat, fish and poultry and all products
containing them or their derivatives. Food additives from animal sources are
also excluded..

A Vegetarian diet may, however, include eggs milk cheese and honey.

A Vegan diet excludes all animal and dairy products and their derivatives -
no flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, milk and cheese.

Some Vegans accept honey but strictly speaking it should also be excluded.

Hope this helps.

Nemo.

Vegan for 36 years and still alive, I tell you!!!! :O)

"RiverRat" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steve wrote:
> > <...>
> > > Semi-Vegetarian: Eats less meat than average person. See also
PSEUDO
> > > VEGETARIAN.
> > >
> > > Pseudo Vegetarian: Claims to be vegetarian, but isn't. Often
used by
> > > VEGETARIANS to describe SEMI-VEGETARIANs, and PESCETARIANs.
> > >
> > > Pescetarian: Same as VEGETARIAN, but also consumes fish. (often
is a
> > > person avoiding factory farming techniques...) See also PSEUDO
> VEGETARIAN.
> >
> > The word FLEXITARIAN ecompasses all the above.
> >
> > http://www.wordspy.com/words/flexitarian.asp
> > http://healing.about.com/b/a/072788.htm
> >
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...ies/01life.htm
> >
> > <...>
>
> this all good to know too. thanks you.

One caveat with using the word "flexitarian" is that it is unfamiliar
to most of the general public, including those who might consider
themselves flexitarian. It does not and probably will never have the
same familiarity as words like "vegetarian" or "vegan".

RiverRat > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C. James Putz wrote:
> >
> > >>what is difference for me to learn so I can make good food right for
> > >>custoimer when say they this or that.
> > >
> > > The difference is that vegetarians will typically eat some combination
> > > of dairy and eggs while vegans will eat neither.
> >
> > Wrong. Vegans make food political; veganism is an eating disorder
> characterized
> > by extreme leftwing ideology and dogma pertaining to micrograms of
animal
> parts
> > in food. The politics of veganism is inseparable from the issue of
food --
> it is
> > sine qua non. There are also some vegetarians who are politically
> motivated, but
> > one can be a vegetarian without a political axe to grind. One cannot be
> vegan
> > without embracing the extremist politics of the far out left.
> >
> > > However there is a
> > > lot of variability in people who call themselves vegetarian. It's
> > > probably a good idea to just ask them what their specific eating
> > > preferences are.
> >
> > Which is why restaurants have menus in the first place.
> >
> > <...>
> >
> First to say thank you for support our US troop in your maill address. My
> son there in Afghanistan and then to Iraq now so he know all thing how you
> feel and he gratefull too for everyone to support.
>
> Ok this wonder now, if one to call self vegan, and then to eat of
something
> that not know have animal part in, is then not vegan?

If you have chosen to follow a Vegan diet but accidentally eat something
animal without knowing it is, then this does not disqualify you from being
Vegan.

like this; if not
> want to do, but then find out it done (like crab flavor of cream cheese,
> since crab was used to make flavor, but then not know till swallow and too
> late).

Food flavourings are usually synthetic these days. The problem is: in many
countries including the UK, there is no legal requirement to state on a
packet precisely which food flavourings have been used.

> Is not like losing virginity not to have back ever, is this feeling of
> person that one time do and feel let self down?
> I think it only of practice regular to make vegan style or vegitarian or
> even carnivorous way, so why someone wan to make only one way all time?
> I may hard to understand and spelling not good, but I do make very best
> vegable stir-fry.
> Now I add sunflower seed to vegable stir-fry for everyone!
> Hope you enjoy.
>
Try adding plenty of garlic, and at the very end when it is off the heat,
chopped olives.

}... . . . . . .
..

RiverRat > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steve wrote:
> > <...>
> > > Semi-Vegetarian: Eats less meat than average person. See also PSEUDO
> > > VEGETARIAN.
> > >
> > > Pseudo Vegetarian: Claims to be vegetarian, but isn't. Often used by
> > > VEGETARIANS to describe SEMI-VEGETARIANs, and PESCETARIANs.
> > >
> > > Pescetarian: Same as VEGETARIAN, but also consumes fish. (often is a
> > > person avoiding factory farming techniques...) See also PSEUDO
> VEGETARIAN.
> >
> > The word FLEXITARIAN ecompasses all the above.
> >
> > http://www.wordspy.com/words/flexitarian.asp
> > http://healing.about.com/b/a/072788.htm
> > http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...ies/01life.htm
> >
> > <...>
>
> this all good to know too. thanks you.
>
And then there are people who become Vegetarian for the sake of the animals:
Ethical Vegetarians, and then there are those who become Vegetarian for the
sake of their health or their weight. We used to call them "Belly
Veggies"!!!

)

C. James Putz wrote:
<...>
> You're welcome. Usual Suspect argues with a lot of people.

I get along with most people. I also correct others in some situations. Stop
exaggerating that with "arguing."

> I certainly don't feel singled out.

You shouldn't: you singled me out this time.

>>Is not to argue, but to find
>>all ways of answers, so I talk to him too. I like your answer and
> can see
>>that way too. I use no MSG which peepole alltime ask not to use.
>
> Yeah, that's a good idea. Be warned, however, that Usual Suspect often
> takes a position contrary to vegans because he disagrees with their
> personal choices.

It isn't about personal choices, it's about their claims. It's also about their
violation of laws depsite calling themselves ethical persons.

> Though he sometimes does offer good culinary advice,

I *always* offer excellent culinary advice.

> it's up to you to decide whether his advice is politically charged or
> not.

You leftists shouldn't cry foul when your own politically charged remarks are
called into question.

<...>

nemo wrote:

<...>
> Some Vegans accept honey but strictly speaking it should also be excluded.

Why?

<...>

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>>The word FLEXITARIAN ecompasses all the above.
>>>
>>>http://www.wordspy.com/words/flexitarian.asp
>>>http://healing.about.com/b/a/072788.htm
>>>
>
> http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...ies/01life.htm
>
>>this all good to know too. thanks you.
>
> One caveat with using the word "flexitarian" is that it is unfamiliar
> to most of the general public,

As if VEGAN is understood by the general public.

> including those who might consider
> themselves flexitarian. It does not and probably will never have the
> same familiarity as words like "vegetarian" or "vegan".

I disagree with you over the general familiarity of both of those words,
especially given the context in which I raised flexitarianism. Many people
define vegetarianism in such a way as to include poultry and seafood -- IOW, the
avoidance of mammalian flesh. Most people have no freaking idea what vegan
means, except for those who treat food as politics rather than nutrition,
communal activity, etc., and those who've had the profound displeasure of
encountering such people.

nemo wrote:
<...>
> And then there are people who become Vegetarian for the sake of the animals:
> Ethical Vegetarians,

Oxymoronic. Food isn't about politics except to twisted souls with eating
disorders. A vegetarian diet is no more ethical than any other -- indeed, it can
lead to far more harm to animals than a diet that includes meat.

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
> > You're welcome. Usual Suspect argues with a lot of people.
>
> I get along with most people. I also correct others in some
situations. Stop
> exaggerating that with "arguing."

It's not an exaggeration, you are very argumentative with almost
everyone in this newsgroup.

> > I certainly don't feel singled out.
>
> You shouldn't: you singled me out this time.

Uh, the previous poster is the one who noticed that you were
argumentative. Go back and read it.

> >>Is not to argue, but to find
> >>all ways of answers, so I talk to him too. I like your answer
and
> > can see
> >>that way too. I use no MSG which peepole alltime ask not to use.
> >
> > Yeah, that's a good idea. Be warned, however, that Usual Suspect
often
> > takes a position contrary to vegans because he disagrees with
their
> > personal choices.
>
> It isn't about personal choices, it's about their claims. It's also
about their
> violation of laws depsite calling themselves ethical persons.

You badger anyone who calls themselves "vegan", even if they don't
make any "claims".

> > Though he sometimes does offer good culinary advice,
>
> I *always* offer excellent culinary advice.

I can't disagree with you on this.

> > it's up to you to decide whether his advice is politically charged
or
> > not.
>
> You leftists shouldn't cry foul when your own politically charged
remarks are
> called into question.

I'm not leftist and I don't make any politically charged remarks.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
> >>>The word FLEXITARIAN ecompasses all the above.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.wordspy.com/words/flexitarian.asp
> >>>http://healing.about.com/b/a/072788.htm
> >>>
> >
> >
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...ies/01life.htm
> >
> >>this all good to know too. thanks you.
> >
> > One caveat with using the word "flexitarian" is that it is
unfamiliar
> > to most of the general public,
>
> As if VEGAN is understood by the general public.

I assure you that more people will know what "vegan" means than what
"flexitarian" means. Why don't you take a poll and report back to us.

> > including those who might consider
> > themselves flexitarian. It does not and probably will never have
the
> > same familiarity as words like "vegetarian" or "vegan".
>
> I disagree with you over the general familiarity of both of those
words,
> especially given the context in which I raised flexitarianism. Many
people
> define vegetarianism in such a way as to include poultry and
seafood -- IOW, the
> avoidance of mammalian flesh. Most people have no freaking idea what
vegan
> means, except for those who treat food as politics rather than
nutrition,
> communal activity, etc., and those who've had the profound
displeasure of
> encountering such people.

I will agree that "vegetarian" can be a confusing term since it means
different things to different people, as you suggest. And I bet you
would be surprised to find how many people DO know what "vegan" means.
Almost nobody will know what "flexitarian" means.

usual suspect > wrote in message
...
> nemo wrote:
> <...>
> > And then there are people who become Vegetarian for the sake of the
animals:
> > Ethical Vegetarians,
>
> Oxymoronic. Food isn't about politics except to twisted souls with eating
> disorders. A vegetarian diet is no more ethical than any other -- indeed,
it can
> lead to far more harm to animals than a diet that includes meat.
>

To the tune of the tune:

Moan moan moan went the troll, he,
Then got thrown off the bus.
When his head hit the pavement,
No brain, just a big pile of puss!

usual suspect > wrote in message
...
> nemo wrote:
>
> <...>
> > Some Vegans accept honey but strictly speaking it should also be
excluded.
>
> Why?
>
Whine not!

To the tune of the tune:

Moan moan moan went the troll, he,
Then got thrown off the bus.
When his head hit the pavement,
No brain, just a big pile of puss!

>

Why? Do they all have hernias?

"nemo" > wrote in message
...
>
> usual suspect > wrote in message
> ...
> > nemo wrote:
> > <...>
> > > And then there are people who become Vegetarian for the sake of the
> animals:
> > > Ethical Vegetarians,
> >
> > Oxymoronic. Food isn't about politics except to twisted souls with
eating
> > disorders. A vegetarian diet is no more ethical than any other --
indeed,
> it can
> > lead to far more harm to animals than a diet that includes meat.
> >
>
> To the tune of the tune:
>
> Moan moan moan went the troll, he,
> Then got thrown off the bus.
> When his head hit the pavement,
> No brain, just a big pile of puss!
=====================
I see you cannot refute that little factoid, eh killer?


>
>

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>You're welcome. Usual Suspect argues with a lot of people.
>>
>>I get along with most people. I also correct others in some
>>situations. Stop exaggerating that with "arguing."
>
> It's not an exaggeration,

Yes, it is.

> you are very argumentative with almost
> everyone in this newsgroup.

No. You're confusing challenging their halfwitted claims with argumentation. I'm
not quarrelsome.

>>>I certainly don't feel singled out.
>>
>>You shouldn't: you singled me out this time.
>
> Uh, the previous poster is the one who noticed that you were
> argumentative. Go back and read it.

I meant in the broader perspective of copyrights, etc. I thought you were
behaving yourself following our recent, more friendly exchanges, but you opened
up the old wounds by attacking me for standing up for what's right.

<...>
> You badger anyone who calls themselves "vegan", even if they don't
> make any "claims".

Proof?

>>>Though he sometimes does offer good culinary advice,
>>
>>I *always* offer excellent culinary advice.
>
> I can't disagree with you on this.

Thanks.

<...>

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
> I will agree that "vegetarian" can be a confusing term since it means
> different things to different people, as you suggest. And I bet you
> would be surprised to find how many people DO know what "vegan" means.

No, I wouldn't. I think all the posts here and on vegan websites about having to
explain to waitstaff and cooks about what they will and won't eat reveals quite
a bit about how marginal it really is.

> Almost nobody will know what "flexitarian" means.

It's a recent term. How long has "vegan" been around? Sixty years? And they
*still* fuss about how few people understand them.

nemo wrote:
>>>And then there are people who become Vegetarian for the sake of the
> animals:
>>>Ethical Vegetarians,
>>
>>Oxymoronic. Food isn't about politics except to twisted souls with eating
>>disorders. A vegetarian diet is no more ethical than any other -- indeed,
> it can
>>lead to far more harm to animals than a diet that includes meat.
>
>
> To the tune of the tune:

I see 36 years of self-imposed dietary imbalance and B12 deficiency has taken
quite a toll on your addled brain, nemo.

<snip prattle>

nemo wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>Some Vegans accept honey but strictly speaking it should also be
> excluded.
>
>>Why?
>
> Whine not!
>
> To the tune of the tune:

I see 36 years of self-imposed dietary imbalance and B12 deficiency has taken
quite a toll on your addled brain, nemo.

<snip prattle>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:

> > you are very argumentative with almost
> > everyone in this newsgroup.
>
> No. You're confusing challenging their halfwitted claims with
argumentation. I'm
> not quarrelsome.

You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort of
Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality. Sometimes you can be the nicest
guy, helpful, witty, and insightful. Other times you are a nasty
bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant. I wonder if it wouldn't be more
useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?

> >>>I certainly don't feel singled out.
> >>
> >>You shouldn't: you singled me out this time.
> >
> > Uh, the previous poster is the one who noticed that you were
> > argumentative. Go back and read it.
>
> I meant in the broader perspective of copyrights, etc. I thought you
were
> behaving yourself following our recent, more friendly exchanges, but
you opened
> up the old wounds by attacking me for standing up for what's right.

Look, you are absolutely right according to the letter of the law
regarding copyright infringement. I don't dispute that. However, I
felt compelled to speak up when you reported Mr. Falafel after he
posted some recipes from copyrighted books. Your actions appeared
totally unnecessary and vindictive to me and to other people. I
challenged you but I never attacked you. You are the one who escalated
things to a higher level, engaging in childish name calling and
derision. Here's where we are at: I still think you were being
vindictive and you claim to have done what you thought was right. We
can't convince each other otherwise so let's just return to friendlier
ground.

> >>>Though he sometimes does offer good culinary advice,
> >>
> >>I *always* offer excellent culinary advice.
> >
> > I can't disagree with you on this.
>
> Thanks.

You're welcome.

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>
>
>>>you are very argumentative with almost
>>>everyone in this newsgroup.
>>
>>No. You're confusing challenging their halfwitted claims with
>>argumentation. I'm not quarrelsome.
>
>
> You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort of
> Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality. Sometimes you can be the nicest
> guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.

He and I both are.

> Other times you are a nasty
> bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.

Never. Neither am I.

> I wonder if it wouldn't be more
> useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?

It depends on the topic, and it depends on the initial
attitude of the opponent. When they start out with a
bad attitude of smug, smarmy, self-righteous certitude,
it doesn't leave much room for constructive engagement.

>
>
>>>>>I certainly don't feel singled out.
>>>>
>>>>You shouldn't: you singled me out this time.
>>>
>>>Uh, the previous poster is the one who noticed that you were
>>>argumentative. Go back and read it.
>>
>>I meant in the broader perspective of copyrights, etc. I thought you
>
> were
>
>>behaving yourself following our recent, more friendly exchanges, but
>
> you opened
>
>>up the old wounds by attacking me for standing up for what's right.
>
>
> Look, you are absolutely right according to the letter of the law
> regarding copyright infringement. I don't dispute that. However, I
> felt compelled to speak up when you reported Mr. Falafel after he
> posted some recipes from copyrighted books. Your actions appeared
> totally unnecessary and vindictive to me and to other people. I
> challenged you but I never attacked you. You are the one who escalated
> things to a higher level, engaging in childish name calling and
> derision. Here's where we are at: I still think you were being
> vindictive and you claim to have done what you thought was right. We
> can't convince each other otherwise so let's just return to friendlier
> ground.
>
>
>>>>>Though he sometimes does offer good culinary advice,
>>>>
>>>>I *always* offer excellent culinary advice.
>>>
>>>I can't disagree with you on this.
>>
>>Thanks.
>
>
> You're welcome.
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:

> > You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort
of
> > Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality. Sometimes you can be the
nicest
> > guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.
>
> He and I both are.
>
> > Other times you are a nasty
> > bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.
>
> Never. Neither am I.

Don't flatter yourself.

> > I wonder if it wouldn't be more
> > useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?
>
> It depends on the topic, and it depends on the initial
> attitude of the opponent. When they start out with a
> bad attitude of smug, smarmy, self-righteous certitude,
> it doesn't leave much room for constructive engagement.

Here is part of the problem - you refer to other people as
"opponents". Why are they opponents? Almost nobody carries on normally
as you describe. They usually unwittingly say one of the several
things that trigger a reaction from you and then it's downhill from
there.

C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>
>
>>>You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort of
>>>Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality. Sometimes you can be the nicest
>>>guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.
>>
>>He and I both are.
>>
>>
>>>Other times you are a nasty bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.
>>
>>Never. Neither am I.
>
>
> Don't flatter yourself.

I wasn't.

>
>
>>>I wonder if it wouldn't be more
>>>useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?
>>
>>It depends on the topic, and it depends on the initial
>>attitude of the opponent. When they start out with a
>>bad attitude of smug, smarmy, self-righteous certitude,
>>it doesn't leave much room for constructive engagement.
>
>
> Here is part of the problem - you refer to other people as
> "opponents". Why are they opponents?

[Read this all the way through before replying, if you
reply. You have an unseemly tendency to respond to the
first thing you see that inflames you.]

They are opponents ecause "animal rights", the
political belief motivating ALL genuine "vegans"
(whether they articulate it formally or not), is a
divisive, "us vs. them" belief.

I should think you'd know by now that I don't
particularly care what anyone eats or doesn't eat.
What I *do* care about are the motivations behind the
choice, particularly when they flow from a political
belief that seeks as its ultimate goal to make MY
choices for me. "vegans" are all, necessarily,
supporters of "ar". That doesn't necessarily make them
"animal rights 'activists'", although I suspect some
are, but they are all at least passive supporters of
"ar". "ar" is a pernicious and evil doctrine. I
consider anyone who believes in "animal rights" to be a
political opponent, and I want to do every legal thing
I can to cripple them politically.

I feel fairly certain you're going to argue with me
about the nexus between "veganism" and "ar". You
shouldn't waste your time. The only reason someone
becomes "vegan" is out of a belief, possibly inchoate
and unarticulated, in "ar"; there is no other reason.
People who are mostly or even strictly vegetarian for
health and/or aesthetic reasons are not "vegans".

> Almost nobody carries on normally
> as you describe. They usually unwittingly say one of the several
> things that trigger a reaction from you and then it's downhill from
> there.

Their self-identification as "vegan", meaning a
believer in "ar", is _ipso facto_ provocative. They
are asking to be rhetorically beaten to a pulp. I
*like* this sort of combat, so I'm all too happy to oblige.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>you are very argumentative with almost
>>>everyone in this newsgroup.
>>
>>No. You're confusing challenging their halfwitted claims with
>>argumentation. I'm not quarrelsome.
>
> You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort of
> Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality.

No. I'm of sound mental health, never diagnosed with any such bipolar disorder.

> Sometimes you can be the nicest
> guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.

No, I always am.

> Other times you are a nasty
> bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.

Never. Maybe you just don't take criticism very well. Most people don't.
Sometimes even I don't.

> I wonder if it wouldn't be more
> useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?

The sweeter and more constructive it's offered, the more often it's welcomed
with contempt and scorn. Words also seldom convey the actual tone in which
things are offered. I'll grant there's no doubt when I call you a putz or an
asshole (or when you call me a bitch or "Dumbo"), but that's the exception to
the rule.

>>>>>I certainly don't feel singled out.
>>>>
>>>>You shouldn't: you singled me out this time.
>>>
>>>Uh, the previous poster is the one who noticed that you were
>>>argumentative. Go back and read it.
>>
>>I meant in the broader perspective of copyrights, etc. I thought you
>>were behaving yourself following our recent, more friendly exchanges, but
>>you opened up the old wounds by attacking me for standing up for what's right.
>
> Look, you are absolutely right according to the letter of the law
> regarding copyright infringement. I don't dispute that.

You did.

> However, I
> felt compelled to speak up when you reported Mr. Falafel after he
> posted some recipes from copyrighted books. Your actions appeared
> totally unnecessary and vindictive to me and to other people.

How do you expect authors to know when their works have been infringed?

As for your continued and thoroughly groundless claim that this is personal and
vindictive, what evidence do you have to support it? I pointed out that the
recipes he posted from one specific book were part of a copyrighted collection.
I then answered all my critics, including you, about what is and isn't protected
by copyright. The best you weak people could do is suggest that I was being
vindictive or, as one complete ass suggested, that I had been drafted by the
administration to monitor newsgroups and become a snitch. *You* continued to
insist that I'd contacted authorities, when I only contacted authors --
consistent with what I said I would do in contacting *copyright holders*.

Aside from asking you a simple question which you never answered, did I get
involved in any other thread in which he posted recipes from copyrighted books?
No, and that's further evidence against your silly claim. Have I persisted in
calling him names or deploring his other contributions to the newsgroup as he
did to me? No. You may not like me, or you may not always like me, but I think
you should take a couple steps back and reassess what actually happened.

> I challenged you but I never attacked you.

Calling me a mind reader, etc. It was feeble and awfully lame, but it was an
attack. And it was very personal, James.

> You are the one who escalated
> things to a higher level, engaging in childish name calling and
> derision.

Perhaps you should re-read some of your replies to me -- especially ones in
which you called me a mind-reader while you determined that my motives were
somehow vindictive (without ever offering justification for such a claim).

> Here's where we are at: I still think you were being
> vindictive

Without *any* evidence. Indeed, IN SPITE OF IT.

> and you claim to have done what you thought was right.

Look, you are absolutely right according to the letter of the law
regarding copyright infringement. I don't dispute that.
-- C James Strutz, 23 June 2004

It was, and remains, the right thing to do even if it's the least popular among
those of you who think copyrights are less important than self-righteous food
zealots spreading their veganism.

<...>

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>It depends on the topic, and it depends on the initial
>>attitude of the opponent. When they start out with a
>>bad attitude of smug, smarmy, self-righteous certitude,
>>it doesn't leave much room for constructive engagement.
>
> Here is part of the problem - you refer to other people as
> "opponents". Why are they opponents?

Ask "nemo" -- among others -- why anyone who questions something about vegans is
a troll or otherwise some kind of nemesis.

> Almost nobody carries on normally
> as you describe.

Moan moan moan went the troll, he,
Then got thrown off the bus.
When his head hit the pavement,
No brain, just a big pile of puss!
-- "nemo": 22 June 2004

How about something from the "compassionate" ones wishing bad health, injury,
and even death upon those who question vegan claims? Or something from those who
suggest that those who challenge their wild claims or bad conduct are sad
examples who have no life? There are plenty examples just from this group.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>>you are very argumentative with almost
> >>>everyone in this newsgroup.
> >>
> >>No. You're confusing challenging their halfwitted claims with
> >>argumentation. I'm not quarrelsome.
> >
> > You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort
of
> > Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality.
>
> No. I'm of sound mental health, never diagnosed with any such
bipolar disorder.

Then it just must be your character. :^) [[[[Clue for you: the
smiley face means that you shouldn't take it personally. I'm making a
joke.]]]]

> > Sometimes you can be the nicest
> > guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.
>
> No, I always am.

Wrong.

> > Other times you are a nasty
> > bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.
>
> Never. Maybe you just don't take criticism very well. Most people
don't.
> Sometimes even I don't.

Understatement of the millennia.

> > I wonder if it wouldn't be more
> > useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?
>
> The sweeter and more constructive it's offered, the more often it's
welcomed
> with contempt and scorn. Words also seldom convey the actual tone in
which
> things are offered. I'll grant there's no doubt when I call you a
putz or an
> asshole (or when you call me a bitch or "Dumbo"), but that's the
exception to
> the rule.

It was "Bozo", not "Dumbo". I don't know, I can glean quite a bit of
tone from people's writings even without the name calling. The saying,
"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" applies
here. You do what you can to educate people in a civil way. Then if
they persist in not accepting your message you simply walk away from
it. Beating people over the head with it doesn't work well.

> >>>>>I certainly don't feel singled out.
> >>>>
> >>>>You shouldn't: you singled me out this time.
> >>>
> >>>Uh, the previous poster is the one who noticed that you were
> >>>argumentative. Go back and read it.
> >>
> >>I meant in the broader perspective of copyrights, etc. I thought
you
> >>were behaving yourself following our recent, more friendly
exchanges, but
> >>you opened up the old wounds by attacking me for standing up for
what's right.
> >
> > Look, you are absolutely right according to the letter of the law
> > regarding copyright infringement. I don't dispute that.
>
> You did.

That's wrong. I never disputed the application of copyright laws to
cookbooks. Somebody else questioned it with some legal case history.

> > However, I
> > felt compelled to speak up when you reported Mr. Falafel after he
> > posted some recipes from copyrighted books. Your actions appeared
> > totally unnecessary and vindictive to me and to other people.
>
> How do you expect authors to know when their works have been
infringed?

When it shows up on the internet in this case.

> As for your continued and thoroughly groundless claim that this is
personal and
> vindictive, what evidence do you have to support it?

The appearance of your actions. I don't think I'm the only one with
this impression.

I pointed out that the
> recipes he posted from one specific book were part of a copyrighted
collection.
> I then answered all my critics, including you, about what is and
isn't protected
> by copyright. The best you weak people

Weak people?

> could do is suggest that I was being
> vindictive or, as one complete ass suggested, that I had been
drafted by the
> administration to monitor newsgroups and become a snitch. *You*
continued to
> insist that I'd contacted authorities, when I only contacted
authors --
> consistent with what I said I would do in contacting *copyright
holders*.

I used the word "authorities" generally to include anyone who might
initiate some kind of legal action.

> Aside from asking you a simple question which you never answered,

What question didn't I answer??

> did I get
> involved in any other thread in which he posted recipes from
copyrighted books?

You were involved in several threads in which he posted recipes from
copyrighted books. In all of them you threatened to contact the
*copyright holder*. I presume that you did so.

> No, and that's further evidence against your silly claim. Have I
persisted in
> calling him names or deploring his other contributions to the
newsgroup as he
> did to me? No.

You and he have been involved in previous altercations. Most likely he
posted something that you didn't like and you railed him for it. He's
usually not very confrontational. Don't ask for specific examples - I
don't remember specific examples and I'm not going to take the time to
look.

> You may not like me, or you may not always like me, but I think
> you should take a couple steps back and reassess what actually
happened.

I don't dislike you and even if I did that wouldn't change my opinion
of the copyright issue. I don't have to step back and think. What
happened is perfectly clear to me.

> > I challenged you but I never attacked you.
>
> Calling me a mind reader, etc. It was feeble and awfully lame, but
it was an
> attack. And it was very personal, James.

You know, I am getting the impression that you read things very
selectively. As I recall, the "mind reader" comment was a response to
you making a very wrong presumption about me. Nothing more, nothing
less. It was not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination.

> > You are the one who escalated
> > things to a higher level, engaging in childish name calling and
> > derision.
>
> Perhaps you should re-read some of your replies to me -- especially
ones in
> which you called me a mind-reader while you determined that my
motives were
> somehow vindictive (without ever offering justification for such a
claim).

The "mind reader" thing again - it's amazing that you were so offended
by that. You must have a very thin skin to let something like that
bother you. Sorry, I remain convinced that you reporting Mr. Falafel
was a vindictive action that you passed off as some kind of duty. It's
my opinion and I don't have to justify it.

> > Here's where we are at: I still think you were being
> > vindictive
>
> Without *any* evidence. Indeed, IN SPITE OF IT.

Fine, whatever...

> > and you claim to have done what you thought was right.
>
> Look, you are absolutely right according to the letter of the law
> regarding copyright infringement. I don't dispute that.
> -- C James Strutz, 23 June 2004
>
> It was, and remains, the right thing to do even if it's the least
popular among
> those of you who think copyrights are less important than
self-righteous food
> zealots spreading their veganism.

Ahhhh, here we go, "self-righteous food zealots spreading their
veganism". If this doesn't smack of motivation for vindication I don't
know what does. YOU need to take a step back and think....

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>C. James Strutz wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort
of
> >>>Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality. Sometimes you can be the
nicest
> >>>guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.
> >>
> >>He and I both are.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Other times you are a nasty bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.
> >>
> >>Never. Neither am I.
> >
> >
> > Don't flatter yourself.
>
> I wasn't.
>
> >
> >
> >>>I wonder if it wouldn't be more
> >>>useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?
> >>
> >>It depends on the topic, and it depends on the initial
> >>attitude of the opponent. When they start out with a
> >>bad attitude of smug, smarmy, self-righteous certitude,
> >>it doesn't leave much room for constructive engagement.
> >
> >
> > Here is part of the problem - you refer to other people as
> > "opponents". Why are they opponents?
>
> [Read this all the way through before replying, if you
> reply. You have an unseemly tendency to respond to the
> first thing you see that inflames you.]

Me?!!

> They are opponents ecause "animal rights", the
> political belief motivating ALL genuine "vegans"
> (whether they articulate it formally or not), is a
> divisive, "us vs. them" belief.

Ah, so it's their fault there's opposition?

> I should think you'd know by now that I don't
> particularly care what anyone eats or doesn't eat.
> What I *do* care about are the motivations behind the
> choice, particularly when they flow from a political
> belief that seeks as its ultimate goal to make MY
> choices for me.

I doubt that anybody tries to make choices for you. There are a lot of
people who want to convince you to think their way, just as you want
them to think your way. No difference.

> "vegans" are all, necessarily,
> supporters of "ar". That doesn't necessarily make them
> "animal rights 'activists'", although I suspect some
> are, but they are all at least passive supporters of
> "ar". "ar" is a pernicious and evil doctrine. I
> consider anyone who believes in "animal rights" to be a
> political opponent, and I want to do every legal thing
> I can to cripple them politically.

If I remember correctly, you are a Democrat. Do you endeavor to
cripple Republicans, Greens, Communists, etc. politically?

> I feel fairly certain you're going to argue with me
> about the nexus between "veganism" and "ar". You
> shouldn't waste your time. The only reason someone
> becomes "vegan" is out of a belief, possibly inchoate
> and unarticulated, in "ar"; there is no other reason.
> People who are mostly or even strictly vegetarian for
> health and/or aesthetic reasons are not "vegans".

Okay, I won't argue with you. There's no point in it.

> > Almost nobody carries on normally
> > as you describe. They usually unwittingly say one of the several
> > things that trigger a reaction from you and then it's downhill
from
> > there.
>
> Their self-identification as "vegan", meaning a
> believer in "ar", is _ipso facto_ provocative. They
> are asking to be rhetorically beaten to a pulp. I
> *like* this sort of combat, so I'm all too happy to oblige.

Why am I not surprised?

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>>You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort
>>>of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality.
>>
>>No. I'm of sound mental health, never diagnosed with any such
>>bipolar disorder.
>
> Then it just must be your character. :^) [[[[Clue for you: the
> smiley face means that you shouldn't take it personally. I'm making a
> joke.]]]]

Some people think it's cruel to make such jokes at the expense of others.

>>>Sometimes you can be the nicest
>>>guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.
>>
>>No, I always am.
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm always nice, helpful, witty, and insightful until someone crosses me.
Sometimes I remain nice, helpful, etc., even after being crossed. After all,
you're not on my permanent shit list yet.

>>>Other times you are a nasty
>>>bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.
>>
>>Never. Maybe you just don't take criticism very well. Most people
>>don't. Sometimes even I don't.
>
> Understatement of the millennia.

It isn't understated. Like others, it all depends on the tone in which the
criticism is offered.

>>>I wonder if it wouldn't be more
>>>useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?
>>
>>The sweeter and more constructive it's offered, the more often it's
>>welcomed with contempt and scorn. Words also seldom convey the actual tone in
>>which things are offered. I'll grant there's no doubt when I call you a
>>putz or an asshole (or when you call me a bitch or "Dumbo"), but that's the
>>exception to the rule.
>
> It was "Bozo", not "Dumbo".

Not that much difference.

> I don't know, I can glean quite a bit of
> tone from people's writings even without the name calling.

Too bad what you've gleaned about me is about 180-degrees from reality.

<...>
>>As for your continued and thoroughly groundless claim that this is
>>personal and vindictive, what evidence do you have to support it?
>
> The appearance of your actions.

Your misperception of my actions.

> I don't think I'm the only one with this impression.

Appeal to popularity. A poll of others' opinions cannot tell you why I did what
I did. I have already done that. My actions -- limited to explaining why it's a
violation and that I would contact the copyright holder(s) (which I promptly
did) -- did not go beyond the issue. I did not engage in belittling him, as he
did me. I did not engage in a litany of name-calling. I did not pursue anything
further. I'm content to let copyright holders determine how they'll protect
their own copyrights, if they even care to protect them.

>>I pointed out that the
>>recipes he posted from one specific book were part of a copyrighted
>>collection. I then answered all my critics, including you, about what is and
>>isn't protected by copyright. The best you weak people
>
> Weak people?

Yes. Mentally and morally weak. Insipid. Puny. Anemic. Vapid. Feeble. Take your
pick or have them all.

>>could do is suggest that I was being
>>vindictive or, as one complete ass suggested, that I had been
>>drafted by the
>>administration to monitor newsgroups and become a snitch. *You*
>>continued to insist that I'd contacted authorities, when I only contacted
>>authors -- consistent with what I said I would do in contacting *copyright
>> holders*.
>
> I used the word "authorities" generally to include anyone who might
> initiate some kind of legal action.

That's an awfully broad use of the term.

>>Aside from asking you a simple question which you never answered,
>
> What question didn't I answer??

In the thread for "Shorbat Mamrouteh - Southern Lentil Soup," I asked you
whether or not the book from which that recipe was copied and distributed across
the internet is copyrighted since you wrote that you have it.

>>did I get
>>involved in any other thread in which he posted recipes from
>>copyrighted books?
>
> You were involved in several threads in which he posted recipes from
> copyrighted books.

All from the same book. That was the point, James. He took a significant amount
of a copyrighted book and distributed it without prior permission.

> In all of them you threatened to contact the
> *copyright holder*. I presume that you did so.

I'm a man of my word.

>>No, and that's further evidence against your silly claim. Have I
>>persisted in
>>calling him names or deploring his other contributions to the
>>newsgroup as he did to me? No.
>
> You and he have been involved in previous altercations.

How long has that been, and under what circumstances?

> Most likely he
> posted something that you didn't like and you railed him for it.

Would you be surprised if it was the other way around? I bet you would.

> He's usually not very confrontational.

He sure as hell was when I showed everyone in this group that, by golly, I
really *am* conservative and that I fully supported removing Saddam Hussein from
power. He wasn't the only liberal dolt to *finally* get that I wasn't putting on
an act, nor was he the only one to announce some disrespect not only for my
position, but for me as a person.

I merely took the same position I took in 1998 when my fellow conservatives were
claiming that Bill Clinton was "wagging the dog" and trying to deflect the just
criticism he was receiving for misleading (or, as the rest of us call it,
committing perjury before) a grand jury. I tried to remind them not to let
domestic issues supercede foreign policy -- that it was not the time to coddle
Saddam Hussein (if you remember your history, Saddam was playing cat and mouse
games with weapons inspectors and finally kicked them out of the country in
violation of all the same Security Council resolutions we finally enforced last
year; I remember a whole lot more support from the Democrats six years ago, but
their unprincipled vacillations have never surprised me). It was the same
position I took throughout the 1990s when Saddam Hussein engaged in provocative
acts, including expelling weapons inspectors, promoting an assassination attempt
on former President Bush, and firing upon planes in the No-Fly Zones. I favored
supporting the uprisings in the north and south following our withdrawl from the
region in 1991. I'd clearly described myself as a conservative quite early in my
posts to this newsgroup. Some found it interesting, but nobody took exception
until a serious enough issue like the war arose. And just for the record, it all
started when I responded to someone. I didn't go looking for a fight, I only
sought to correct a few points the other person made. That's when the shit hit
the fan around here (more below).

Anyway, I wasn't surprised when Lindsay wrote last week, "This is more about a
certain persons [sic] lack of social skills than anything else. I've seen
internet cranks come and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a
social life and therefore has to create percieved [sic] hysteria on [sic] a
newsgroup in a pathetic attempt at [sic] a type of human interaction." He's
wrong. It's about standards. I didn't make it personal. He did. So did you.

> Don't ask for specific examples - I
> don't remember specific examples and I'm not going to take the time to
> look.

I think you don't have the guts to look. You wouldn't like what you'd find. I
really liked this one:
I really wish you hadn't replied to this. I liked you much more when I
was ignorant of your political opinions. Goddamn.
-- Carey, 5 Nov 2002

I have liberal friends -- one cannot live in a city as liberal as mine (often
called "the San Francisco of the South" among other names -- the only tax
payer-funded abortions in Texas, a city council almost as far out as Berkeley's,
highest taxes and cost of living in Texas, etc.) without knowing liberals; my
nature is much more pleasant than you concede, and I make friends very easily
and I keep them. How many of these vegans have conservative friends? I don't
think you realize how political veganism is, much less how rabid and extreme it
is. It is NOT about food.

>>You may not like me, or you may not always like me, but I think
>>you should take a couple steps back and reassess what actually
>> happened.
>
> I don't dislike you and even if I did that wouldn't change my opinion
> of the copyright issue. I don't have to step back and think. What
> happened is perfectly clear to me.

It apparently isn't clear to you.

<...>
> The "mind reader" thing again - it's amazing that you were so offended
> by that.

I wasn't offended:
Why do you halfwits always fall back on such replies rather than
addressing the issues? Your double standards and inconsistencies have
been pointed out before, so I'm not surprised by the repeat performance
of them now. *I* know the issue isn't policing. So do you.

> You must have a very thin skin to let something like that
> bother you.

It didn't. "I'm not surprised" may not be the clearest expression of amusement,
but I assure you I was more amused than annoyed by your ridiculous claim.

> Sorry, I remain convinced that you reporting Mr. Falafel
> was a vindictive action that you passed off as some kind of duty. It's
> my opinion and I don't have to justify it.

You should if you're going to make such statements. I've told you that you're
wrong. I've also explained why you're wrong. I've even offered you my posting
history about the matter as evidence that you're wrong. You can be intransigent
and cling to your unfounded notion about my behavior, but you couldn't be more
wrong about it.

>>>Here's where we are at: I still think you were being
>>>vindictive
>>
>>Without *any* evidence. Indeed, IN SPITE OF IT.
>
> Fine, whatever...

*Not* whatever, James. I've been quite clear about the matter, and my behavior
doesn't lend any credibility to your theory.

>>>and you claim to have done what you thought was right.
>>
>>Look, you are absolutely right according to the letter of the law
>>regarding copyright infringement. I don't dispute that.
>>-- C James Strutz, 23 June 2004
>>
>>It was, and remains, the right thing to do even if it's the least
>>popular among those of you who think copyrights are less important than
>>self-righteous food zealots spreading their veganism.
>
> Ahhhh, here we go, "self-righteous food zealots spreading their
> veganism". If this doesn't smack of motivation for vindication I don't
> know what does.

There's nothing vindicative (substitute spiteful, vengeful, or any other similar
adjective in its place) about it. I could've gotten nasty about it, but I'm not
one of those whose copyrights he's infringed. And if I were, I have an attorney
who's paid to do that for me.

> YOU need to take a step back and think....

I already have. It's why I don't call myself "vegan" anymore.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>I should think you'd know by now that I don't
>>particularly care what anyone eats or doesn't eat.
>>What I *do* care about are the motivations behind the
>>choice, particularly when they flow from a political
>>belief that seeks as its ultimate goal to make MY
>>choices for me.
>
> I doubt that anybody tries to make choices for you.

Have you read PeTA's and PCRM's websites lately?

> There are a lot of
> people who want to convince you to think their way,

PeTA and PCRM go far beyond persuasion. They want to change our society and
culture through a variety of means, including litigation, coercion, legislation,
and terrorism:

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/ca_arson_terrorist(8-7-03).htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/oped_...fm?OPED_ID=145
http://www.amprogress.org/News/News.cfm?ID=418&c=63
http://www.fb.com/views/focus/fo2001/fo1008.html
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2001/000229.html

> just as you want them to think your way.

Jon doesn't tell them to eat meat. They tell him to eat none.

> No difference.

The difference is vast and profound.

>>"vegans" are all, necessarily,
>>supporters of "ar". That doesn't necessarily make them
>>"animal rights 'activists'", although I suspect some
>>are, but they are all at least passive supporters of
>>"ar". "ar" is a pernicious and evil doctrine. I
>>consider anyone who believes in "animal rights" to be a
>>political opponent, and I want to do every legal thing
>>I can to cripple them politically.
>
> If I remember correctly, you are a Democrat. Do you endeavor to
> cripple Republicans, Greens, Communists, etc. politically?

Greens are already politically crippled, feeble, and impotent. Those
crypto-communists should be politically pushed around as long as they're around.
So should *any* party or person who seeks a 100% tax rate on any level of
income, among the rest of the radical points of their red platform.

<...>

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>

>>>>>Other times you are a nasty bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.
>>>>
>>>>Never. Neither am I.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't flatter yourself.
>>
>>I wasn't.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>I wonder if it wouldn't be more
>>>>>useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?
>>>>
>>>>It depends on the topic, and it depends on the initial
>>>>attitude of the opponent. When they start out with a
>>>>bad attitude of smug, smarmy, self-righteous certitude,
>>>>it doesn't leave much room for constructive engagement.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here is part of the problem - you refer to other people as
>>>"opponents". Why are they opponents?
>>
>>[Read this all the way through before replying, if you
>>reply. You have an unseemly tendency to respond to the
>>first thing you see that inflames you.]
>
>
> Me?!!
>
>
>>They are opponents ecause "animal rights", the
>>political belief motivating ALL genuine "vegans"
>>(whether they articulate it formally or not), is a
>>divisive, "us vs. them" belief.
>
>
> Ah, so it's their fault there's opposition?

Yes. They are deliberately divisive, and are sticking
their noses where they know they don't belong.

>
>
>>I should think you'd know by now that I don't
>>particularly care what anyone eats or doesn't eat.
>>What I *do* care about are the motivations behind the
>>choice, particularly when they flow from a political
>>belief that seeks as its ultimate goal to make MY
>>choices for me.
>
>
> I doubt that anybody tries to make choices for you.

It is an implicit part of "ar". They want to forbid
me, by law, from being able to eat meat and use other
animal products.

> There are a lot of
> people who want to convince you to think their way, just as you want
> them to think your way. No difference.

There's a huge difference. "ar" is about the state.
It is about law.

>
>
>>"vegans" are all, necessarily,
>>supporters of "ar". That doesn't necessarily make them
>>"animal rights 'activists'", although I suspect some
>>are, but they are all at least passive supporters of
>>"ar". "ar" is a pernicious and evil doctrine. I
>>consider anyone who believes in "animal rights" to be a
>>political opponent, and I want to do every legal thing
>>I can to cripple them politically.
>
>
> If I remember correctly, you are a Democrat.

No.

> Do you endeavor to
> cripple Republicans, Greens, Communists, etc. politically?

"Yes" concerning the Greens and the Reds. As far as
the Democrats and Republicans go - I am neither - I
mostly want them to cancel one another out.

>
>
>>I feel fairly certain you're going to argue with me
>>about the nexus between "veganism" and "ar". You
>>shouldn't waste your time. The only reason someone
>>becomes "vegan" is out of a belief, possibly inchoate
>>and unarticulated, in "ar"; there is no other reason.
>>People who are mostly or even strictly vegetarian for
>>health and/or aesthetic reasons are not "vegans".
>
>
> Okay, I won't argue with you. There's no point in it.
>
>
>>>Almost nobody carries on normally
>>>as you describe. They usually unwittingly say one of the several
>>>things that trigger a reaction from you and then it's downhill
>>>from there.
>>
>>Their self-identification as "vegan", meaning a
>>believer in "ar", is _ipso facto_ provocative. They
>>are asking to be rhetorically beaten to a pulp. I
>>*like* this sort of combat, so I'm all too happy to oblige.
>
>
> Why am I not surprised?
>
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>

BTW, how about those Pirates? :^) Kendall's first career grand-slam
did you in. I love it.

> >>>You give me the impression (and maybe other people too) of a sort
> >>>of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality.
> >>
> >>No. I'm of sound mental health, never diagnosed with any such
> >>bipolar disorder.
> >
> > Then it just must be your character. :^) [[[[Clue for you: the
> > smiley face means that you shouldn't take it personally. I'm
making a
> > joke.]]]]
>
> Some people think it's cruel to make such jokes at the expense of
others.

What other people think doesn't matter. Whether it's cruel or not
depends on the intent.

> >>>Sometimes you can be the nicest
> >>>guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.
> >>
> >>No, I always am.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> No, I'm always nice, helpful, witty, and insightful until someone
crosses
> me. Sometimes I remain nice, helpful, etc., even after being
crossed.

Your threshold of being crossed is very low. Then you're even more
nasty than you were nice. There's very little in-between with you.

> After all, you're not on my permanent shit list yet.

Somehow I'm less than thrilled...

> >>>Other times you are a nasty
> >>>bitch, self-righteous, and arrogant.
> >>
> >>Never. Maybe you just don't take criticism very well. Most people
> >>don't. Sometimes even I don't.
> >
> > Understatement of the millennia.
>
> It isn't understated. Like others, it all depends on the tone in
which the
> criticism is offered.

As I said, your threshold is very low.

> >>>I wonder if it wouldn't be more
> >>>useful to challenge people in more constructive ways?
> >>
> >>The sweeter and more constructive it's offered, the more often
it's
> >>welcomed with contempt and scorn. Words also seldom convey the
actual tone in
> >>which things are offered. I'll grant there's no doubt when I call
you a
> >>putz or an asshole (or when you call me a bitch or "Dumbo"), but
that's the
> >>exception to the rule.
> >
> > It was "Bozo", not "Dumbo".
>
> Not that much difference.

Bozo is a clown while Dumbo is an elephant. You strike me as more of a
clown.

> > I don't know, I can glean quite a bit of
> > tone from people's writings even without the name calling.
>
> Too bad what you've gleaned about me is about 180-degrees from
reality.

I don't think so.

> >>As for your continued and thoroughly groundless claim that this is
> >>personal and vindictive, what evidence do you have to support it?
> >
> > The appearance of your actions.
>
> Your misperception of my actions.
>
> > I don't think I'm the only one with this impression.
>
> Appeal to popularity. A poll of others' opinions cannot tell you why
I did what
> I did.

No, but there's comfort in knowing that I'm not the only one who has
the same impressions of your actions. It has a reinforcing effect.

> I have already done that. My actions -- limited to explaining why
it's a
> violation and that I would contact the copyright holder(s) (which I
promptly
> did) -- did not go beyond the issue. I did not engage in belittling
him, as he
> did me. I did not engage in a litany of name-calling. I did not
pursue anything
> further. I'm content to let copyright holders determine how they'll
protect
> their own copyrights, if they even care to protect them.
>
> >>I pointed out that the
> >>recipes he posted from one specific book were part of a
copyrighted
> >>collection. I then answered all my critics, including you, about
what is and
> >>isn't protected by copyright. The best you weak people
> >
> > Weak people?
>
> Yes. Mentally and morally weak. Insipid. Puny. Anemic. Vapid.
Feeble. Take your
> pick or have them all.

That's what you do - regard people who disagree with you as "weak".
Your ego is unmatched.

> >>could do is suggest that I was being
> >>vindictive or, as one complete ass suggested, that I had been
> >>drafted by the
> >>administration to monitor newsgroups and become a snitch. *You*
> >>continued to insist that I'd contacted authorities, when I only
contacted
> >>authors -- consistent with what I said I would do in contacting
*copyright
> >> holders*.
> >
> > I used the word "authorities" generally to include anyone who
might
> > initiate some kind of legal action.
>
> That's an awfully broad use of the term.

It is appropriate and accurate.

> >>Aside from asking you a simple question which you never answered,
> >
> > What question didn't I answer??
>
> In the thread for "Shorbat Mamrouteh - Southern Lentil Soup," I
asked you
> whether or not the book from which that recipe was copied and
distributed across
> the internet is copyrighted since you wrote that you have it.

Geez, I didn't answer that question because the answer is obvious -
yes, the book is copyrighted. You're holding that over my head for not
answering an obvious question?? Are you happy now?

> >>did I get
> >>involved in any other thread in which he posted recipes from
> >>copyrighted books?
> >
> > You were involved in several threads in which he posted recipes
from
> > copyrighted books.
>
> All from the same book. That was the point, James. He took a
significant amount
> of a copyrighted book and distributed it without prior permission.

How do you know he didn't have permission?

> > In all of them you threatened to contact the
> > *copyright holder*. I presume that you did so.
>
> I'm a man of my word.

I'm sure you are.

> >>No, and that's further evidence against your silly claim. Have I
> >>persisted in
> >>calling him names or deploring his other contributions to the
> >>newsgroup as he did to me? No.
> >
> > You and he have been involved in previous altercations.
>
> How long has that been, and under what circumstances?

Oh, I don't know. For the last few years anyway, and under all sorts
of circumstances. Actually, since you converted from "vegan" to
whatever you call yourself now.

> > Most likely he
> > posted something that you didn't like and you railed him for it.
>
> Would you be surprised if it was the other way around? I bet you
would.

You mean if you said something and he went off on you? Sure, I would
be surprised because it would be out of character for him. It's not
out of character for you.

> > He's usually not very confrontational.
>
> He sure as hell was when I showed everyone in this group that, by
golly, I
> really *am* conservative and that I fully supported removing Saddam
Hussein from
> power. He wasn't the only liberal dolt to *finally* get that I
wasn't putting on
> an act, nor was he the only one to announce some disrespect not only
for my
> position, but for me as a person.
>
> I merely took the same position I took in 1998 when my fellow
conservatives were
> claiming that Bill Clinton was "wagging the dog" and trying to
deflect the just
> criticism he was receiving for misleading (or, as the rest of us
call it,
> committing perjury before) a grand jury. I tried to remind them not
to let
> domestic issues supercede foreign policy -- that it was not the time
to coddle
> Saddam Hussein (if you remember your history, Saddam was playing cat
and mouse
> games with weapons inspectors and finally kicked them out of the
country in
> violation of all the same Security Council resolutions we finally
enforced last
> year; I remember a whole lot more support from the Democrats six
years ago, but
> their unprincipled vacillations have never surprised me). It was the
same
> position I took throughout the 1990s when Saddam Hussein engaged in
provocative
> acts, including expelling weapons inspectors, promoting an
assassination attempt
> on former President Bush, and firing upon planes in the No-Fly
Zones. I favored
> supporting the uprisings in the north and south following our
withdrawl from the
> region in 1991. I'd clearly described myself as a conservative quite
early in my
> posts to this newsgroup. Some found it interesting, but nobody took
exception
> until a serious enough issue like the war arose. And just for the
record, it all
> started when I responded to someone. I didn't go looking for a
fight, I only
> sought to correct a few points the other person made. That's when
the shit hit
> the fan around here (more below).

I obviously hit a chord with this. I'm not going to get in the middle
of whatever issues you have with him. That's your business. But I will
say that this is yet another motivation for vindictive behavior.

> Anyway, I wasn't surprised when Lindsay wrote last week, "This is
more about a
> certain persons [sic] lack of social skills than anything else. I've
seen
> internet cranks come and go. This is just another sad person who
doesn't have a
> social life and therefore has to create percieved [sic] hysteria on
[sic] a
> newsgroup in a pathetic attempt at [sic] a type of human
interaction." He's
> wrong.

I don't necessarily agree with him either. As I wrote before, I think
you were being vindictive and trying to pass it off as some
obiligation to duty.

> It's about standards. I didn't make it personal. He did. So did you.

I never assailed you in a personal way, as you did me. You most
certainly made it personal.

> > Don't ask for specific examples - I
> > don't remember specific examples and I'm not going to take the
time to
> > look.
>
> I think you don't have the guts to look. You wouldn't like what
you'd find. I
> really liked this one:
> I really wish you hadn't replied to this. I liked you much more when
I
> was ignorant of your political opinions. Goddamn.
> -- Carey, 5 Nov 2002

No, it's not a matter of guts. I just don't have the time to prove to
you that which is obvious.

> I have liberal friends -- one cannot live in a city as liberal as
mine (often
> called "the San Francisco of the South" among other names -- the
only tax
> payer-funded abortions in Texas, a city council almost as far out as
Berkeley's,
> highest taxes and cost of living in Texas, etc.) without knowing
liberals; my
> nature is much more pleasant than you concede, and I make friends
very easily
> and I keep them. How many of these vegans have conservative friends?
I don't
> think you realize how political veganism is, much less how rabid and
extreme it
> is. It is NOT about food.

Well then if you are so adept at crossing political boundaries, then
why do you so fervently assault vegans?

> >>You may not like me, or you may not always like me, but I think
> >>you should take a couple steps back and reassess what actually
> >> happened.
> >
> > I don't dislike you and even if I did that wouldn't change my
opinion
> > of the copyright issue. I don't have to step back and think. What
> > happened is perfectly clear to me.
>
> It apparently isn't clear to you.
>
> <...>
> > The "mind reader" thing again - it's amazing that you were so
offended
> > by that.
>
> I wasn't offended:
> Why do you halfwits always fall back on such replies rather than
> addressing the issues? Your double standards and inconsistencies
have
> been pointed out before, so I'm not surprised by the repeat
performance
> of them now. *I* know the issue isn't policing. So do you.
>
> > You must have a very thin skin to let something like that
> > bother you.
>
> It didn't. "I'm not surprised" may not be the clearest expression of
amusement,
> but I assure you I was more amused than annoyed by your ridiculous
claim.
>
> > Sorry, I remain convinced that you reporting Mr. Falafel
> > was a vindictive action that you passed off as some kind of duty.
It's
> > my opinion and I don't have to justify it.
>
> You should if you're going to make such statements. I've told you
that you're
> wrong. I've also explained why you're wrong. I've even offered you
my posting
> history about the matter as evidence that you're wrong. You can be
intransigent
> and cling to your unfounded notion about my behavior, but you
couldn't be more
> wrong about it.

We are where we are with it. Accept it and move on. This thread is
getting old.

> >>>Here's where we are at: I still think you were being
> >>>vindictive
> >>
> >>Without *any* evidence. Indeed, IN SPITE OF IT.
> >
> > Fine, whatever...
>
> *Not* whatever, James. I've been quite clear about the matter, and
my behavior
> doesn't lend any credibility to your theory.

Fine, whatever...

> >>>and you claim to have done what you thought was right.
> >>
> >>Look, you are absolutely right according to the letter of the law
> >>regarding copyright infringement. I don't dispute that.
> >>-- C James Strutz, 23 June 2004
> >>
> >>It was, and remains, the right thing to do even if it's the least
> >>popular among those of you who think copyrights are less important
than
> >>self-righteous food zealots spreading their veganism.
> >
> > Ahhhh, here we go, "self-righteous food zealots spreading their
> > veganism". If this doesn't smack of motivation for vindication I
don't
> > know what does.
>
> There's nothing vindicative (substitute spiteful, vengeful, or any
other similar
> adjective in its place) about it. I could've gotten nasty about it,
but I'm not
> one of those whose copyrights he's infringed. And if I were, I have
an attorney
> who's paid to do that for me.
>
>
> > YOU need to take a step back and think....
>
> I already have. It's why I don't call myself "vegan" anymore.

Clever, but out of context.

C. James Strutz wrote:

> BTW, how about those Pirates? :^) Kendall's first career grand-slam
> did you in. I love it.

Yeah, how long has he been in the league now? Anyway, we took three of four
games in the series and we're 4 and 2 against you for the season. I doubt you'll
win the season series. We're upgrading our team (just picked up Beltran in a
trade yesterday), while the premier players on your team are being auctioned off
for minor league prospects and cash considerations.

<...>
>>Some people think it's cruel to make such jokes at the expense of
>>others.
>
> What other people think doesn't matter.

Then why do you keep raising that issue when judging my motives with respect to
copyright compliance?

> Whether it's cruel or not depends on the intent.

I'm glad you admit that, because it demonstrates one of the many double
standards you have. You hold me to a completely different standard, even after
I've demonstrated that my motivations were not petty, vindictive, or personal,
than you hold yourself and others (whether it's about jokes or anything else).
Again, I'm not surprised by such hypocrisy from you, James.

>>>>>Sometimes you can be the nicest
>>>>>guy, helpful, witty, and insightful.
>>>>
>>>>No, I always am.
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>No, I'm always nice, helpful, witty, and insightful until someone
>>crosses me. Sometimes I remain nice, helpful, etc., even after being
>>crossed.
>
> Your threshold of being crossed is very low.

No, it isn't.

> Then you're even more
> nasty than you were nice. There's very little in-between with you.

More of your misperceptions. It's also ironic that you would say that given your
abject malice when Mr Ball was trying to engage you in a fair discussion. You
don't come across as an angel to me when you offer snide remarks about soup can
recipes or personal attacks when someone asks you legitimate questions in a
civil tone.

>>After all, you're not on my permanent shit list yet.
>
> Somehow I'm less than thrilled...

Would you be thrilled to be *on* it? I can accomodate you like that -- in fact,
I'm quite inclined to do it given your suggestions the other day for letting
things chill and then your starting right back with more unfounded bullshit
below about claiming to be above the fray while insinuating that my motives are
of a vindictive nature. What an asshole!

<...>
>>>Weak people?
>>
>>Yes. Mentally and morally weak. Insipid. Puny. Anemic. Vapid.
>>Feeble. Take your pick or have them all.
>
> That's what you do - regard people who disagree with you as "weak".

There's a vast difference between disagreement and weakness. I'm quite capable
of disagreeing with others and being agreeable. That's how I'm perceived by my
friends, which is why we're close friends despite our stark political
differences of opinion.

I think your misperceptions, though, are purely a matter of convenience and
hypocrisy. You and others had no problem whatsoever with my "manners" so long as
they were directed at others. Indeed, some of you even encouraged me. That all
changed with *ONE* post in support of the imminent use of force to remove Saddam
Hussein from power. I didn't get nasty at all in that lone post, but the
responses it illicited sure were.

You're a ****ing useless hypocrite. Your hypocrisy is a symptom of weakness(es),
not a matter of our disagreement.

> Your ego is unmatched.

No, your vile duplicity, twisted hypocrisy, and phony "I don't want to get in
the middle" sanctimony is more than a match for my ego.

<...>
> Geez, I didn't answer that question because the answer is obvious -
> yes, the book is copyrighted. You're holding that over my head for not
> answering an obvious question?? Are you happy now?

Stop exaggerating. I wasn't holding it over your head. That was the first time I
mentioned it since I asked it.

<...>
>>All from the same book. That was the point, James. He took a
>>significant amount
>>of a copyrighted book and distributed it without prior permission.
>
> How do you know he didn't have permission?

Because most copyright holders require the statement "Printed with permission"
and the date preceding the full copyright either before or after the part
reprinted with permission.

<...>
>>>You and he have been involved in previous altercations.
>>
>>How long has that been, and under what circumstances?
>
> Oh, I don't know. For the last few years anyway, and under all sorts
> of circumstances. Actually, since you converted from "vegan" to
> whatever you call yourself now.

I never was "vegan." I tried to suggest my diet was vegan, but food isn't
political. I never, *ever* embraced the politics of veganism or AR.

>>>Most likely he
>>>posted something that you didn't like and you railed him for it.
>>
>>Would you be surprised if it was the other way around? I bet you
>> would.
>
> You mean if you said something and he went off on you? Sure, I would
> be surprised because it would be out of character for him. It's not
> out of character for you.

Then it should be an easy task for you to dig through the archives and find out
for yourself, scumbag.

<...>
> I obviously hit a chord with this.

No, you chose to throw out an accusation which you said you couldn't or wouldn't
prove while at the same time feigning some sort of ceasefire between us. That
makes you a contemptible, loathsome piece of shit in my book. All I did here was
give you some context for why and when the shit hit the fan between other vegans
and me. You're free to overlook the facts -- you *always* do -- but that doesn't
change them. You're also free to tell me one moment that we should chill out and
the next making more false allegations about matters. Just don't expect me to
trust such an ambiguous ass about it.

> I'm not going to get in the middle
> of whatever issues you have with him.

You jumped into the middle quite forcefully. WTF do you think you were doing in
calling me vindictive, etc? *You*'re the one assuming this is personal despite
everything I've offered to the contrary.

> That's your business.

Then why do you say bullshit like:

> But I will
> say that this is yet another motivation for vindictive behavior.

*I* will say that this is another shitty way of jumping right in and
sanctimoniously claiming to be above the fray. Transparent dickhead.

<...>
> I don't necessarily agree with him either. As I wrote before, I think
> you were being vindictive and trying to pass it off as some
> obiligation to duty.

I told you that you were wrong. I showed you by my actions in the matter that it
was not personal, that it was not a matter of vindication. There were plenty of
things I could've said, but didn't. Too bad you were too busy casting aspersions
at me to notice.

>>It's about standards. I didn't make it personal. He did. So did you.
>
> I never assailed you in a personal way, as you did me.

Bullshit.

> You most certainly made it personal.

I didn't.

>>>Don't ask for specific examples - I
>>>don't remember specific examples and I'm not going to take the
> time to
>>>look.
>>
>>I think you don't have the guts to look. You wouldn't like what
>
> you'd find. I
>
>>really liked this one:
>>I really wish you hadn't replied to this. I liked you much more when
>
> I
>
>>was ignorant of your political opinions. Goddamn.
>>-- Carey, 5 Nov 2002
>
> No, it's not a matter of guts. I just don't have the time to prove to
> you that which is obvious.

What you claim to be "obvious" is only "opinion." It would not be reasonably
supported by what you'd find in the archives. I gave you some context. I even
alluded to a specific timeframe. If you were sincere about your claims, you
would go and review the pertinent threads for yourself. If you were a decent
man, you would also offer an apology. No need to hurry and do the right thing --
I'm not holding my breath.

<...>
> We are where we are with it. Accept it and move on. This thread is
> getting old.

So are your sanctimonious claims to be above the fray despite your actions and
bogus claims to the contrary.

<...>