"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
om...

Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may not
like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
in a moderated group.

C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may not
> like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
> group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
> think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
> in a moderated group.

It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
right mind would publish, for example, in an
"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.

The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
David Harrison appears.

Pick your poison.

C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may not
> like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
> group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
> think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
> in a moderated group.

It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
right mind would publish, for example, in an
"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.

The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
David Harrison appears.

Pick your poison.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> > else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may
not
> > like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
> > group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
> > think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed
to
> > in a moderated group.
>
> It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
> work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
> right mind would publish, for example, in an
> "unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
> that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
> any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.
>
> The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
> points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
> bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
> with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
> standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
> David Harrison appears.
>
> Pick your poison.

All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
suppress contrary points of view. However, I think they also want to
suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> > else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may
not
> > like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
> > group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
> > think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed
to
> > in a moderated group.
>
> It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
> work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
> right mind would publish, for example, in an
> "unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
> that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
> any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.
>
> The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
> points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
> bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
> with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
> standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
> David Harrison appears.
>
> Pick your poison.

All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
suppress contrary points of view. However, I think they also want to
suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
>> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>> Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
>> else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may not
>> like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
>> group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
>> think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
>> in a moderated group.
>
>
> It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't work well for
> this kind of topic. No academic in his right mind would publish, for
> example, in an "unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
> that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet: any ignorant
> shitbag's material shows up.
>
> The problem with moderated groups is that contrary points of view are
> suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd bet $100, of the asshole "beach
> ruiner". The problem with unmoderated groups is that there are no
> quality standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit David
> Harrison appears.

It's so one person that comes into a group devoted to a topic doesn't
dominate it and let's the funtion of the group continue. It's not to
quash legitimate questions. It's also to quash personal attacks, such
as your remark.




>
> Pick your poison.
>

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
>> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>> Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
>> else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may not
>> like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
>> group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
>> think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
>> in a moderated group.
>
>
> It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't work well for
> this kind of topic. No academic in his right mind would publish, for
> example, in an "unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
> that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet: any ignorant
> shitbag's material shows up.
>
> The problem with moderated groups is that contrary points of view are
> suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd bet $100, of the asshole "beach
> ruiner". The problem with unmoderated groups is that there are no
> quality standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit David
> Harrison appears.

It's so one person that comes into a group devoted to a topic doesn't
dominate it and let's the funtion of the group continue. It's not to
quash legitimate questions. It's also to quash personal attacks, such
as your remark.




>
> Pick your poison.
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas.

i don't think any recipes will be censored () maybe they were thinking of
having an alt.food.vegan board that's moderated so it could actually be
about food. then it could just be full of yummy recipe ideas. and we could
still have an unmoderated vegan one where people who want to debate its
merits can act as civil or rude toward one another as they please. it could
work. but i'll bet everyone would still come here, and the recipe board
would be pretty dead()

You may not
> like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
> group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
> think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
> in a moderated group.
>
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas.

i don't think any recipes will be censored () maybe they were thinking of
having an alt.food.vegan board that's moderated so it could actually be
about food. then it could just be full of yummy recipe ideas. and we could
still have an unmoderated vegan one where people who want to debate its
merits can act as civil or rude toward one another as they please. it could
work. but i'll bet everyone would still come here, and the recipe board
would be pretty dead()

You may not
> like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
> group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
> think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
> in a moderated group.
>
>

"katie" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> > else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas.
>
> i don't think any recipes will be censored ()

I don't know, there are some here who like to harrass recipe posters.
:^)

> maybe they were thinking of
> having an alt.food.vegan board that's moderated so it could actually
be
> about food. then it could just be full of yummy recipe ideas. and
we could
> still have an unmoderated vegan one where people who want to debate
its
> merits can act as civil or rude toward one another as they please.
it could
> work. but i'll bet everyone would still come here, and the recipe
board
> would be pretty dead()

Yeah, that could make sense. After all, this is alt.FOOD.vegan and
rightfully should be about food and not the social, political, etc.
aspects of veg*nism. If you don't already know, there is rec.food.veg
and rec.food.veg.cooking which are mostly about vegetarian food and
recipes. You are right that they are both pretty dead.

"katie" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> > else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas.
>
> i don't think any recipes will be censored ()

I don't know, there are some here who like to harrass recipe posters.
:^)

> maybe they were thinking of
> having an alt.food.vegan board that's moderated so it could actually
be
> about food. then it could just be full of yummy recipe ideas. and
we could
> still have an unmoderated vegan one where people who want to debate
its
> merits can act as civil or rude toward one another as they please.
it could
> work. but i'll bet everyone would still come here, and the recipe
board
> would be pretty dead()

Yeah, that could make sense. After all, this is alt.FOOD.vegan and
rightfully should be about food and not the social, political, etc.
aspects of veg*nism. If you don't already know, there is rec.food.veg
and rec.food.veg.cooking which are mostly about vegetarian food and
recipes. You are right that they are both pretty dead.

C. James Strutz > wrote:

> Yeah, that could make sense. After all, this is alt.FOOD.vegan and
> rightfully should be about food and not the social, political, etc.
> aspects of veg*nism. If you don't already know, there is rec.food.veg
> and rec.food.veg.cooking which are mostly about vegetarian food and
> recipes. You are right that they are both pretty dead.

Simple solution: let's post recipes there and discuss food issues.

C. James Strutz > wrote:

> Yeah, that could make sense. After all, this is alt.FOOD.vegan and
> rightfully should be about food and not the social, political, etc.
> aspects of veg*nism. If you don't already know, there is rec.food.veg
> and rec.food.veg.cooking which are mostly about vegetarian food and
> recipes. You are right that they are both pretty dead.

Simple solution: let's post recipes there and discuss food issues.

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
r.com...
>>>
>>>Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
>>>else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may
>
> not
>
>>>like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
>>>group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
>>>think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed
>
> to
>
>>>in a moderated group.
>>
>>It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
>>work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
>>right mind would publish, for example, in an
>>"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
>>that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
>>any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.
>>
>>The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
>>points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
>>bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
>>with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
>>standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
>>David Harrison appears.
>>
>>Pick your poison.
>
>
> All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
> what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
> suppress contrary points of view.

In my experience of this group, all "vegans" want to
suppress contrary opinions. They pretend to be
concerned with "off-topic" posts, but that's a thin and
easily dissipated smokescreen, as demonstrated by the
following: when one of them begins an off-topic
PRO-"veganism" rant, many of the participants quickly
pile on to express their agreement, often extending and
elaborating on the issue at some length. But as soon
as I or some other anti-"vegan" occasional participant
expresses a contrary point of view, no matter how
politely (I do sometimes remain polite), then look out!
The SHRIEKS of "troll", "kill-file", "off topic" and
so on begin to flow freely.

This is easily understood, too; no mystery at all.
"veganism" is the dietary expression of an inherently
intolerant and extremist political philosophy. As I
have demonstrated many times, "vegans" are virtually
universally leftwing extremists. That's because all
true "vegans" are "animal rights activists"
(passivists, really), and "ar" is intrinsically an
extremist leftwing political belief. "veganism" is
absolutely synonymous with so-called "ethical"
vegetarianism, and all so-called "ethical" vegetarians
are NECESSARILY believers in "ar", and so are
necessarily extremist leftwing dolts.

As all political extremes are inherently intolerant and
repressive, it is a short jump to see why "vegans" are
reflexively censorious.

> However, I think they also want to
> suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
> us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.
>
>

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
r.com...
>>>
>>>Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
>>>else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may
>
> not
>
>>>like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
>>>group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
>>>think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed
>
> to
>
>>>in a moderated group.
>>
>>It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
>>work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
>>right mind would publish, for example, in an
>>"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
>>that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
>>any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.
>>
>>The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
>>points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
>>bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
>>with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
>>standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
>>David Harrison appears.
>>
>>Pick your poison.
>
>
> All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
> what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
> suppress contrary points of view.

In my experience of this group, all "vegans" want to
suppress contrary opinions. They pretend to be
concerned with "off-topic" posts, but that's a thin and
easily dissipated smokescreen, as demonstrated by the
following: when one of them begins an off-topic
PRO-"veganism" rant, many of the participants quickly
pile on to express their agreement, often extending and
elaborating on the issue at some length. But as soon
as I or some other anti-"vegan" occasional participant
expresses a contrary point of view, no matter how
politely (I do sometimes remain polite), then look out!
The SHRIEKS of "troll", "kill-file", "off topic" and
so on begin to flow freely.

This is easily understood, too; no mystery at all.
"veganism" is the dietary expression of an inherently
intolerant and extremist political philosophy. As I
have demonstrated many times, "vegans" are virtually
universally leftwing extremists. That's because all
true "vegans" are "animal rights activists"
(passivists, really), and "ar" is intrinsically an
extremist leftwing political belief. "veganism" is
absolutely synonymous with so-called "ethical"
vegetarianism, and all so-called "ethical" vegetarians
are NECESSARILY believers in "ar", and so are
necessarily extremist leftwing dolts.

As all political extremes are inherently intolerant and
repressive, it is a short jump to see why "vegans" are
reflexively censorious.

> However, I think they also want to
> suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
> us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.
>
>

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
r.com...
>>>
>>>Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
>>>else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may
>
> not
>
>>>like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
>>>group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
>>>think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed
>
> to
>
>>>in a moderated group.
>>
>>It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
>>work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
>>right mind would publish, for example, in an
>>"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
>>that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
>>any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.
>>
>>The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
>>points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
>>bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
>>with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
>>standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
>>David Harrison appears.
>>
>>Pick your poison.
>
>
> All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
> what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
> suppress contrary points of view.

In my experience of this group, all "vegans" want to
suppress contrary opinions. They pretend to be
concerned with "off-topic" posts, but that's a thin and
easily dissipated smokescreen, as demonstrated by the
following: when one of them begins an off-topic
PRO-"veganism" rant, many of the participants quickly
pile on to express their agreement, often extending and
elaborating on the issue at some length. But as soon
as I or some other anti-"vegan" occasional participant
expresses a contrary point of view, no matter how
politely (I do sometimes remain polite), then look out!
The SHRIEKS of "troll", "kill-file", "off topic" and
so on begin to flow freely.

This is easily understood, too; no mystery at all.
"veganism" is the dietary expression of an inherently
intolerant and extremist political philosophy. As I
have demonstrated many times, "vegans" are virtually
universally leftwing extremists. That's because all
true "vegans" are "animal rights activists"
(passivists, really), and "ar" is intrinsically an
extremist leftwing political belief. "veganism" is
absolutely synonymous with so-called "ethical"
vegetarianism, and all so-called "ethical" vegetarians
are NECESSARILY believers in "ar", and so are
necessarily extremist leftwing dolts.

As all political extremes are inherently intolerant and
repressive, it is a short jump to see why "vegans" are
reflexively censorious.

> However, I think they also want to
> suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
> us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.
>
>

Beach Runner wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>
>>> Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
>>> else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may not
>>> like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
>>> group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
>>> think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
>>> in a moderated group.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't work well for
>> this kind of topic. No academic in his right mind would publish, for
>> example, in an "unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
>> that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet: any ignorant
>> shitbag's material shows up.
>>
>> The problem with moderated groups is that contrary points of view are
>> suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd bet $100, of the asshole "beach
>> ruiner". The problem with unmoderated groups is that there are no
>> quality standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit David
>> Harrison appears.
>
>
> It's so one person that comes into a group devoted to a topic doesn't
> dominate it and let's the funtion of the group continue.

No, that's not it at all. You can easily ignore
someone's off-topic posts. I just don't get the
reaction of people who feel they MUST respond to
opinions with which they disagree or which they find
off-topic. It's especially amusing, albeit
incomprehensible (only on the surface; more on that
later), when the response is to shriek "troll!" and
"off topic!" in the most shrill tone they can muster.

In fact, "troll" is the most overused,
drained-of-meaning word in all of usenet. Well over
(I'd guess) 95% of the time, the person at whom the
word is directed wasn't really trolling at all.
Rather, the word is simply supposed to be a
conversational h-bomb; it's simply intended to shut the
writer up because the reader is offended.

I studied economics in university because, alone among
the social sciences, economics looks at what people
*do*, rather than what they say. (In my opinion,
sociology and psychology and (less so today) political
science are WORTHLESS precisely because they rely on
what people say rather than observing their behavior;
people lie.) The applicability of that here is that
all the shrill shrieking "vegans" *say* they don't like
trolls and off-topic posts. However, when we analyze
their behavior objectively, we see they VERY MUCH like
trolls and off-topic posts: they ALWAYS respond to them.

> It's not to
> quash legitimate questions.

Yes, it most certainly is to quash them, beginning with
the legitimate question of how can people embrace a
purely rule-based dietary dogma that is devoid of any
real ethical content, and then loudly bray to the world
how ethical they are. That's a legitimate question,
and it demands to be asked whenever "vegans" start
trumpeting their virtue here, which periodically erupts
in an OFF-TOPIC post. Then, when someone responds with
something the crybaby "vegans" don't want to hear, the
latter get shrill and defensive.

> It's also to quash personal attacks, such
> as your remark.

Your original post contained an implied personal attack
on people who dispute the intellectual integrity of
"veganism". In asking why not have a moderated group,
your clear expression, even if only implied, is that
you don't like opponents of "veganism", and you want to
attack them intellectually by excluding them.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> Pick your poison.
>>
>

Beach Runner wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>
>>> Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
>>> else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may not
>>> like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
>>> group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
>>> think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed to
>>> in a moderated group.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't work well for
>> this kind of topic. No academic in his right mind would publish, for
>> example, in an "unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
>> that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet: any ignorant
>> shitbag's material shows up.
>>
>> The problem with moderated groups is that contrary points of view are
>> suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd bet $100, of the asshole "beach
>> ruiner". The problem with unmoderated groups is that there are no
>> quality standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit David
>> Harrison appears.
>
>
> It's so one person that comes into a group devoted to a topic doesn't
> dominate it and let's the funtion of the group continue.

No, that's not it at all. You can easily ignore
someone's off-topic posts. I just don't get the
reaction of people who feel they MUST respond to
opinions with which they disagree or which they find
off-topic. It's especially amusing, albeit
incomprehensible (only on the surface; more on that
later), when the response is to shriek "troll!" and
"off topic!" in the most shrill tone they can muster.

In fact, "troll" is the most overused,
drained-of-meaning word in all of usenet. Well over
(I'd guess) 95% of the time, the person at whom the
word is directed wasn't really trolling at all.
Rather, the word is simply supposed to be a
conversational h-bomb; it's simply intended to shut the
writer up because the reader is offended.

I studied economics in university because, alone among
the social sciences, economics looks at what people
*do*, rather than what they say. (In my opinion,
sociology and psychology and (less so today) political
science are WORTHLESS precisely because they rely on
what people say rather than observing their behavior;
people lie.) The applicability of that here is that
all the shrill shrieking "vegans" *say* they don't like
trolls and off-topic posts. However, when we analyze
their behavior objectively, we see they VERY MUCH like
trolls and off-topic posts: they ALWAYS respond to them.

> It's not to
> quash legitimate questions.

Yes, it most certainly is to quash them, beginning with
the legitimate question of how can people embrace a
purely rule-based dietary dogma that is devoid of any
real ethical content, and then loudly bray to the world
how ethical they are. That's a legitimate question,
and it demands to be asked whenever "vegans" start
trumpeting their virtue here, which periodically erupts
in an OFF-TOPIC post. Then, when someone responds with
something the crybaby "vegans" don't want to hear, the
latter get shrill and defensive.

> It's also to quash personal attacks, such
> as your remark.

Your original post contained an implied personal attack
on people who dispute the intellectual integrity of
"veganism". In asking why not have a moderated group,
your clear expression, even if only implied, is that
you don't like opponents of "veganism", and you want to
attack them intellectually by excluding them.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> Pick your poison.
>>
>

hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are diet
nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone eats a
hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only matters to
me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to change
anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with your
post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe. cheers.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> r.com...
> >>>
> >>>Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> >>>else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may
> >
> > not
> >
> >>>like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
> >>>group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
> >>>think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>in a moderated group.
> >>
> >>It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
> >>work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
> >>right mind would publish, for example, in an
> >>"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
> >>that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
> >>any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.
> >>
> >>The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
> >>points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
> >>bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
> >>with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
> >>standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
> >>David Harrison appears.
> >>
> >>Pick your poison.
> >
> >
> > All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
> > what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
> > suppress contrary points of view.
>
> In my experience of this group, all "vegans" want to
> suppress contrary opinions. They pretend to be
> concerned with "off-topic" posts, but that's a thin and
> easily dissipated smokescreen, as demonstrated by the
> following: when one of them begins an off-topic
> PRO-"veganism" rant, many of the participants quickly
> pile on to express their agreement, often extending and
> elaborating on the issue at some length. But as soon
> as I or some other anti-"vegan" occasional participant
> expresses a contrary point of view, no matter how
> politely (I do sometimes remain polite), then look out!
> The SHRIEKS of "troll", "kill-file", "off topic" and
> so on begin to flow freely.
>
> This is easily understood, too; no mystery at all.
> "veganism" is the dietary expression of an inherently
> intolerant and extremist political philosophy. As I
> have demonstrated many times, "vegans" are virtually
> universally leftwing extremists. That's because all
> true "vegans" are "animal rights activists"
> (passivists, really), and "ar" is intrinsically an
> extremist leftwing political belief. "veganism" is
> absolutely synonymous with so-called "ethical"
> vegetarianism, and all so-called "ethical" vegetarians
> are NECESSARILY believers in "ar", and so are
> necessarily extremist leftwing dolts.
>
> As all political extremes are inherently intolerant and
> repressive, it is a short jump to see why "vegans" are
> reflexively censorious.
>
> > However, I think they also want to
> > suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
> > us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.
> >
> >
>
>

hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are diet
nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone eats a
hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only matters to
me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to change
anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with your
post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe. cheers.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> r.com...
> >>>
> >>>Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
> >>>else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may
> >
> > not
> >
> >>>like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
> >>>group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
> >>>think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>in a moderated group.
> >>
> >>It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
> >>work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
> >>right mind would publish, for example, in an
> >>"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
> >>that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
> >>any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.
> >>
> >>The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
> >>points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
> >>bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
> >>with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
> >>standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
> >>David Harrison appears.
> >>
> >>Pick your poison.
> >
> >
> > All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
> > what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
> > suppress contrary points of view.
>
> In my experience of this group, all "vegans" want to
> suppress contrary opinions. They pretend to be
> concerned with "off-topic" posts, but that's a thin and
> easily dissipated smokescreen, as demonstrated by the
> following: when one of them begins an off-topic
> PRO-"veganism" rant, many of the participants quickly
> pile on to express their agreement, often extending and
> elaborating on the issue at some length. But as soon
> as I or some other anti-"vegan" occasional participant
> expresses a contrary point of view, no matter how
> politely (I do sometimes remain polite), then look out!
> The SHRIEKS of "troll", "kill-file", "off topic" and
> so on begin to flow freely.
>
> This is easily understood, too; no mystery at all.
> "veganism" is the dietary expression of an inherently
> intolerant and extremist political philosophy. As I
> have demonstrated many times, "vegans" are virtually
> universally leftwing extremists. That's because all
> true "vegans" are "animal rights activists"
> (passivists, really), and "ar" is intrinsically an
> extremist leftwing political belief. "veganism" is
> absolutely synonymous with so-called "ethical"
> vegetarianism, and all so-called "ethical" vegetarians
> are NECESSARILY believers in "ar", and so are
> necessarily extremist leftwing dolts.
>
> As all political extremes are inherently intolerant and
> repressive, it is a short jump to see why "vegans" are
> reflexively censorious.
>
> > However, I think they also want to
> > suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
> > us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.
> >
> >
>
>

hamilton wrote:

> hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are diet
> nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone eats a
> hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only matters to
> me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to change
> anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with your
> post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe. cheers.

If you're truly a "vegan", then you *are* a diet nazi;
it's an intrinsic part of it, which has been
demonstrated directly and indirectly thousands of
times. If you're just a strict vegetarian, say for
health reasons, then you quite possibly aren't a diet
nazi, although there's an extremely high probability
you're an orthorexic. But then you aren't a "vegan",
either; you probably just use the word for shorthand,
not to wrap yourself in its inflammatory political meaning.

"veganism" is the dietary expression of "animal rights"
loons, and "ar" is, intrinsically, an extremist
political belief. Actually, as I said and as you
acknowledged, it's leftwing, but the correct way to
view the political spectrum is as a circle, not a line,
and extreme leftism and extreme rightism come around to
meet and engage in anal sex at the dark back side of
the circle. The leading edge of the circle, as it
travels through human experience, is market-oriented
liberalism, "liberal" having its classic 18th century
meaning rather than the perverted 20th-21st century
American meaning.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> hamilton wrote:
>
> > hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are diet
> > nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone eats a
> > hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only
matters to
> > me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to change
> > anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with your
> > post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe. cheers.
>
> If you're truly a "vegan", then you *are* a diet nazi;
> it's an intrinsic part of it, which has been
> demonstrated directly and indirectly thousands of
> times. If you're just a strict vegetarian, say for
> health reasons, then you quite possibly aren't a diet
> nazi, although there's an extremely high probability
> you're an orthorexic. But then you aren't a "vegan",
> either; you probably just use the word for shorthand,
> not to wrap yourself in its inflammatory political meaning.
>
> "veganism" is the dietary expression of "animal rights"
> loons, and "ar" is, intrinsically, an extremist
> political belief. Actually, as I said and as you
> acknowledged, it's leftwing, but the correct way to
> view the political spectrum is as a circle, not a line,
> and extreme leftism and extreme rightism come around to
> meet and engage in anal sex at the dark back side of
> the circle. The leading edge of the circle, as it
> travels through human experience, is market-oriented
> liberalism, "liberal" having its classic 18th century
> meaning rather than the perverted 20th-21st century
> American meaning.
>

Yeah, JB had to set me straight on this too. I used to say I was "a vegan"
but now I just say I follow a diet of eating food that for the most part
does not contain animal products. I still use tires, and shoes and high
performance grease. I don't think I'm saving any lives, but I feel better
because, among other reasons, I used to have irritable bowel syndrome and
that's gone now.
"Vegans" are those people who get invited to Aunt Martha's for dinner and,
after finding out that Aunt Martha made a special dish for them, a special
dish containing no animal products whatsoever, but was cooked in the same
pan that was used last month to make hamburger helper, they say they felt
"truly ill" after eating it. Some "vegans" have condemned me because I
have spoken out on some of the poor logic they've used. It's a tough
crowd. They share some great recipes and restaurant locations, but the
politics are disgusting.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> hamilton wrote:
>
> > hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are diet
> > nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone eats a
> > hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only
matters to
> > me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to change
> > anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with your
> > post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe. cheers.
>
> If you're truly a "vegan", then you *are* a diet nazi;
> it's an intrinsic part of it, which has been
> demonstrated directly and indirectly thousands of
> times. If you're just a strict vegetarian, say for
> health reasons, then you quite possibly aren't a diet
> nazi, although there's an extremely high probability
> you're an orthorexic. But then you aren't a "vegan",
> either; you probably just use the word for shorthand,
> not to wrap yourself in its inflammatory political meaning.
>
> "veganism" is the dietary expression of "animal rights"
> loons, and "ar" is, intrinsically, an extremist
> political belief. Actually, as I said and as you
> acknowledged, it's leftwing, but the correct way to
> view the political spectrum is as a circle, not a line,
> and extreme leftism and extreme rightism come around to
> meet and engage in anal sex at the dark back side of
> the circle. The leading edge of the circle, as it
> travels through human experience, is market-oriented
> liberalism, "liberal" having its classic 18th century
> meaning rather than the perverted 20th-21st century
> American meaning.
>

Yeah, JB had to set me straight on this too. I used to say I was "a vegan"
but now I just say I follow a diet of eating food that for the most part
does not contain animal products. I still use tires, and shoes and high
performance grease. I don't think I'm saving any lives, but I feel better
because, among other reasons, I used to have irritable bowel syndrome and
that's gone now.
"Vegans" are those people who get invited to Aunt Martha's for dinner and,
after finding out that Aunt Martha made a special dish for them, a special
dish containing no animal products whatsoever, but was cooked in the same
pan that was used last month to make hamburger helper, they say they felt
"truly ill" after eating it. Some "vegans" have condemned me because I
have spoken out on some of the poor logic they've used. It's a tough
crowd. They share some great recipes and restaurant locations, but the
politics are disgusting.

"Ron" > wrote in message
om...
> "William Hershman" > wrote in message
news:<bOvKc.123051$XM6.86351@attbi_s53>...
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > > hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are
diet
> > > > nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone
eats a
> > > > hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only
> > matters to
> > > > me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to
change
> > > > anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with
your
> > > > post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe.
cheers.
> > >
> > > If you're truly a "vegan", then you *are* a diet nazi;
> > > it's an intrinsic part of it, which has been
> > > demonstrated directly and indirectly thousands of
> > > times. If you're just a strict vegetarian, say for
> > > health reasons, then you quite possibly aren't a diet
> > > nazi, although there's an extremely high probability
> > > you're an orthorexic. But then you aren't a "vegan",
> > > either; you probably just use the word for shorthand,
> > > not to wrap yourself in its inflammatory political meaning.
> > >
> > > "veganism" is the dietary expression of "animal rights"
> > > loons, and "ar" is, intrinsically, an extremist
> > > political belief. Actually, as I said and as you
> > > acknowledged, it's leftwing, but the correct way to
> > > view the political spectrum is as a circle, not a line,
> > > and extreme leftism and extreme rightism come around to
> > > meet and engage in anal sex at the dark back side of
> > > the circle. The leading edge of the circle, as it
> > > travels through human experience, is market-oriented
> > > liberalism, "liberal" having its classic 18th century
> > > meaning rather than the perverted 20th-21st century
> > > American meaning.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, JB had to set me straight on this too. I used to say I was "a
vegan"
> > but now I just say I follow a diet of eating food that for the most part
> > does not contain animal products. I still use tires, and shoes and high
> > performance grease. I don't think I'm saving any lives, but I feel
better
> > because, among other reasons, I used to have irritable bowel syndrome
and
> > that's gone now.
> > "Vegans" are those people who get invited to Aunt Martha's for dinner
and,
> > after finding out that Aunt Martha made a special dish for them, a
special
> > dish containing no animal products whatsoever, but was cooked in the
same
> > pan that was used last month to make hamburger helper, they say they
felt
> > "truly ill" after eating it. Some "vegans" have condemned me because I
> > have spoken out on some of the poor logic they've used. It's a tough
> > crowd. They share some great recipes and restaurant locations, but the
> > politics are disgusting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Are you having a conversation with yourself again Bawl?
>
>
>
>
> .
I'm flattered, but I'm not Jon.

"Ron" > wrote in message
om...
> "William Hershman" > wrote in message
news:<bOvKc.123051$XM6.86351@attbi_s53>...
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > > hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are
diet
> > > > nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone
eats a
> > > > hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only
> > matters to
> > > > me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to
change
> > > > anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with
your
> > > > post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe.
cheers.
> > >
> > > If you're truly a "vegan", then you *are* a diet nazi;
> > > it's an intrinsic part of it, which has been
> > > demonstrated directly and indirectly thousands of
> > > times. If you're just a strict vegetarian, say for
> > > health reasons, then you quite possibly aren't a diet
> > > nazi, although there's an extremely high probability
> > > you're an orthorexic. But then you aren't a "vegan",
> > > either; you probably just use the word for shorthand,
> > > not to wrap yourself in its inflammatory political meaning.
> > >
> > > "veganism" is the dietary expression of "animal rights"
> > > loons, and "ar" is, intrinsically, an extremist
> > > political belief. Actually, as I said and as you
> > > acknowledged, it's leftwing, but the correct way to
> > > view the political spectrum is as a circle, not a line,
> > > and extreme leftism and extreme rightism come around to
> > > meet and engage in anal sex at the dark back side of
> > > the circle. The leading edge of the circle, as it
> > > travels through human experience, is market-oriented
> > > liberalism, "liberal" having its classic 18th century
> > > meaning rather than the perverted 20th-21st century
> > > American meaning.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, JB had to set me straight on this too. I used to say I was "a
vegan"
> > but now I just say I follow a diet of eating food that for the most part
> > does not contain animal products. I still use tires, and shoes and high
> > performance grease. I don't think I'm saving any lives, but I feel
better
> > because, among other reasons, I used to have irritable bowel syndrome
and
> > that's gone now.
> > "Vegans" are those people who get invited to Aunt Martha's for dinner
and,
> > after finding out that Aunt Martha made a special dish for them, a
special
> > dish containing no animal products whatsoever, but was cooked in the
same
> > pan that was used last month to make hamburger helper, they say they
felt
> > "truly ill" after eating it. Some "vegans" have condemned me because I
> > have spoken out on some of the poor logic they've used. It's a tough
> > crowd. They share some great recipes and restaurant locations, but the
> > politics are disgusting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Are you having a conversation with yourself again Bawl?
>
>
>
>
> .
I'm flattered, but I'm not Jon.

William Hershman wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>hamilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are diet
>>>nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone eats a
>>>hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only
>
> matters to
>
>>>me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to change
>>>anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with your
>>>post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe. cheers.
>>
>>If you're truly a "vegan", then you *are* a diet nazi;
>> it's an intrinsic part of it, which has been
>>demonstrated directly and indirectly thousands of
>>times. If you're just a strict vegetarian, say for
>>health reasons, then you quite possibly aren't a diet
>>nazi, although there's an extremely high probability
>>you're an orthorexic. But then you aren't a "vegan",
>>either; you probably just use the word for shorthand,
>>not to wrap yourself in its inflammatory political meaning.
>>
>>"veganism" is the dietary expression of "animal rights"
>>loons, and "ar" is, intrinsically, an extremist
>>political belief. Actually, as I said and as you
>>acknowledged, it's leftwing, but the correct way to
>>view the political spectrum is as a circle, not a line,
>>and extreme leftism and extreme rightism come around to
>>meet and engage in anal sex at the dark back side of
>>the circle. The leading edge of the circle, as it
>>travels through human experience, is market-oriented
>>liberalism, "liberal" having its classic 18th century
>>meaning rather than the perverted 20th-21st century
>>American meaning.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, JB had to set me straight on this too. I used to say I was "a vegan"
> but now I just say I follow a diet of eating food that for the most part
> does not contain animal products. I still use tires, and shoes and high
> performance grease. I don't think I'm saving any lives, but I feel better
> because, among other reasons, I used to have irritable bowel syndrome and
> that's gone now.
> "Vegans" are those people who get invited to Aunt Martha's for dinner and,
> after finding out that Aunt Martha made a special dish for them, a special
> dish containing no animal products whatsoever, but was cooked in the same
> pan that was used last month to make hamburger helper, they say they felt
> "truly ill" after eating it. Some "vegans" have condemned me because I
> have spoken out on some of the poor logic they've used. It's a tough
> crowd. They share some great recipes and restaurant locations, but the
> politics are disgusting.

Hi, Bill,

That's a refreshing post you've written. It gives me hope.

It should be obvious that I, at least, don't harbor any
wish to dictate to anyone what he should eat. I just
find the smug certitude that virtually all "vegans"
exhibit to be repugnant and utterly unjustified. There
are massive philosophical and logical problems with
"veganism", but the overwhelming majority of "vegans"
just don't want to know about them; their minds are
made up, and they don't want to be confused by facts or
logic.

There used to be a strict vegetarian over in the
"animal rights"-related newsgroups - the place from
which that idiot Harrison oozed into alt.food.vegan -
who is an imaginative, intelligent, informed opponent
of "veganism". He is strictly vegetarian for health
reasons, as he says he is violently allergic to animal
protein. Rather obviously, neither I nor any other
sensible person is going to criticize his failure to
eat meat; one can't honestly criticize someone for
protecting his health.

"veganism" is another story altogether. It's a
rule-based dietary regime for which the rule is devoid
of any underlying principle. It is rife with
contradiction and inconsistency. That it doesn't seem
to bother "vegans" is dismaying; that the overwhelming
majority of the ones who participate here don't even
want to consider it is genuinely alarming. I
frequently write that "veganism" is a form of religion,
provoking frenzied denials from "vegans" themselves,
but their refusal to examine the shaky underpinnings of
their belief system just shrieks "blindly religious
zealots" at full volume.

William Hershman wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>hamilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>hold on a second before you say, 'all vegans.' not all vegans are diet
>>>nazi's, myself included. i could honestly give a **** if someone eats a
>>>hamburger or wears leather or feeds their dog horse meat. it only
>
> matters to
>
>>>me what I do. i'm not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to change
>>>anything (you can't). i'm doing this solely for me. i agree with your
>>>post... just watch how you start things with 'all vegans.' hehe. cheers.
>>
>>If you're truly a "vegan", then you *are* a diet nazi;
>> it's an intrinsic part of it, which has been
>>demonstrated directly and indirectly thousands of
>>times. If you're just a strict vegetarian, say for
>>health reasons, then you quite possibly aren't a diet
>>nazi, although there's an extremely high probability
>>you're an orthorexic. But then you aren't a "vegan",
>>either; you probably just use the word for shorthand,
>>not to wrap yourself in its inflammatory political meaning.
>>
>>"veganism" is the dietary expression of "animal rights"
>>loons, and "ar" is, intrinsically, an extremist
>>political belief. Actually, as I said and as you
>>acknowledged, it's leftwing, but the correct way to
>>view the political spectrum is as a circle, not a line,
>>and extreme leftism and extreme rightism come around to
>>meet and engage in anal sex at the dark back side of
>>the circle. The leading edge of the circle, as it
>>travels through human experience, is market-oriented
>>liberalism, "liberal" having its classic 18th century
>>meaning rather than the perverted 20th-21st century
>>American meaning.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, JB had to set me straight on this too. I used to say I was "a vegan"
> but now I just say I follow a diet of eating food that for the most part
> does not contain animal products. I still use tires, and shoes and high
> performance grease. I don't think I'm saving any lives, but I feel better
> because, among other reasons, I used to have irritable bowel syndrome and
> that's gone now.
> "Vegans" are those people who get invited to Aunt Martha's for dinner and,
> after finding out that Aunt Martha made a special dish for them, a special
> dish containing no animal products whatsoever, but was cooked in the same
> pan that was used last month to make hamburger helper, they say they felt
> "truly ill" after eating it. Some "vegans" have condemned me because I
> have spoken out on some of the poor logic they've used. It's a tough
> crowd. They share some great recipes and restaurant locations, but the
> politics are disgusting.

Hi, Bill,

That's a refreshing post you've written. It gives me hope.

It should be obvious that I, at least, don't harbor any
wish to dictate to anyone what he should eat. I just
find the smug certitude that virtually all "vegans"
exhibit to be repugnant and utterly unjustified. There
are massive philosophical and logical problems with
"veganism", but the overwhelming majority of "vegans"
just don't want to know about them; their minds are
made up, and they don't want to be confused by facts or
logic.

There used to be a strict vegetarian over in the
"animal rights"-related newsgroups - the place from
which that idiot Harrison oozed into alt.food.vegan -
who is an imaginative, intelligent, informed opponent
of "veganism". He is strictly vegetarian for health
reasons, as he says he is violently allergic to animal
protein. Rather obviously, neither I nor any other
sensible person is going to criticize his failure to
eat meat; one can't honestly criticize someone for
protecting his health.

"veganism" is another story altogether. It's a
rule-based dietary regime for which the rule is devoid
of any underlying principle. It is rife with
contradiction and inconsistency. That it doesn't seem
to bother "vegans" is dismaying; that the overwhelming
majority of the ones who participate here don't even
want to consider it is genuinely alarming. I
frequently write that "veganism" is a form of religion,
provoking frenzied denials from "vegans" themselves,
but their refusal to examine the shaky underpinnings of
their belief system just shrieks "blindly religious
zealots" at full volume.

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

He is strictly vegetarian for health
reasons, as he says he is violently allergic to animal
protein. Rather obviously, neither I nor any other
sensible person is going to criticize his failure to
eat meat; one can't honestly criticize someone for
protecting his health.

"failure to eat meat"????? i hope nobody ever criticizes my failure to
smoke crack.

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

He is strictly vegetarian for health
reasons, as he says he is violently allergic to animal
protein. Rather obviously, neither I nor any other
sensible person is going to criticize his failure to
eat meat; one can't honestly criticize someone for
protecting his health.

"failure to eat meat"????? i hope nobody ever criticizes my failure to
smoke crack.

William Hershman wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
> He is strictly vegetarian for health
> reasons, as he says he is violently allergic to animal
> protein. Rather obviously, neither I nor any other
> sensible person is going to criticize his failure to
> eat meat; one can't honestly criticize someone for
> protecting his health.
>
> "failure to eat meat"????? i hope nobody ever criticizes my failure to
> smoke crack.

Heh heh - good one!

Poor choice of words on my part, although ****wit
(David Harrison) does *indeed* view not eating meat a
as moral failure.

Let me try again: "Rather obviously, neither I nor any
other sensible person is going to criticize his
abstention from meat..." Note the qualifying adjective
"sensible", too: ****wit Harrison will morally
criticize someone for not eating meat, and the world
doesn't care, as he is the epitome of lack of sense.

William Hershman wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
> He is strictly vegetarian for health
> reasons, as he says he is violently allergic to animal
> protein. Rather obviously, neither I nor any other
> sensible person is going to criticize his failure to
> eat meat; one can't honestly criticize someone for
> protecting his health.
>
> "failure to eat meat"????? i hope nobody ever criticizes my failure to
> smoke crack.

Heh heh - good one!

Poor choice of words on my part, although ****wit
(David Harrison) does *indeed* view not eating meat a
as moral failure.

Let me try again: "Rather obviously, neither I nor any
other sensible person is going to criticize his
abstention from meat..." Note the qualifying adjective
"sensible", too: ****wit Harrison will morally
criticize someone for not eating meat, and the world
doesn't care, as he is the epitome of lack of sense.