Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
|
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start 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. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start 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. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. >> > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. >> > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why not start a moderated group?
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Convert this to moderated group? | Baking | |||
A moderated group | Barbecue | |||
A Newbie to the group ,, a question to start off | Diabetic | |||
Is this a moderated group? | Recipes | |||
is this group moderated | Sushi |