On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:27:36 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>Maybe where you live the definition is considered different, but vegetarians
>are considered to be the same as everyone else except they don't eat meat.
>They don't just eat vegetables, thats the point. They also eat grains,
>beans, fruit, dairy.

But the term you use when describing yourself
as a vegetarian refers to a Latin phrase meaning
'enlivened' rather than a term referring to a diet on
vegetables, and you've admitted taking advantage
of this "common misconception" among those who
don't know of this Latin phrase. Why don't you just
say you're 'enlivened' if that's what you mean to say?
You won't fool everyone with this equivocation on the
term, and it doesn't say much for your honesty either.

>My point is that the word vegetarian could be substituted for the word
>grainarian if it had anything to do with the word vegetable.

I'm sure people like you could substitute the term for
anything rather than use it correctly.

>It doesn't, apart from sounding similar.
>
>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into
>> thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily
>> or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a
>> vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a
>> completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian'
>> when making this announcement which has nothing to do
>> with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement
>> of that.
>>
>> "The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the
>> latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart
>> from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a
>> common misconception."
>> Richard 14/10/2004
>>
>> As you say, "This is a common misconception", and
>> you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever
>> announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you
>> just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean?
>

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:27:36 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>Maybe where you live the definition is considered different, but vegetarians
>are considered to be the same as everyone else except they don't eat meat.
>They don't just eat vegetables, thats the point. They also eat grains,
>beans, fruit, dairy.

But the term you use when describing yourself
as a vegetarian refers to a Latin phrase meaning
'enlivened' rather than a term referring to a diet on
vegetables, and you've admitted taking advantage
of this "common misconception" among those who
don't know of this Latin phrase. Why don't you just
say you're 'enlivened' if that's what you mean to say?
You won't fool everyone with this equivocation on the
term, and it doesn't say much for your honesty either.

>My point is that the word vegetarian could be substituted for the word
>grainarian if it had anything to do with the word vegetable.

I'm sure people like you could substitute the term for
anything rather than use it correctly.

>It doesn't, apart from sounding similar.
>
>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into
>> thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily
>> or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a
>> vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a
>> completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian'
>> when making this announcement which has nothing to do
>> with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement
>> of that.
>>
>> "The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the
>> latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart
>> from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a
>> common misconception."
>> Richard 14/10/2004
>>
>> As you say, "This is a common misconception", and
>> you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever
>> announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you
>> just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean?
>

"Digger" > wrote in message
...

> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan. If breast milk is
> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>
> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.

A double negative does not always cancel itself out in language the
way it does in mathematics. If I say that something is "not
unreasonable", for example, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is
"reasonable". The continuum between "reasonable" and "unreasonable"
transistions more slowly through its singularity than something like
whether someone is armed or not. In other words, somebody is either
armed or not so there is no middle ground. There is a lot of middle
ground between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" because they are more
subjective terms.

> Your only reason for insisting this is now a non-issue is
> because you've made a huge error and would prefer to
> avoid admitting it. It is not a non-issue.

Another rather subjective double negative...

> It shows that you
> are incurably stupid and cannot concede when shown to
> be wrong. If you can't admit to being wrong on something
> as obvious and as simple as this, then it's certain you will
> never admit you're wrong on anything, even while the
> evidence of your error is shown to you in clear detail.
> You're a complete dunce.

Actually, I think this describes you very well.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...

> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan. If breast milk is
> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>
> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.

A double negative does not always cancel itself out in language the
way it does in mathematics. If I say that something is "not
unreasonable", for example, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is
"reasonable". The continuum between "reasonable" and "unreasonable"
transistions more slowly through its singularity than something like
whether someone is armed or not. In other words, somebody is either
armed or not so there is no middle ground. There is a lot of middle
ground between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" because they are more
subjective terms.

> Your only reason for insisting this is now a non-issue is
> because you've made a huge error and would prefer to
> avoid admitting it. It is not a non-issue.

Another rather subjective double negative...

> It shows that you
> are incurably stupid and cannot concede when shown to
> be wrong. If you can't admit to being wrong on something
> as obvious and as simple as this, then it's certain you will
> never admit you're wrong on anything, even while the
> evidence of your error is shown to you in clear detail.
> You're a complete dunce.

Actually, I think this describes you very well.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...

> A vegetarian is someone whose diet consists primarily
> or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products, as
> stated in the dictionary.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegeta
> A vegan is someone whose diet is the same as that of
> a vegetarian but also excludes animal products from
> other areas of his lifestyle as well, such as leather, fur
> and certain types of glue, etc.

There are several variations of "vegetarian" that don't work well with
your description. Some definitions include eggs and/or dairy while
other definitions even include fish (pesco-vegetarian). You can see
they aren't necesssarily "vegetables and vegetable products". It's
also unclear whether your term "vegetable and vegetable products"
includes fruits, legumes, fungi and other foods that are not strictly
vegetable products.

Your definition of ethical "vegan" doesn't say anything about
exploitation of animals. That is the primary reason that people become
ethical vegans. We've been all over your attempts to torpedo the
exploitation issue and you are deluding yourself. Exploitation is the
primary issue for ethical vegans. Period.

Vegans typically do NOT eat any animal products, including eggs or
dairy. Your statement that a "vegan is someone whose diet is the same
as that of a vegetarian" is clearly very wrong.

You don't have a clue what "vegetarian" or "vegan" are.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...

> A vegetarian is someone whose diet consists primarily
> or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products, as
> stated in the dictionary.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegeta
> A vegan is someone whose diet is the same as that of
> a vegetarian but also excludes animal products from
> other areas of his lifestyle as well, such as leather, fur
> and certain types of glue, etc.

There are several variations of "vegetarian" that don't work well with
your description. Some definitions include eggs and/or dairy while
other definitions even include fish (pesco-vegetarian). You can see
they aren't necesssarily "vegetables and vegetable products". It's
also unclear whether your term "vegetable and vegetable products"
includes fruits, legumes, fungi and other foods that are not strictly
vegetable products.

Your definition of ethical "vegan" doesn't say anything about
exploitation of animals. That is the primary reason that people become
ethical vegans. We've been all over your attempts to torpedo the
exploitation issue and you are deluding yourself. Exploitation is the
primary issue for ethical vegans. Period.

Vegans typically do NOT eat any animal products, including eggs or
dairy. Your statement that a "vegan is someone whose diet is the same
as that of a vegetarian" is clearly very wrong.

You don't have a clue what "vegetarian" or "vegan" are.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:04 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>
>> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
>> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
>> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan. If breast milk is
>> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
>> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>>
>> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
>> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
>> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.
>
>A double negative does not always cancel itself out in language the
>way it does in mathematics.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, Strutz.

[In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the
Renaissance have objected to the double negative in
English. In their eagerness to make English conform
to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the
notion that

* two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.*

This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar
and writing, has become established as a fundamental
of standard usage.] *my emphasis*
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative

>> Your only reason for insisting this is now a non-issue is
>> because you've made a huge error and would prefer to
>> avoid admitting it. It is not a non-issue.
>
>Another rather subjective double negative...

Meaning it IS an issue.

>> It shows that you
>> are incurably stupid and cannot concede when shown to
>> be wrong. If you can't admit to being wrong on something
>> as obvious and as simple as this, then it's certain you will
>> never admit you're wrong on anything, even while the
>> evidence of your error is shown to you in clear detail.
>> You're a complete dunce.
>
>Actually, I think this describes you very well.

Says the idiot that believes a lion cub in a vegetarian,
simply on the basis that it drinks milk.

Says the idiot who believes the meat from road kill
is a valid source of vegan fare.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:04 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>
>> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
>> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
>> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan. If breast milk is
>> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
>> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>>
>> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
>> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
>> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.
>
>A double negative does not always cancel itself out in language the
>way it does in mathematics.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, Strutz.

[In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the
Renaissance have objected to the double negative in
English. In their eagerness to make English conform
to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the
notion that

* two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.*

This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar
and writing, has become established as a fundamental
of standard usage.] *my emphasis*
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative

>> Your only reason for insisting this is now a non-issue is
>> because you've made a huge error and would prefer to
>> avoid admitting it. It is not a non-issue.
>
>Another rather subjective double negative...

Meaning it IS an issue.

>> It shows that you
>> are incurably stupid and cannot concede when shown to
>> be wrong. If you can't admit to being wrong on something
>> as obvious and as simple as this, then it's certain you will
>> never admit you're wrong on anything, even while the
>> evidence of your error is shown to you in clear detail.
>> You're a complete dunce.
>
>Actually, I think this describes you very well.

Says the idiot that believes a lion cub in a vegetarian,
simply on the basis that it drinks milk.

Says the idiot who believes the meat from road kill
is a valid source of vegan fare.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:

>
>"Digger" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> A vegetarian is someone whose diet consists primarily
>> or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products, as
>> stated in the dictionary.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegeta
>> A vegan is someone whose diet is the same as that of
>> a vegetarian but also excludes animal products from
>> other areas of his lifestyle as well, such as leather, fur
>> and certain types of glue, etc.
>
>There are several variations of "vegetarian"

Only for those who try to fool others by equivocating
on the term. Richard, for example, inwardly refers to
another definition of vegetarian which has nothing to
do with vegetables when announcing himself as a
vegetarian.

"The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the
latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart
from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a
common misconception."
Richard 14/10/2004

Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
of the term when they announce themselves to be
vegetarians.

veg·e·tar·i·an
n.
One who practices vegetarianism.
A herbivore.

adj.
Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:

>
>"Digger" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> A vegetarian is someone whose diet consists primarily
>> or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products, as
>> stated in the dictionary.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegeta
>> A vegan is someone whose diet is the same as that of
>> a vegetarian but also excludes animal products from
>> other areas of his lifestyle as well, such as leather, fur
>> and certain types of glue, etc.
>
>There are several variations of "vegetarian"

Only for those who try to fool others by equivocating
on the term. Richard, for example, inwardly refers to
another definition of vegetarian which has nothing to
do with vegetables when announcing himself as a
vegetarian.

"The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the
latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart
from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a
common misconception."
Richard 14/10/2004

Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
of the term when they announce themselves to be
vegetarians.

veg·e·tar·i·an
n.
One who practices vegetarianism.
A herbivore.

adj.
Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Digger" > wrote in message
. ..


> Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
> of the term when they announce themselves to be
> vegetarians.
>
> veg·e·tar·i·an
> n.
> One who practices vegetarianism.
> A herbivore.
>
> adj.
> Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
> Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
> vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

Dictionaries can be wrong. Dictionaries also do not change very fast to
reflect the use of the word.

Vegetarian groups, medical groups, the American Dietetic Association and
the Dietitions of Canada describe vegetarians the way just about
everyone else here does. Everyone, that is, except for you.

"A vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat, fish, or fowl or
products containing these foods. The eating patterns of vegetarians may
vary considerably. The lacto-ovo-vegetarian eating pattern is based on
grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, seeds, nuts, dairy products, and
eggs but excludes meat, fish, and fowl. The lacto-vegetarian excludes
eggs as well as meat, fish, and fowl. The vegan, or total vegetarian,
eating pattern is similar to the lacto-vegetarian pattern, with the
additional exclusion of dairy and other animal products. Even within
these patterns, considerable variation may exist in the extent to which
animal products are avoided."

http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm

"Different practices of vegetarianism include:

* Strict vegetarians avoid the consumption of all animal products
(e.g., eggs, milk and cheese, honey). Today, strict vegetarians are
commonly called vegans, though some reserve this term for those who
additionally avoid usage of all kinds of animal products (e.g., leather,
honey), not just food.

* Ovo-lacto vegetarians eschew the eating of all meat, yet allow
the consumption of animal products such as eggs and milk. Ovo-lacto
vegetarians who are such for ethical reasons may additionally refuse to
eat cheese made with animal-based enzymes, or eggs produced by factory
farms. The term "vegetarian" is most commonly intended to mean
"ovo-lacto vegetarian", particularly as "vegan" has gained acceptance as
the term for stricter practice.

* Lacto vegetarianism refers to the practice of eschewing all meat,
yet allowing the consumption of milk and its derivatives, like cheese,
butter or yogurt.

* Similarly, ovo-vegetarians eat eggs in addition to their
otherwise strictly vegetarian regimen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian

Deal with it.

-- Blue

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Digger" > wrote in message
. ..


> Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
> of the term when they announce themselves to be
> vegetarians.
>
> veg·e·tar·i·an
> n.
> One who practices vegetarianism.
> A herbivore.
>
> adj.
> Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
> Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
> vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

Dictionaries can be wrong. Dictionaries also do not change very fast to
reflect the use of the word.

Vegetarian groups, medical groups, the American Dietetic Association and
the Dietitions of Canada describe vegetarians the way just about
everyone else here does. Everyone, that is, except for you.

"A vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat, fish, or fowl or
products containing these foods. The eating patterns of vegetarians may
vary considerably. The lacto-ovo-vegetarian eating pattern is based on
grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, seeds, nuts, dairy products, and
eggs but excludes meat, fish, and fowl. The lacto-vegetarian excludes
eggs as well as meat, fish, and fowl. The vegan, or total vegetarian,
eating pattern is similar to the lacto-vegetarian pattern, with the
additional exclusion of dairy and other animal products. Even within
these patterns, considerable variation may exist in the extent to which
animal products are avoided."

http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm

"Different practices of vegetarianism include:

* Strict vegetarians avoid the consumption of all animal products
(e.g., eggs, milk and cheese, honey). Today, strict vegetarians are
commonly called vegans, though some reserve this term for those who
additionally avoid usage of all kinds of animal products (e.g., leather,
honey), not just food.

* Ovo-lacto vegetarians eschew the eating of all meat, yet allow
the consumption of animal products such as eggs and milk. Ovo-lacto
vegetarians who are such for ethical reasons may additionally refuse to
eat cheese made with animal-based enzymes, or eggs produced by factory
farms. The term "vegetarian" is most commonly intended to mean
"ovo-lacto vegetarian", particularly as "vegan" has gained acceptance as
the term for stricter practice.

* Lacto vegetarianism refers to the practice of eschewing all meat,
yet allowing the consumption of milk and its derivatives, like cheese,
butter or yogurt.

* Similarly, ovo-vegetarians eat eggs in addition to their
otherwise strictly vegetarian regimen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian

Deal with it.

-- Blue

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:05:50 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:

>Digger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>
>> Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
>> of the term when they announce themselves to be
>> vegetarians.
>>
>> veg·e·tar·i·an
>> n.
>> One who practices vegetarianism.
>> A herbivore.
>>
>> adj.
>> Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
>> Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>> vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>
>Dictionaries can be wrong.

You'll try anything, won't you? The dictionary is correct,
so get used to it and don't be surprised when it reveals
your attempts at equivocation on known terms.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:05:50 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:

>Digger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>
>> Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
>> of the term when they announce themselves to be
>> vegetarians.
>>
>> veg·e·tar·i·an
>> n.
>> One who practices vegetarianism.
>> A herbivore.
>>
>> adj.
>> Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
>> Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>> vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>
>Dictionaries can be wrong.

You'll try anything, won't you? The dictionary is correct,
so get used to it and don't be surprised when it reveals
your attempts at equivocation on known terms.

"Digger" > wrote
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan.

No, I am not.

If breast milk is
> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>
> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.

False analogies

A tree is not non-violent, yet it is not violent, why? Because violence does
not apply to trees. Similarly dietary regimes like veganism, or omnivorism
do not apply to infants still subsisting on breast milk.

And you still have not answered my question, what is the point you are
trying to make?

-snip typical Dreck wriggling-

"Digger" > wrote
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan.

No, I am not.

If breast milk is
> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>
> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.

False analogies

A tree is not non-violent, yet it is not violent, why? Because violence does
not apply to trees. Similarly dietary regimes like veganism, or omnivorism
do not apply to infants still subsisting on breast milk.

And you still have not answered my question, what is the point you are
trying to make?

-snip typical Dreck wriggling-

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote
> >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" >
wrote:
> >>>"Digger" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
> >>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
> >>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
> >>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
> >>>> someone you aren't?
> >>>
> >>> Because I don't eat meat.
> >>
> >> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
> >
> >Yes it does.
>
> It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
> and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
> that,

Which illustrates my other point, that dietary categories are not indicated
or differentiated in suckling infants. A dietary class applies to a child or
adult who has chosen or had a diet chosen for them. In the case of other
animals it is predetermined by specie.

A vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat. It is understood by everyone
with a functioning brain that does not apply to newborns.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote
> >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" >
wrote:
> >>>"Digger" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
> >>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
> >>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
> >>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
> >>>> someone you aren't?
> >>>
> >>> Because I don't eat meat.
> >>
> >> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
> >
> >Yes it does.
>
> It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
> and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
> that,

Which illustrates my other point, that dietary categories are not indicated
or differentiated in suckling infants. A dietary class applies to a child or
adult who has chosen or had a diet chosen for them. In the case of other
animals it is predetermined by specie.

A vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat. It is understood by everyone
with a functioning brain that does not apply to newborns.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:51:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>[..]
>> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
>> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
>> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan.
>
>No, I am not.

Yes, you are, but you're too ignorant to realise it,
or too arrogant to admit it.

>> If breast milk is
>> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
>> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>>
>> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
>> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
>> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.
>
>False analogies

They aren't analogies, you imbecile.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:51:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>[..]
>> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
>> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
>> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan.
>
>No, I am not.

Yes, you are, but you're too ignorant to realise it,
or too arrogant to admit it.

>> If breast milk is
>> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
>> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>>
>> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
>> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
>> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.
>
>False analogies

They aren't analogies, you imbecile.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>> >>>"Digger" > wrote
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>> >>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>> >>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>> >>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>> >>>> someone you aren't?
>> >>>
>> >>> Because I don't eat meat.
>> >>
>> >> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
>> >
>> >Yes it does.
>>
>> It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
>> and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
>> that,
>
>Which illustrates my other point

Stick to this one instead of trying to wriggle off onto
another one. The fact that a particular animal does
not eat meat doesn't also mean that that animal is a
vegetarian. A perfect example is found in suckling
lion cubs which feed exclusively on milk. It is NOT
a vegetarian simply because it drinks milk. It is a
suckling.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>> >>>"Digger" > wrote
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>> >>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>> >>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>> >>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>> >>>> someone you aren't?
>> >>>
>> >>> Because I don't eat meat.
>> >>
>> >> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
>> >
>> >Yes it does.
>>
>> It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
>> and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
>> that,
>
>Which illustrates my other point

Stick to this one instead of trying to wriggle off onto
another one. The fact that a particular animal does
not eat meat doesn't also mean that that animal is a
vegetarian. A perfect example is found in suckling
lion cubs which feed exclusively on milk. It is NOT
a vegetarian simply because it drinks milk. It is a
suckling.

"Digger" > wrote
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:51:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote
> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >[..]
> >> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
> >> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
> >> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan.
> >
> >No, I am not.
>
> Yes, you are, but you're too ignorant to realise it,
> or too arrogant to admit it.

You do have a talent for describing yourself, I'll give you that.

> >> If breast milk is
> >> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
> >> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
> >>
> >> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
> >> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
> >> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.
> >
> >False analogies
>
> They aren't analogies, you imbecile.

Yes they are, bonehead. You are claiming that "If a beer is not
non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic" is analagous to "If a suckling infant
is not a non-vegan then it is a vegan."

Are you ever going to answer my question. what is the point you are making?
Of course not, because there is no point, you're trolling.

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:05:50 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>
>
>>Digger wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
>>>of the term when they announce themselves to be
>>>vegetarians.
>>>
>>>veg·e·tar·i·an
>>>n.
>>>One who practices vegetarianism.
>>>A herbivore.
>>>
>>>adj.
>>>Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
>>>Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>>>vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>>
>>Dictionaries can be wrong.
>
>
> You'll try anything, won't you? The dictionary is correct,
> so get used to it and don't be surprised when it reveals
> your attempts at equivocation on known terms.

What "dictionary" are you even referring to? "Reference.com"?
Dictionary.com? Right, high examples of quality dictionary there. I
wrote one myself, and I define "Trees" as "Big carnivorous beasts that
roamed the earth thousands of years ago."

Lets sample some other, more established dictionaries, eh?:

~~~~
vegetarian,
n: a person who does not eat meat for moral, religious, or health reasons.
a: eating or including no meat.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2003 edition

vegetarian,
n: a person who does not eat meat for heatlh or religious reasons or
because they want to avoid cruelty to animals
Cabridge Dictionary of the English Language, 2003 edition

vegetarian, adj
1: of or relating to vegetarians
2: consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, and sometimes eggs or dairy
products <a vegetarian diet>
Mirriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, 2002 edition.

vegetarian,
n: eater of fruits and grains and nuts; someone who eats no meat or fish
or (often) any animal products.
WordNet 2.0 (Published and maintained by Princeton University)
~~~~

Add to that my previous references to the American Dieticitc Assosiation
and the Dietitions of Canada, as well as Wikipedia, all more credible
than "dictionary.com", and you have nothing left to stand on.

Now, /even/ if we took the Dictionary.com definition, it has the word
"primarily" in there. According to that definition, which is an
inclusive definition, and not an exclusive one, I could eat meat every
once in a while and still be vegetarian. We both know that that is not
true. So, tell me again that your definition is correct.

-- Blue

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:05:50 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>
>
>>Digger wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
>>>of the term when they announce themselves to be
>>>vegetarians.
>>>
>>>veg·e·tar·i·an
>>>n.
>>>One who practices vegetarianism.
>>>A herbivore.
>>>
>>>adj.
>>>Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
>>>Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>>>vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>>
>>Dictionaries can be wrong.
>
>
> You'll try anything, won't you? The dictionary is correct,
> so get used to it and don't be surprised when it reveals
> your attempts at equivocation on known terms.

What "dictionary" are you even referring to? "Reference.com"?
Dictionary.com? Right, high examples of quality dictionary there. I
wrote one myself, and I define "Trees" as "Big carnivorous beasts that
roamed the earth thousands of years ago."

Lets sample some other, more established dictionaries, eh?:

~~~~
vegetarian,
n: a person who does not eat meat for moral, religious, or health reasons.
a: eating or including no meat.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2003 edition

vegetarian,
n: a person who does not eat meat for heatlh or religious reasons or
because they want to avoid cruelty to animals
Cabridge Dictionary of the English Language, 2003 edition

vegetarian, adj
1: of or relating to vegetarians
2: consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, and sometimes eggs or dairy
products <a vegetarian diet>
Mirriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, 2002 edition.

vegetarian,
n: eater of fruits and grains and nuts; someone who eats no meat or fish
or (often) any animal products.
WordNet 2.0 (Published and maintained by Princeton University)
~~~~

Add to that my previous references to the American Dieticitc Assosiation
and the Dietitions of Canada, as well as Wikipedia, all more credible
than "dictionary.com", and you have nothing left to stand on.

Now, /even/ if we took the Dictionary.com definition, it has the word
"primarily" in there. According to that definition, which is an
inclusive definition, and not an exclusive one, I could eat meat every
once in a while and still be vegetarian. We both know that that is not
true. So, tell me again that your definition is correct.

-- Blue

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"Digger" > wrote
> >> >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus"
> wrote:
> >> >>>"Digger" > wrote
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
> >> >>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
> >> >>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
> >> >>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
> >> >>>> someone you aren't?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Because I don't eat meat.
> >> >>
> >> >> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
> >> >
> >> >Yes it does.
> >>
> >> It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
> >> and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
> >> that,
> >
> >Which illustrates my other point
>
> Stick to this one

That *is* this one. You have falsely concluded that the diet of a suckling
infant can be classified as vegan or non-vegan or anything else when the
categories have no meaning at this stage. This leads to the faulty
conclusion above about suckling lion cubs. No matter what nym you shift to,
you're just as stupid as ever Nash.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"Digger" > wrote
> >> >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus"
> wrote:
> >> >>>"Digger" > wrote
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
> >> >>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
> >> >>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
> >> >>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
> >> >>>> someone you aren't?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Because I don't eat meat.
> >> >>
> >> >> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
> >> >
> >> >Yes it does.
> >>
> >> It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
> >> and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
> >> that,
> >
> >Which illustrates my other point
>
> Stick to this one

That *is* this one. You have falsely concluded that the diet of a suckling
infant can be classified as vegan or non-vegan or anything else when the
categories have no meaning at this stage. This leads to the faulty
conclusion above about suckling lion cubs. No matter what nym you shift to,
you're just as stupid as ever Nash.

"Digger" > wrote

> Says the idiot that believes a lion cub in a vegetarian,
> simply on the basis that it drinks milk.

A lion is an obligate carnivore by nature, human diets are determined other
ways. Breast-feeding is a non-issue.

"Digger" > wrote

> Says the idiot that believes a lion cub in a vegetarian,
> simply on the basis that it drinks milk.

A lion is an obligate carnivore by nature, human diets are determined other
ways. Breast-feeding is a non-issue.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:56:12 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>Digger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:05:50 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>>>Digger wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>>>>>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
>>>>of the term when they announce themselves to be
>>>>vegetarians.
>>>>
>>>>veg·e·tar·i·an
>>>>n.
>>>>One who practices vegetarianism.
>>>>A herbivore.
>>>>
>>>>adj.
>>>>Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
>>>>Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>>>>vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>>>
>>>Dictionaries can be wrong.
>>
>> You'll try anything, won't you? The dictionary is correct,
>> so get used to it and don't be surprised when it reveals
>> your attempts at equivocation on known terms.
>
>What "dictionary" are you even referring to? "Reference.com"?
>Dictionary.com? Right, high examples of quality dictionary there.

Yes, they are.

[snipped equivocation on a common term hijacked by wannabe
vegetarians who just can't hack it.]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:56:12 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>Digger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:05:50 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>>>Digger wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>>>>>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
>>>>of the term when they announce themselves to be
>>>>vegetarians.
>>>>
>>>>veg·e·tar·i·an
>>>>n.
>>>>One who practices vegetarianism.
>>>>A herbivore.
>>>>
>>>>adj.
>>>>Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
>>>>Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>>>>vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>>>
>>>Dictionaries can be wrong.
>>
>> You'll try anything, won't you? The dictionary is correct,
>> so get used to it and don't be surprised when it reveals
>> your attempts at equivocation on known terms.
>
>What "dictionary" are you even referring to? "Reference.com"?
>Dictionary.com? Right, high examples of quality dictionary there.

Yes, they are.

[snipped equivocation on a common term hijacked by wannabe
vegetarians who just can't hack it.]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:57:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, > wrote:
>> >> >>>"Digger" > wrote
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>> >> >>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>> >> >>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>> >> >>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>> >> >>>> someone you aren't?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Because I don't eat meat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes it does.
>> >>
>> >> It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
>> >> and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
>> >> that,
>> >
>> >Which illustrates my other point
>>
>> Stick to this one
>
>That *is* this one.

Then explain why you believe a suckling lion cub is
a vegetarian on the basis that it eats no meat.

>You have falsely concluded that the diet of a suckling
>infant can be classified as vegan or non-vegan

Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
as a vegan is a true conclusion. They cannot be while
feeding on animal fats and proteins.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:57:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, > wrote:
>> >> >>>"Digger" > wrote
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>> >> >>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>> >> >>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>> >> >>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>> >> >>>> someone you aren't?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Because I don't eat meat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes it does.
>> >>
>> >> It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
>> >> and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
>> >> that,
>> >
>> >Which illustrates my other point
>>
>> Stick to this one
>
>That *is* this one.

Then explain why you believe a suckling lion cub is
a vegetarian on the basis that it eats no meat.

>You have falsely concluded that the diet of a suckling
>infant can be classified as vegan or non-vegan

Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
as a vegan is a true conclusion. They cannot be while
feeding on animal fats and proteins.

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:56:12 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>
>>Digger wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:05:50 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Digger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
>>>>>of the term when they announce themselves to be
>>>>>vegetarians.
>>>>>
>>>>>veg·e·tar·i·an
>>>>>n.
>>>>>One who practices vegetarianism.
>>>>>A herbivore.
>>>>>
>>>>>adj.
>>>>>Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
>>>>>Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>>>>>vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
>>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>>>>
>>>>Dictionaries can be wrong.
>>>
>>>You'll try anything, won't you? The dictionary is correct,
>>>so get used to it and don't be surprised when it reveals
>>>your attempts at equivocation on known terms.
>>
>>What "dictionary" are you even referring to? "Reference.com"?
>>Dictionary.com? Right, high examples of quality dictionary there.
>
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> [snipped equivocation on a common term hijacked by wannabe
> vegetarians who just can't hack it.]

Sad, sad, sad. You can't even deal with the fact that your definition
is flawed can you? Let alone the fact that most other authoritative
dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary, or recognized medical
dictionaries and associations.

It's kind of sad really. But then, that type of behavior is to be
expected from a troll such as yourself.

-- Blue

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:56:12 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>
>>Digger wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:05:50 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Digger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:12 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>Honest vegetarians refer to the dictionary's definition
>>>>>of the term when they announce themselves to be
>>>>>vegetarians.
>>>>>
>>>>>veg·e·tar·i·an
>>>>>n.
>>>>>One who practices vegetarianism.
>>>>>A herbivore.
>>>>>
>>>>>adj.
>>>>>Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
>>>>>Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>>>>>vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
>>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>>>>
>>>>Dictionaries can be wrong.
>>>
>>>You'll try anything, won't you? The dictionary is correct,
>>>so get used to it and don't be surprised when it reveals
>>>your attempts at equivocation on known terms.
>>
>>What "dictionary" are you even referring to? "Reference.com"?
>>Dictionary.com? Right, high examples of quality dictionary there.
>
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> [snipped equivocation on a common term hijacked by wannabe
> vegetarians who just can't hack it.]

Sad, sad, sad. You can't even deal with the fact that your definition
is flawed can you? Let alone the fact that most other authoritative
dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary, or recognized medical
dictionaries and associations.

It's kind of sad really. But then, that type of behavior is to be
expected from a troll such as yourself.

-- Blue

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:54:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:51:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >[..]
>> >> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
>> >> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
>> >> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan.
>> >
>> >No, I am not.
>>
>> Yes, you are, but you're too ignorant to realise it,
>> or too arrogant to admit it.
>
>You do have a talent for describing yourself, I'll give you that.

Grow up, sonny. Just listen to yourself. You act like
a child.

>> >> If breast milk is
>> >> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
>> >> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>> >>
>> >> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
>> >> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
>> >> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.
>> >
>> >False analogies
>>
>> They aren't analogies, you imbecile.
>
>Yes they are

An analogy is a comparison of properties between
things that are otherwise dissimilar. You haven't a
clue what you're talking about. They aren't analogies.
They are examples showing how a double negative
negates itself.

[In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the
Renaissance have objected to the double negative in
English. In their eagerness to make English conform
to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the
notion that

* two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.*

This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar
and writing, has become established as a fundamental
of standard usage.] *my emphasis*
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative

So, when claiming breast milk is not non-vegan, as you
do, you are in fact logically asserting breast milk IS vegan.
Get it yet, dummy?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:54:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:51:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >[..]
>> >> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
>> >> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
>> >> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan.
>> >
>> >No, I am not.
>>
>> Yes, you are, but you're too ignorant to realise it,
>> or too arrogant to admit it.
>
>You do have a talent for describing yourself, I'll give you that.

Grow up, sonny. Just listen to yourself. You act like
a child.

>> >> If breast milk is
>> >> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
>> >> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>> >>
>> >> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
>> >> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
>> >> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.
>> >
>> >False analogies
>>
>> They aren't analogies, you imbecile.
>
>Yes they are

An analogy is a comparison of properties between
things that are otherwise dissimilar. You haven't a
clue what you're talking about. They aren't analogies.
They are examples showing how a double negative
negates itself.

[In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the
Renaissance have objected to the double negative in
English. In their eagerness to make English conform
to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the
notion that

* two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.*

This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar
and writing, has become established as a fundamental
of standard usage.] *my emphasis*
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative

So, when claiming breast milk is not non-vegan, as you
do, you are in fact logically asserting breast milk IS vegan.
Get it yet, dummy?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:54:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:51:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >[..]
>> >> When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
>> >> not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
>> >> in fact agreeing that it IS vegan.
>> >
>> >No, I am not.
>>
>> Yes, you are, but you're too ignorant to realise it,
>> or too arrogant to admit it.
>
>You do have a talent for describing yourself, I'll give you that.

Grow up, sonny. Just listen to yourself. You act like
a child.

>> >> If breast milk is
>> >> not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
>> >> vegan once the double negative is taken away.
>> >>
>> >> If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
>> >> If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
>> >> If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.
>> >
>> >False analogies
>>
>> They aren't analogies, you imbecile.
>
>Yes they are

An analogy is a comparison of properties between
things that are otherwise dissimilar. You haven't a
clue what you're talking about. They aren't analogies.
They are examples showing how a double negative
negates itself.

[In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the
Renaissance have objected to the double negative in
English. In their eagerness to make English conform
to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the
notion that

* two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.*

This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar
and writing, has become established as a fundamental
of standard usage.] *my emphasis*
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative

So, when claiming breast milk is not non-vegan, as you
do, you are in fact logically asserting breast milk IS vegan.
Get it yet, dummy?

"Digger" > wrote

> Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
> as a vegan is a true conclusion.

That's true.

> They cannot be while
> feeding on animal fats and proteins.

So what?

"Digger" > wrote

> Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
> as a vegan is a true conclusion.

That's true.

> They cannot be while
> feeding on animal fats and proteins.

So what?