On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:01:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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.

That non sequitur says nothing about the claim being
made that a suckling lion cub is a vegetarian on the
basis that it eats no meat and drinks milk.

>Breast-feeding is a non-issue.

It is now I've ground you all into the dirt with it.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:01:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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.

That non sequitur says nothing about the claim being
made that a suckling lion cub is a vegetarian on the
basis that it eats no meat and drinks milk.

>Breast-feeding is a non-issue.

It is now I've ground you all into the dirt with it.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

You just did it again, you do it all the time. This whole pointless agenda
you are pursuing here is childish in the extreme.


> >> >> 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.

No it isn't, you're an idiot.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

You just did it again, you do it all the time. This whole pointless agenda
you are pursuing here is childish in the extreme.


> >> >> 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.

No it isn't, you're an idiot.

"Digger" > wrote
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:01:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"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.
>
> That non sequitur says nothing about the claim being
> made that a suckling lion cub is a vegetarian on the
> basis that it eats no meat and drinks milk.

I never made such a claim.

> >Breast-feeding is a non-issue.
>
> It is now I've ground you all into the dirt with it.

No, it's just a non-issue, just like you.

"Digger" > wrote
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:01:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"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.
>
> That non sequitur says nothing about the claim being
> made that a suckling lion cub is a vegetarian on the
> basis that it eats no meat and drinks milk.

I never made such a claim.

> >Breast-feeding is a non-issue.
>
> It is now I've ground you all into the dirt with it.

No, it's just a non-issue, just like you.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:38:23 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>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.

For you, yes, because you can't fool everyone with your
equivocations on well-known terms.

>You can't even deal with the fact that your definition
>is flawed can you?

I've shown that it isn't by bringing you the proper definition
of the term from a dictionary. It's pretty certain which out
of the two of us can't face facts, isn't it, so why do you still
equivocate on this term when your definition is so easily
seen as wrong? Either hack the real thing or stop announcing
yourself as a vegetarian if you want to be seen as honest.

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:38:23 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>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.

For you, yes, because you can't fool everyone with your
equivocations on well-known terms.

>You can't even deal with the fact that your definition
>is flawed can you?

I've shown that it isn't by bringing you the proper definition
of the term from a dictionary. It's pretty certain which out
of the two of us can't face facts, isn't it, so why do you still
equivocate on this term when your definition is so easily
seen as wrong? Either hack the real thing or stop announcing
yourself as a vegetarian if you want to be seen as honest.

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:49:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> 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.
>
>You just did it again

You're pathetic.

>> >> >> 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.
>
>No it isn't, you're an idiot.

a·nal·o·gy
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:49:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> 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.
>
>You just did it again

You're pathetic.

>> >> >> 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.
>
>No it isn't, you're an idiot.

a·nal·o·gy
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy

"Digger" > wrote
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:30:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote
> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:55:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >[..]
> >
> >>>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,
> >>
> >> It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If
> >> it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan.
> >
> >Wrong
>
> It's logically certain that if a baby or animal is not
> non-vegan, then it is vegan

If a tree is not non-vegan then is it vegan? No, dietary categories are a
non-issue with regard to trees. Dietary categories are a non-issue with
regard to suckling infants. Omnivores, herbivores, carnivores, vegans,
non-vegans, all forms of mammals suckle.

WHAT is your point, you confused, ****ed-up sot?

"Digger" > wrote
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:30:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote
> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:55:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >[..]
> >
> >>>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,
> >>
> >> It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If
> >> it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan.
> >
> >Wrong
>
> It's logically certain that if a baby or animal is not
> non-vegan, then it is vegan

If a tree is not non-vegan then is it vegan? No, dietary categories are a
non-issue with regard to trees. Dietary categories are a non-issue with
regard to suckling infants. Omnivores, herbivores, carnivores, vegans,
non-vegans, all forms of mammals suckle.

WHAT is your point, you confused, ****ed-up sot?

"Digger" > wrote
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:49:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> >> >> 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.
> >
> >You just did it again
>
> You're pathetic.

You did it again. I can't improve on perfection, and you have it down to an
art.

[..]

"Digger" > wrote
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:49:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> >> >> 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.
> >
> >You just did it again
>
> You're pathetic.

You did it again. I can't improve on perfection, and you have it down to an
art.

[..]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
>> as a vegan is a true conclusion.
>
>That's true.

Then why did you earlier assert that breast milk is vegan
when agreeing with magnulus that it was not non-vegan?
Taking away the double negative in "Breast milk is not
non-vegan" logically makes your statement mean that
"breast milk is vegan." You and he are both wrong.

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

It proves that you and magnulus are wrong. That's what.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
>> as a vegan is a true conclusion.
>
>That's true.

Then why did you earlier assert that breast milk is vegan
when agreeing with magnulus that it was not non-vegan?
Taking away the double negative in "Breast milk is not
non-vegan" logically makes your statement mean that
"breast milk is vegan." You and he are both wrong.

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

It proves that you and magnulus are wrong. That's what.

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:38:23 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> For you, yes, because you can't fool everyone with your
> equivocations on well-known terms.

Do you even know what equivocation means? Just because you use big
words, dosen't make you right.

Equivocal, according to your beloved dictionary.com is:
Open to two or more interpretations and often intended to mislead;
ambiguous. Synonymous with ambiguous.

Quite to the contrary, we are using clear and concise definitions,
accepted and used in all the established dictionaries. If anyone is
being equivocal, it is you.
>
>>You can't even deal with the fact that your definition
>>is flawed can you?
>
>
> I've shown that it isn't by bringing you the proper definition
> of the term from a dictionary. It's pretty certain which out
> of the two of us can't face facts, isn't it, so why do you still
> equivocate on this term when your definition is so easily
> seen as wrong? Either hack the real thing or stop announcing
> yourself as a vegetarian if you want to be seen as honest.
>
> [snipped equivocation on a common term hijacked by wannabe
> vegetarians who just can't hack the real thing.]

So now we are resorting to lies eh? You brought /a/ definition from a
generic, not well established dictionary, and that definition is
obviously flawed in that it would allow for someone who eats meat to be
a vegetarian, providing the subsist "primarily" on vegetables.

Lastly, you keep calling me a vegetarian! Whould you quit it already? I
have never brought up my eating habits with you, or in this thread. For
the record, I am a strict vegetarian or dietary vegan. I however do not
try to pretend that I am something that I am no, unlike yourself, who
can do nothing but resort to lies, mistruths, and faulty logic.

-- Blue

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:38:23 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> For you, yes, because you can't fool everyone with your
> equivocations on well-known terms.

Do you even know what equivocation means? Just because you use big
words, dosen't make you right.

Equivocal, according to your beloved dictionary.com is:
Open to two or more interpretations and often intended to mislead;
ambiguous. Synonymous with ambiguous.

Quite to the contrary, we are using clear and concise definitions,
accepted and used in all the established dictionaries. If anyone is
being equivocal, it is you.
>
>>You can't even deal with the fact that your definition
>>is flawed can you?
>
>
> I've shown that it isn't by bringing you the proper definition
> of the term from a dictionary. It's pretty certain which out
> of the two of us can't face facts, isn't it, so why do you still
> equivocate on this term when your definition is so easily
> seen as wrong? Either hack the real thing or stop announcing
> yourself as a vegetarian if you want to be seen as honest.
>
> [snipped equivocation on a common term hijacked by wannabe
> vegetarians who just can't hack the real thing.]

So now we are resorting to lies eh? You brought /a/ definition from a
generic, not well established dictionary, and that definition is
obviously flawed in that it would allow for someone who eats meat to be
a vegetarian, providing the subsist "primarily" on vegetables.

Lastly, you keep calling me a vegetarian! Whould you quit it already? I
have never brought up my eating habits with you, or in this thread. For
the record, I am a strict vegetarian or dietary vegan. I however do not
try to pretend that I am something that I am no, unlike yourself, who
can do nothing but resort to lies, mistruths, and faulty logic.

-- Blue

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"Digger" > wrote
> >
> >> Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
> >> as a vegan is a true conclusion.
> >
> >That's true.
>
> Then why did you earlier assert that breast milk is vegan
> when agreeing with magnulus that it was not non-vegan?

I didn't.

> Taking away the double negative in "Breast milk is not
> non-vegan" logically makes your statement mean that
> "breast milk is vegan." You and he are both wrong.

I'm not wrong.

> >> They cannot be while
> >> feeding on animal fats and proteins.
> >
> >So what?
>
> It proves that you and magnulus are wrong. That's what.

No it doesn't.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"Digger" > wrote
> >
> >> Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
> >> as a vegan is a true conclusion.
> >
> >That's true.
>
> Then why did you earlier assert that breast milk is vegan
> when agreeing with magnulus that it was not non-vegan?

I didn't.

> Taking away the double negative in "Breast milk is not
> non-vegan" logically makes your statement mean that
> "breast milk is vegan." You and he are both wrong.

I'm not wrong.

> >> They cannot be while
> >> feeding on animal fats and proteins.
> >
> >So what?
>
> It proves that you and magnulus are wrong. That's what.

No it doesn't.

"Blue Heron" > wrote >

> I however do not
> try to pretend that I am something that I am not, unlike yourself, who
> can do nothing but resort to lies, mistruths, and faulty logic.

Don't forget insults, lies, half-truths, equivocation, faulty logic and
insults. Derek has a colossal ego combined with blinding stupidity. This
unfortunate combination results in the incoherent ranting and babbling you
see from him.

"Blue Heron" > wrote >

> I however do not
> try to pretend that I am something that I am not, unlike yourself, who
> can do nothing but resort to lies, mistruths, and faulty logic.

Don't forget insults, lies, half-truths, equivocation, faulty logic and
insults. Derek has a colossal ego combined with blinding stupidity. This
unfortunate combination results in the incoherent ranting and babbling you
see from him.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:06:37 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>Digger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:38:23 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>> For you, yes, because you can't fool everyone with your
>> equivocations on well-known terms.
>
>Do you even know what equivocation means?

Here's an example given in a discussion on this very
subject the other day between myself and a lying
"vegetarian" called Richard.

[start Richard]
>The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the latin for "enlivened", and
>has no connection, apart from a linguistic one, with vegetables.
[me]
Then you're simply trying to equivocate on the term to
support your assertion, which in itself is yet another
fallacy. Let's use the term "light" for example.

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
So a feather can not be dark.

The above argument commits this fallacy: The word
light is used in the sense of having little weight the
first time, but of having a bright colour the second
time. Since the middle term in this syllogism is actually
two different terms, equivocation is actually a kind of
the fallacy of four terms.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words
that have a strong emotional content and many meanings.
These meanings often coincide within proper context, but
the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly
changing the context as he goes in such a way to achieve
equivocation by equating distinct meanings of the word.

Equivocation is closely linked with the fallacy of amphiboly,
where amphiboly relies on a syntantic shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
[end]
Digger 14 Oct 2004 http://tinyurl.com/6fo4y

>Just because you use big
>words, dosen't make you right.

Learn them.

>Equivocal, according to your beloved dictionary.com is:
>Open to two or more interpretations and often intended to mislead;
>ambiguous. Synonymous with ambiguous.
>
>Quite to the contrary, we are using clear and concise definitions,
>accepted and used in all the established dictionaries.

No, you're not using clear and concise definitions. Richard,
in that above example equivocates between two definitions
of vegetarian.
1) A Latin phrase meaning "lively"
2) Diet.

"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 he says, "This is a common misconception", and types
like him do their very best to take advantage of this
"common misconception" whenever announcing themselves
as vegetarians.

>>>You can't even deal with the fact that your definition
>>>is flawed can you?
>>
>> I've shown that it isn't by bringing you the proper definition
>> of the term from a dictionary. It's pretty certain which out
>> of the two of us can't face facts, isn't it, so why do you still
>> equivocate on this term when your definition is so easily
>> seen as wrong? Either hack the real thing or stop announcing
>> yourself as a vegetarian if you want to be seen as honest.
>>
>> [snipped equivocation on a common term hijacked by wannabe
>> vegetarians who just can't hack the real thing.]
>
>So now we are resorting to lies eh?

No. They can't hack the real thing, so they water it down
to include animal derivatives into their diet. Honest vegetarians
don't.

> For the record, I am a strict vegetarian or dietary vegan.

Why bother with the "strict" part when it's completely
unnecessary? You're either a vegetarian or you're not.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:06:37 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>Digger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:38:23 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>> For you, yes, because you can't fool everyone with your
>> equivocations on well-known terms.
>
>Do you even know what equivocation means?

Here's an example given in a discussion on this very
subject the other day between myself and a lying
"vegetarian" called Richard.

[start Richard]
>The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the latin for "enlivened", and
>has no connection, apart from a linguistic one, with vegetables.
[me]
Then you're simply trying to equivocate on the term to
support your assertion, which in itself is yet another
fallacy. Let's use the term "light" for example.

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
So a feather can not be dark.

The above argument commits this fallacy: The word
light is used in the sense of having little weight the
first time, but of having a bright colour the second
time. Since the middle term in this syllogism is actually
two different terms, equivocation is actually a kind of
the fallacy of four terms.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words
that have a strong emotional content and many meanings.
These meanings often coincide within proper context, but
the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly
changing the context as he goes in such a way to achieve
equivocation by equating distinct meanings of the word.

Equivocation is closely linked with the fallacy of amphiboly,
where amphiboly relies on a syntantic shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
[end]
Digger 14 Oct 2004 http://tinyurl.com/6fo4y

>Just because you use big
>words, dosen't make you right.

Learn them.

>Equivocal, according to your beloved dictionary.com is:
>Open to two or more interpretations and often intended to mislead;
>ambiguous. Synonymous with ambiguous.
>
>Quite to the contrary, we are using clear and concise definitions,
>accepted and used in all the established dictionaries.

No, you're not using clear and concise definitions. Richard,
in that above example equivocates between two definitions
of vegetarian.
1) A Latin phrase meaning "lively"
2) Diet.

"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 he says, "This is a common misconception", and types
like him do their very best to take advantage of this
"common misconception" whenever announcing themselves
as vegetarians.

>>>You can't even deal with the fact that your definition
>>>is flawed can you?
>>
>> I've shown that it isn't by bringing you the proper definition
>> of the term from a dictionary. It's pretty certain which out
>> of the two of us can't face facts, isn't it, so why do you still
>> equivocate on this term when your definition is so easily
>> seen as wrong? Either hack the real thing or stop announcing
>> yourself as a vegetarian if you want to be seen as honest.
>>
>> [snipped equivocation on a common term hijacked by wannabe
>> vegetarians who just can't hack the real thing.]
>
>So now we are resorting to lies eh?

No. They can't hack the real thing, so they water it down
to include animal derivatives into their diet. Honest vegetarians
don't.

> For the record, I am a strict vegetarian or dietary vegan.

Why bother with the "strict" part when it's completely
unnecessary? You're either a vegetarian or you're not.

What is your definition of the word vegetarian and prove to me that most
people think this.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> 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?
> >
>

What is your definition of the word vegetarian and prove to me that most
people think this.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> 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 11:10:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >
>> >> Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
>> >> as a vegan is a true conclusion.
>> >
>> >That's true.
>>
>> Then why did you earlier assert that breast milk is vegan
>> when agreeing with magnulus that it was not non-vegan?
>
>I didn't.

[start magnulus]
> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
[you]
I agree
[end]
Dutch 16/10/2004

It's clear that you don't know when to stop lying.

>> Taking away the double negative in "Breast milk is not
>> non-vegan" logically makes your statement mean that
>> "breast milk is vegan." You and he are both wrong.
>
>I'm not wrong.

Your are, and I've proved it several times now. When
using double negatives they negate each other, so when
agreeing with magnulus you in fact asserted breast milk
is vegan. You're too stupid to realise that or to arrogant to
admit you were wrong, but the fact remains that you are
very wrong nevertheless. You're a dunce.

>> >> They cannot be while
>> >> feeding on animal fats and proteins.
>> >
>> >So what?
>>
>> It proves that you and magnulus are wrong. That's what.
>
>No it doesn't.

Keep up with that denial if it deludes you into thinking
you haven't be shown where you went wrong.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:10:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >
>> >> Pointing out that a suckling infant cannot be described
>> >> as a vegan is a true conclusion.
>> >
>> >That's true.
>>
>> Then why did you earlier assert that breast milk is vegan
>> when agreeing with magnulus that it was not non-vegan?
>
>I didn't.

[start magnulus]
> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
[you]
I agree
[end]
Dutch 16/10/2004

It's clear that you don't know when to stop lying.

>> Taking away the double negative in "Breast milk is not
>> non-vegan" logically makes your statement mean that
>> "breast milk is vegan." You and he are both wrong.
>
>I'm not wrong.

Your are, and I've proved it several times now. When
using double negatives they negate each other, so when
agreeing with magnulus you in fact asserted breast milk
is vegan. You're too stupid to realise that or to arrogant to
admit you were wrong, but the fact remains that you are
very wrong nevertheless. You're a dunce.

>> >> They cannot be while
>> >> feeding on animal fats and proteins.
>> >
>> >So what?
>>
>> It proves that you and magnulus are wrong. That's what.
>
>No it doesn't.

Keep up with that denial if it deludes you into thinking
you haven't be shown where you went wrong.

"Digger" > wrote

> > For the record, I am a strict vegetarian or dietary vegan.
>
> Why bother with the "strict" part when it's completely
> unnecessary? You're either a vegetarian or you're not.

The correct (and incorrect) meaning of words in the English language comes
through agreement by linguistics scholars who study usage in the population
at-large, not by individuals deciding what seems most appropriate to them. I
agree that the word vegetarian would make more sense if it referred only to
people who consume only vegetation, but it doesn't, so stomping your feet
and insisting that it *does* is just infantile. The only cogent argument
available is that it *ought to*. It is for this reason that the word vegan
was coined.

"Digger" > wrote

> > For the record, I am a strict vegetarian or dietary vegan.
>
> Why bother with the "strict" part when it's completely
> unnecessary? You're either a vegetarian or you're not.

The correct (and incorrect) meaning of words in the English language comes
through agreement by linguistics scholars who study usage in the population
at-large, not by individuals deciding what seems most appropriate to them. I
agree that the word vegetarian would make more sense if it referred only to
people who consume only vegetation, but it doesn't, so stomping your feet
and insisting that it *does* is just infantile. The only cogent argument
available is that it *ought to*. It is for this reason that the word vegan
was coined.

You have enough information to get this right now Nash, I suggest you do it.

You have enough information to get this right now Nash, I suggest you do it.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:01:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:30:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:55:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >[..]
>> >
>> >>>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,
>> >>
>> >> It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If
>> >> it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan.
>> >
>> >Wrong
>>
>> It's logically certain that if a baby or animal is not
>> non-vegan, then it is vegan
>
>If a tree is not non-vegan then is it vegan?

Yes, according to that statement. But it's easily
dismissed on the basis that trees aren't animals
that live on a diet, vegan or otherwise. I would
have to refute it on that or some other basis. The
point being made here is that when double negatives
are used they cancel each other out, so if I were to
assert;

"That drink is not non-alcohol based"

it would logically mean that that drink is alcohol
based. Just take out the double negative and you're
left with the logical meaning of the statement.

When you agreed with magnulus' statement that
asserted "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you in
fact logically asserted "Breast milk is vegan."

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:01:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:30:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote
>> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:55:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >[..]
>> >
>> >>>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,
>> >>
>> >> It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If
>> >> it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan.
>> >
>> >Wrong
>>
>> It's logically certain that if a baby or animal is not
>> non-vegan, then it is vegan
>
>If a tree is not non-vegan then is it vegan?

Yes, according to that statement. But it's easily
dismissed on the basis that trees aren't animals
that live on a diet, vegan or otherwise. I would
have to refute it on that or some other basis. The
point being made here is that when double negatives
are used they cancel each other out, so if I were to
assert;

"That drink is not non-alcohol based"

it would logically mean that that drink is alcohol
based. Just take out the double negative and you're
left with the logical meaning of the statement.

When you agreed with magnulus' statement that
asserted "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you in
fact logically asserted "Breast milk is vegan."

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:41:55 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>What is your definition of the word vegetarian and prove to me that most
>people think this.

I've given you my definition of the term twice now.
How many more times must I tell you I follow the
version given in the dictionary before it finally sinks
in?

You, on the other hand, refer to a different definition
entirely when referring to it. Now, read on and stop
top posting.

>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> 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.

Why didn't you comment on this? Read on.

>> >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?

Why don't you answer this question?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:41:55 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>What is your definition of the word vegetarian and prove to me that most
>people think this.

I've given you my definition of the term twice now.
How many more times must I tell you I follow the
version given in the dictionary before it finally sinks
in?

You, on the other hand, refer to a different definition
entirely when referring to it. Now, read on and stop
top posting.

>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> 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.

Why didn't you comment on this? Read on.

>> >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?

Why don't you answer this question?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:44:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> > For the record, I am a strict vegetarian or dietary vegan.
>>
>> Why bother with the "strict" part when it's completely
>> unnecessary? You're either a vegetarian or you're not.
>
>The correct (and incorrect) meaning of words in the English language comes
>through agreement by linguistics scholars who study usage in the population
>at-large, not by individuals deciding what seems most appropriate to them.

Then you should have no problem in agreeing with the
definition given in the dictionary rather than " individuals
deciding what seems most appropriate to them."

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

>I agree that the word vegetarian would make more sense if it referred only to
>people who consume only vegetation, but it doesn't

It does, you fool. How many more times must I show you
the correct definition given for vegetarian before it finally
sinks in?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:44:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> > For the record, I am a strict vegetarian or dietary vegan.
>>
>> Why bother with the "strict" part when it's completely
>> unnecessary? You're either a vegetarian or you're not.
>
>The correct (and incorrect) meaning of words in the English language comes
>through agreement by linguistics scholars who study usage in the population
>at-large, not by individuals deciding what seems most appropriate to them.

Then you should have no problem in agreeing with the
definition given in the dictionary rather than " individuals
deciding what seems most appropriate to them."

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

>I agree that the word vegetarian would make more sense if it referred only to
>people who consume only vegetation, but it doesn't

It does, you fool. How many more times must I show you
the correct definition given for vegetarian before it finally
sinks in?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:45:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>You have enough information to get this right now

Snip and run for it, dummy. You have no other option
but to concede that you are wrong.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:45:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>You have enough information to get this right now

Snip and run for it, dummy. You have no other option
but to concede that you are wrong.