On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:03:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"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.
>
>[..]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:03:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"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.
>
>[..]

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

Digger wrote:
> 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.
<snip>

I don't care about examples between you and Richard. You told me a)
that I was a vegetarian who could not hack it, and b) that I was being
equivocal. Since you can't prove "a" as you know nothing about me,
please prove "b", or retract your statments and admit that you were wrong.

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

Oooh. Just so happens that /do/ know them. Still does not 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.
>
>
> No, you're not using clear and concise definitions. Richard,
> in that above example equivocates between two definitions
> of vegetarian.
<snip>

While even though Richard is right about the etymology of the word, I am
not talking about Richard. Stick to the examples that I give you, or
admit that you are wrong. As you seem incapable of doing either, it is
quite obvious to everyone else that you are, in fact, grasping at straws.

>
>>>>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.

No, every definition that we have brought up so far, including yours
from Dictionary.com, is contrary to what you say. As much as you would
like "vegetarian" to mean "someone who does not consume any animal
products", that is not the popular use of the word. That is why the
word "vegan" was introduced.

>
>>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.

Obviously you have never studied dietetics, nor have you listened to a
thing that anyone here has said.

I am going to have to go with Richard and Dutch on this one: If you can,
prove the definition of Vegetarian, and that that is what most people
think that it is. So far, you have been unable to do as much.

-- Blue

Digger wrote:
> 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.
<snip>

I don't care about examples between you and Richard. You told me a)
that I was a vegetarian who could not hack it, and b) that I was being
equivocal. Since you can't prove "a" as you know nothing about me,
please prove "b", or retract your statments and admit that you were wrong.

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

Oooh. Just so happens that /do/ know them. Still does not 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.
>
>
> No, you're not using clear and concise definitions. Richard,
> in that above example equivocates between two definitions
> of vegetarian.
<snip>

While even though Richard is right about the etymology of the word, I am
not talking about Richard. Stick to the examples that I give you, or
admit that you are wrong. As you seem incapable of doing either, it is
quite obvious to everyone else that you are, in fact, grasping at straws.

>
>>>>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.

No, every definition that we have brought up so far, including yours
from Dictionary.com, is contrary to what you say. As much as you would
like "vegetarian" to mean "someone who does not consume any animal
products", that is not the popular use of the word. That is why the
word "vegan" was introduced.

>
>>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.

Obviously you have never studied dietetics, nor have you listened to a
thing that anyone here has said.

I am going to have to go with Richard and Dutch on this one: If you can,
prove the definition of Vegetarian, and that that is what most people
think that it is. So far, you have been unable to do as much.

-- Blue

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:44:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Digger" > wrote
> 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?

Your correct definition is flawed, as I have already showed you.

Besides the fact that dictionary.com isn't a good or established
dictionary, the definition that is uses is too inclusive.

Take this example: Bob is a good Catholic, who has given up meat.
However, on special occations he still eats fish.

Since Bob is subsisting primarily (but not exclusively) on vegetables
and vegetable products, he is vegetarian right?

According to your definition he is.

So, how many times do we have to point out to you that you are not using
good sources, or valid definitions before it finally sinks in?

-- Blue

Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:44:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Digger" > wrote
> 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?

Your correct definition is flawed, as I have already showed you.

Besides the fact that dictionary.com isn't a good or established
dictionary, the definition that is uses is too inclusive.

Take this example: Bob is a good Catholic, who has given up meat.
However, on special occations he still eats fish.

Since Bob is subsisting primarily (but not exclusively) on vegetables
and vegetable products, he is vegetarian right?

According to your definition he is.

So, how many times do we have to point out to you that you are not using
good sources, or valid definitions before it finally sinks in?

-- Blue

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:27:30 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:

>Digger wrote:
>> 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.
><snip>
>
>I don't care about examples between you and Richard.

Then you'll never know what equivocation is if you
don't at least try to look at some examples.

>You told me a)
>that I was a vegetarian who could not hack it,

You were using the same argument and equivocating
on the term, so I assumed you were a vegetarian of
the same standing as Richard.

>and b) that I was being equivocal.

And that is true. You equivocate on the term just as
Richard does, but unlike him your definition at least
refers to vegetables and diet. Nevertheless, you still
equivocate on the term by referring to a less known
definition of 'vegetarian' invented by a group who
include animal proteins and fats into their diet.

>>>Just because you use big
>>>words, dosen't make you right.
>>>
>> Learn them.
>
>Oooh. Just so happens that /do/ know them. Still does not make you right.

Just learn them and stop showing your ignorance.

>>>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.
><snip>

You're a bit snip-happy with the evidence I put before
you, wouldn't you say?

[unsnip]
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.

>While even though Richard is right

He's not right about any of it while referring to a Latin
phrase for 'enlivened' instead of vegetables and diet.
He relies on a "common misconception" of a Latin term
hardly known instead of the self-describing common
term usually associated with his announced lifestyle.

>>>>>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.
>
>No

Yes. They can't hack it, but still want to send themselves
up as vegetarians nevertheless.

>every definition that we have brought up so far, including yours
>from Dictionary.com, is contrary to what you say.

How can it be if I'm in fact bringing the definition here
as the exact example of my definition? How many more
times must I bring it here before it finally sinks in that
that is the definition of a vegetarian according to myself
and the dictionary?

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 19:27:30 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:

>Digger wrote:
>> 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.
><snip>
>
>I don't care about examples between you and Richard.

Then you'll never know what equivocation is if you
don't at least try to look at some examples.

>You told me a)
>that I was a vegetarian who could not hack it,

You were using the same argument and equivocating
on the term, so I assumed you were a vegetarian of
the same standing as Richard.

>and b) that I was being equivocal.

And that is true. You equivocate on the term just as
Richard does, but unlike him your definition at least
refers to vegetables and diet. Nevertheless, you still
equivocate on the term by referring to a less known
definition of 'vegetarian' invented by a group who
include animal proteins and fats into their diet.

>>>Just because you use big
>>>words, dosen't make you right.
>>>
>> Learn them.
>
>Oooh. Just so happens that /do/ know them. Still does not make you right.

Just learn them and stop showing your ignorance.

>>>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.
><snip>

You're a bit snip-happy with the evidence I put before
you, wouldn't you say?

[unsnip]
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.

>While even though Richard is right

He's not right about any of it while referring to a Latin
phrase for 'enlivened' instead of vegetables and diet.
He relies on a "common misconception" of a Latin term
hardly known instead of the self-describing common
term usually associated with his announced lifestyle.

>>>>>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.
>
>No

Yes. They can't hack it, but still want to send themselves
up as vegetarians nevertheless.

>every definition that we have brought up so far, including yours
>from Dictionary.com, is contrary to what you say.

How can it be if I'm in fact bringing the definition here
as the exact example of my definition? How many more
times must I bring it here before it finally sinks in that
that is the definition of a vegetarian according to myself
and the dictionary?

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 19:47:01 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>Digger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:44:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>
> > 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?
>
>Your correct definition is flawed

Take it up with the lexicographers.

> as I have already showed you.

No, you haven't.

>Besides the fact that dictionary.com isn't a good or established
>dictionary

It's perfectly fine. If you have a fluffy definition of your own,
send it to them and ask for their response on a tape recorder.
I can almost hear them laughing now.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:47:01 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>Digger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:44:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>
> > 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?
>
>Your correct definition is flawed

Take it up with the lexicographers.

> as I have already showed you.

No, you haven't.

>Besides the fact that dictionary.com isn't a good or established
>dictionary

It's perfectly fine. If you have a fluffy definition of your own,
send it to them and ask for their response on a tape recorder.
I can almost hear them laughing now.

> 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?

Which definition? Every dictionary has several variations of what it means.
None I've read say that dairy is out.

> 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?

Which definition? Every dictionary has several variations of what it means.
None I've read say that dairy is out.

"Digger" > wrote
> 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.

Wrong answer, a tree is NOT a vegan OR non-vegan, it is obvious the
categories do not apply.

> But it's easily
> dismissed on the basis that trees aren't animals
> that live on a diet, vegan or otherwise.

Breast milk is not a member of either category of diet, it is unique. The
categories do not apply, it's not as obvious as the example above but still
true.

> 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."

Nope.

"Digger" > wrote
> 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.

Wrong answer, a tree is NOT a vegan OR non-vegan, it is obvious the
categories do not apply.

> But it's easily
> dismissed on the basis that trees aren't animals
> that live on a diet, vegan or otherwise.

Breast milk is not a member of either category of diet, it is unique. The
categories do not apply, it's not as obvious as the example above but still
true.

> 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."

Nope.

"Digger" > wrote

> 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.

I yawned and walked away, it's what every sensible person eventually does
with boneheads like you. If this were a moderated forum you would have been
banished years ago.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:03:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"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.
>>
>>[..]
>
> Snip and run for it, dummy. You have no other option
> but to concede you are wrong.

Why? I'm right and you know it.
>

"Blue Heron" > wrote

> So, how many times do we have to point out to you that you are not using
> good sources, or valid definitions before it finally sinks in?

Nothing ever, EVER sinks in with him, he's hopeless.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:42:45 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>> 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?
>
>Which definition?

The definition I keep bringing here from the dictionary,
and which you keep snipping away ignoring. Now, stop
snipping whole posts away and answer the points being
put to you.

[unsnip]

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 Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:42:45 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>> 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?
>
>Which definition?

The definition I keep bringing here from the dictionary,
and which you keep snipping away ignoring. Now, stop
snipping whole posts away and answer the points being
put to you.

[unsnip]

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 17:07:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> 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.
>
>I yawned and walked away

That's easy to do, but what does it say of your
claim that breast milk is vegan? When agreeing
with magnulus' statement where he asserts
"Breast milk is not non-vegan"
you both logically assert that "Breast milk is
vegan" when the double negative is removed.

[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

Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains
that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether
you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and
snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're
incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:07:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> 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.
>
>I yawned and walked away

That's easy to do, but what does it say of your
claim that breast milk is vegan? When agreeing
with magnulus' statement where he asserts
"Breast milk is not non-vegan"
you both logically assert that "Breast milk is
vegan" when the double negative is removed.

[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

Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains
that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether
you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and
snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're
incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:07:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> 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.
>
>I yawned and walked away

That's easy to do, but what does it say of your
claim that breast milk is vegan? When agreeing
with magnulus' statement where he asserts
"Breast milk is not non-vegan"
you both logically assert that "Breast milk is
vegan" when the double negative is removed.

[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

Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains
that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether
you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and
snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're
incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:04:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> 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.
>
>Wrong answer

It's the only logical answer according to that statement.
Once the double negative is removed from

'a tree is not non-vegan'

you're left with

'a tree is vegan'

It's an incorrect statement because trees aren't vegans,
but that takes nothing away from the logical meaning
of the statement once the double negative is removed
from it.

[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

> a tree is NOT a vegan OR non-vegan

That is correct: the statement is a false one.

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

You can deny it all you want, liar Ditch, because
the fact remains that while agreeing with magnulus'
statement which asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan",
you in fact assert " Breast milk is vegan" once the
*two negatives destroy each other and make a positive*

What a dunce!

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:04:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> 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.
>
>Wrong answer

It's the only logical answer according to that statement.
Once the double negative is removed from

'a tree is not non-vegan'

you're left with

'a tree is vegan'

It's an incorrect statement because trees aren't vegans,
but that takes nothing away from the logical meaning
of the statement once the double negative is removed
from it.

[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

> a tree is NOT a vegan OR non-vegan

That is correct: the statement is a false one.

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

You can deny it all you want, liar Ditch, because
the fact remains that while agreeing with magnulus'
statement which asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan",
you in fact assert " Breast milk is vegan" once the
*two negatives destroy each other and make a positive*

What a dunce!

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:07:27 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:03:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>[..]
>>
>> Snip and run for it, dummy. You have no other option
>> but to concede you are wrong.
>
>Why? I'm right and you know it.

Snip and run all you want, Ditch, because the fact remains
that while agreeing with magnulus' statement which asserts

"Breast milk is not non-vegan",

you in fact assert

"Breast milk is vegan"

once the
*two negatives destroy each other and make a positive*

[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

Snipping and running away while denying the evidence
in front of you is cowardly and dishonest. You're only
lying to yourself if you deny the fact that you asserted
breast milk is vegan when agreeing with magnulus'
statement.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:07:27 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:03:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>[..]
>>
>> Snip and run for it, dummy. You have no other option
>> but to concede you are wrong.
>
>Why? I'm right and you know it.

Snip and run all you want, Ditch, because the fact remains
that while agreeing with magnulus' statement which asserts

"Breast milk is not non-vegan",

you in fact assert

"Breast milk is vegan"

once the
*two negatives destroy each other and make a positive*

[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

Snipping and running away while denying the evidence
in front of you is cowardly and dishonest. You're only
lying to yourself if you deny the fact that you asserted
breast milk is vegan when agreeing with magnulus'
statement.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:07:27 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:03:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>[..]
>>
>> Snip and run for it, dummy. You have no other option
>> but to concede you are wrong.
>
>Why? I'm right and you know it.

Snip and run all you want, Ditch, because the fact remains
that while agreeing with magnulus' statement which asserts

"Breast milk is not non-vegan",

you in fact assert

"Breast milk is vegan"

once the
*two negatives destroy each other and make a positive*

[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

Snipping and running away while denying the evidence
in front of you is cowardly and dishonest. You're only
lying to yourself if you deny the fact that you asserted
breast milk is vegan when agreeing with magnulus'
statement.

"Digger" > wrote

> you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan"

Breast-feeding occurs before dietary categories have any relevance.

"Digger" > wrote

> you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan"

Breast-feeding occurs before dietary categories have any relevance.

"Digger" > wrote nothing new..

Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore = who cares?

How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan?

"Digger" > wrote nothing new..

Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore = who cares?

How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan?

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote nothing new..
>
>Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore = who cares?

Once again you've snipped the whole post and ran
for cover. Snip and run all you want, Ditch, because
the fact remains that while agreeing with magnulus'
statement which asserts

"Breast milk is not non-vegan",

you in fact assert

"Breast milk is vegan"

once the
*two negatives destroy each other and make a positive*

[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

Snipping and running away while denying the evidence
in front of you is cowardly and dishonest. You're only
lying to yourself if you deny the fact that you asserted
breast milk is vegan when agreeing with magnulus'
statement.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote

You've got to do better than just snip the whole post
away and leave a few lines of your own.

[unsnip]
When agreeing with magnulus' statement where
he asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you both
logically assert that "Breast milk is vegan" when the
double negative is removed.

[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

Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains
that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether
you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and
snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're
incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote

You've got to do better than just snip the whole post
away and leave a few lines of your own.

[unsnip]
When agreeing with magnulus' statement where
he asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you both
logically assert that "Breast milk is vegan" when the
double negative is removed.

[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

Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains
that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether
you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and
snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're
incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new..
> >
> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore = who
cares?
>
> Once again blah blah blah...


How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan?

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote nothing


How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan?

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new..
>> >
>> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore = who
>cares?
>>
>> Once again blah blah blah...

Once again you've snipped the whole post and ran
for cover, but while doing that the fact still remains
that while agreeing with magnulus' statement which
asserts

"Breast milk is not non-vegan",

you in fact logically assert

"Breast milk is vegan"

once the
*two negatives destroy each other and make a positive*

[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

Snipping and running away while denying the evidence
in front of you is cowardly and dishonest. You're only
lying to yourself if you deny the fact that you asserted
breast milk is vegan when agreeing with magnulus'
statement.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote nothing
>
>How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan?

You've got to do better than just snip the whole post
away and leave a few lines of your own.

[unsnip]
When agreeing with magnulus' statement where
he asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you both
logically assert that "Breast milk is vegan" when the
double negative is removed.

[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

Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains
that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether
you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and
snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're
incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch.

Am I upsetting you?

You snipped away my entire original post, which is why I couldn't respond to
the new point you brought up. That is very childish of you.

Now simply state a dictionary definition that states that vegetarians don't
eat dairy or proove in some other way that this is the common perception.

If you can't do that, then you are wrong.

Richard

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new..
> >> >
> >> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore = who
> >cares?
> >>
> >> Once again blah blah blah...
>
Once again blah blah blah...