Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 06:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.


*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this


"vegans" present it to me.


You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?


Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
perfectly representative.


Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?


No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
would do that, obviously.


Most "vegans" eat rice. http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr


You're ****ed.


I don't really see why that would be.


Yes, you do.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 06:12 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/8/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 8, 5:20 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 7, 6:03 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:33 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, wrote:
wrote


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.


How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?


Your question is absurd. Their belief about the effect and sufficiency
of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
moral standing.


But they do have the belief,


It's nothing but a façade; completely unreal. All they really have is
their own ego. All they care about is themselves.


I fail to see how you've given any rational grounds for thinking that.


No, you don't. You're just discomfited by it, and having nothing better
to do (extremely low time value), you waste time by saying, like a
school child, "is not is not is not is not." It achieves nothing.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 08:23 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/6/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:03 pm, George wrote:
Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
nothing further.

But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
"contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":

* brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
black by the addition of squid ink

* Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea& Perrins recipe, and
probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy

* refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
white crystalline sugar uses bone char

* lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
wool production

"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea& Perrins!!!"

I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
Animal Parts). If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
sense of unwarranted moral superiority.

This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
reduce harm to animals. No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. The fact
they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
*no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
their diets, is the proof.


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals?


The search is motivated by the belief that not consuming animal bits is
in and of itself virtuous. They're like Jews and Muslims not consuming
pork: there is no concern for the animals, only concern that they be
virtuous.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:02 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 8, 7:11*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George * * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. *Stop bullshitting.


*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this


"vegans" present it to me.


You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?


Certainly. *"veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
to by a very small number of adherents. *Those who post here are
perfectly representative.


Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice. There is no "monolithic
belief system" held by those who practice it. Different people who
practice it hold different beliefs.

Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?


No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
would do that, obviously.


Most "vegans" eat rice. *http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr


You're ****ed.


I don't really see why that would be.


Yes, you do.


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:03 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 8, 7:12*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 8, 5:20 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/7/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 6:03 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:33 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, * * *wrote:
* * *wrote


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.


How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?


Your question is absurd. *Their belief about the effect and sufficiency
of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
moral standing.


But they do have the belief,


It's nothing but a façade; completely unreal. *All they really have is
their own ego. *All they care about is themselves.


I fail to see how you've given any rational grounds for thinking that.


No, you don't. *You're just discomfited by it, and having nothing better
to do (extremely low time value), you waste time by saying, like a
school child, "is not is not is not is not." *It achieves nothing.


Whereas your posts, I take it, achieve something?


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:45 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/8/2012 9:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.


*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this


"vegans" present it to me.


You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?


Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
perfectly representative.


Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice.


It's so intricately intertwined with the belief that they are
inseparable. It's a belief.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/8/2012 9:03 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 8, 7:12 pm, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 8, 5:20 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 11:29 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 6:03 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:33 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 6, 10:44 pm, wrote:
wrote


What do you suppose would motivate the search if they didn't believe
(falsely) that it was the best way of trying to reduce harm to
animals? How would you make sense of what they are doing if they
didn't have that belief?


They believe that by being vegan they achieve a certain moral standing and
by consuming any animal parts at all they are tainted and that moral
standing is threatened. They perceive it as the idea being "repulsive" or
something to that effect.


How would they be able to sustain the belief that they thereby obtain
a certain moral standing if they didn't believe that that was the best
way to reduce harm to animals?


Your question is absurd. Their belief about the effect and sufficiency
of "veganism" is false, and therefore so is their belief about their
moral standing.


But they do have the belief,


It's nothing but a façade; completely unreal. All they really have is
their own ego. All they care about is themselves.


I fail to see how you've given any rational grounds for thinking that.


No, you don't. You're just discomfited by it, and having nothing better
to do (extremely low time value), you waste time by saying, like a
school child, "is not is not is not is not." It achieves nothing.


Whereas your posts, I take it, achieve something?


Yes. They have established the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of
"veganism" and "ar".
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:44 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 9, 6:45*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:02 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. *Stop bullshitting.


*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this


"vegans" present it to me.


You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?


Certainly. *"veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
to by a very small number of adherents. *Those who post here are
perfectly representative.


Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice.


It's so intricately intertwined with the belief that they are
inseparable. *It's a belief.


Wrong.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/8/2012 11:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:45 am, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:02 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.


*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this


"vegans" present it to me.


You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?


Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
perfectly representative.


Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice.


It's so intricately intertwined with the belief that they are
inseparable. It's a belief.


Wrong.


No, I'm right. "veganism" is a belief system, leading to an absurdly
inconsistent and sloppy behavior.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 04:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Apr 8, 10:45*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:02 PM, Rupert wrote:





On Apr 8, 7:11 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:


[steaming load snipped]


Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?


Not all vegans do that.


*ALL* "vegans" do it. *Stop bullshitting.


*NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
*all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".


How did you come by evidence for this


"vegans" present it to me.


You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?


Certainly. *"veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
to by a very small number of adherents. *Those who post here are
perfectly representative.


Veganism is not a belief. It is a practice.


It's so intricately intertwined with the belief that they are
inseparable. *It's a belief.


so you believe.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-10-2013, 03:46 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 4/6/2012 8:03 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
Woopert blabbers a lot about how "vegans" are entitled to their smug
satisfaction that they've made a meaningful contribution to the
reduction of animal suffering merely by not putting identifiable animal
bits in their mouths. I point out that "vegans" never attempt to make
any comparison of the amounts of harm caused by those things they *do*
eat, and Woopert moans that "there's no data", and so he justifies doing
nothing further.

But "vegans" - all of them - spend an inordinate amount of time looking
for and trying to eliminate the last possible bit of animal
"contamination" from their diet. In my time in these groups since 1999,
I have seen the following belabored here by "vegans":

* brined black olives in tins or jars - the brining liquid is made
black by the addition of squid ink

* Worcestershire sauce - the classic Lea & Perrins recipe, and
probably most other brands, contain a tiny amount of anchovy

* refined sugar - the most common method of refining sugar to create
white crystalline sugar uses bone char

* lanolin in lotions and body creams - lanolin is a by-product of
wool production


"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them. When they find one of them and report on it here
or in other "vegan" forums, there is a palpable sense of smugness in the
announcement of the discovery and removal; something like "Well! That's
the last time *I* will buy a bottle of Lea & Perrins!!!"

I refer to this effort as the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of
Animal Parts). If a "vegan" made a comparable effort to determine which
vegetable and fruit produce causes the most harm, and eliminate those
from her diet, it would undoubtedly have a much greater effect in
reducing harm to animals; but announcing that one is *consuming* a few
micrograms less of animal bits is much more satisfying to the "vegan"
sense of unwarranted moral superiority.

This irrational search - and it is undeniable that it occurs -
completely queers the "vegan" claim to being motivated by a wish to
reduce harm to animals. No, the motivation is *purely* trying to occupy
an imaginary moral pedestal, and basking in the fake sense of
superiority that comes from imagining themselves upon it. The fact
they'll expend enormous time and effort in the irrational search, but
*no* time or effort trying to get harm-causing vegetable produce out of
their diets, is the proof.


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2013, 08:22 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:46:33 -0700, Goo wrote:
..
"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them.


All of the following supposed vegetarian products contain egg whites Goober,
most if not all probably from cage raised hens:

Quorn Meat-Free Patties
Nuggets and Cutlets

Light Life Smart Menu!:
Meat Free Chick'n Nuggets
Chicken Patties
Veggie-licious Fiesta Bean Burger

Boca Meatless:
Chik'n Wings
Italian Sausage
Breakfast Patties
Breakfast Links

Morningstar Farms:
Veggie Burgers
Thai Burgers
Corn Dogs
Veggie Breakfast Breakfast Patties
Veggie Chicken
Chik'n Nuggets
Roasted Herb Chik'n

Worthington:
Vegetarian Fillets
Meatless Wham
Prosage Patties
Stakelets
Meatless Chicken
Chik Stiks
Leanies Vegetarian Hot Dogs
Meatless Smoked Turkey
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2013, 09:23 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism

On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:46:33 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
.
"vegans" spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to identify these
last remaining bits of animal "contamination" in their shopping baskets
and eliminating them.


All of the following supposed vegetarian products contain egg whites


Most "vegans" don't eat them, ****wit. Anyway, *Gloo*, most of those
products are *not* said to be vegetarian; their manufacturers refer to
them as "meatless."

You are not a man.



Quorn Meat-Free Patties
Nuggets and Cutlets

Light Life Smart Menu!:
Meat Free Chick'n Nuggets
Chicken Patties
Veggie-licious Fiesta Bean Burger

Boca Meatless:
Chik'n Wings
Italian Sausage
Breakfast Patties
Breakfast Links

Morningstar Farms:
Veggie Burgers
Thai Burgers
Corn Dogs
Veggie Breakfast Breakfast Patties
Veggie Chicken
Chik'n Nuggets
Roasted Herb Chik'n

Worthington:
Vegetarian Fillets
Meatless Wham
Prosage Patties
Stakelets
Meatless Chicken
Chik Stiks
Leanies Vegetarian Hot Dogs
Meatless Smoked Turkey




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 46 07-03-2008 04:48 PM
A exceptionally stupid "vegan", "Michael Bluejay" Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 6 15-02-2008 12:02 AM
repost: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' usual suspect Vegan 153 14-01-2005 06:49 AM
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Jonathan Ball Vegan 60 27-06-2004 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017