Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>A troll can also be described as a shitdisturber with the
>>>intention of provoking and insulting people.
>>
>>You're confusing different matters. And I was right: you don't know
>>what trolling is.
>
> Unnecessary insults, being contrary just to stir the shit,

Give an instance of anyone being contrary to stir the shit? The only person who
comes to mind is Dreck, weirdly nymshifting as Reynard or Retard now.

> getting detail picky

Details do matter, and they do tend to tip over the vegan apple cart. Make
claims, and why shouldn't you be asked to support it with evidence? If you claim
your diet is inherently healthier than one that contains meat, for instance, why
would you object when someone else shows that a diet containing lean cuts can be
even healthier? Or if you claim that meat causes food poisoning, why object so
stupidly when evidence is supplied that more cases of food poisoning are caused
by raw produce? The facts are the facts, and your philosophy needs some
adjusting if the facts keep refuting it.

> and overdefensive to people who've done you no
> wrong. Seems kinda trolly to me.

Only because you still don't know what trolling is despite being informed of it.

>>In the course of any discussion, someone may take offense at the
>>substance of what's said or the style with which something is said. Your grievance
>>centers someone's opinions differing from yours; that is not trolling.
>>Provocation and insults in substantive discussion are also not trolling.

You still don't get that differing opinions are not trolling. Yet that's still
your claim about what you perceive to be trolling.

<...>
>>>Some trolls believe the stuff they say and some don't.
>>
>>No. Belief is what distinguishes DEBATE from TROLLING. Too bad you're
>>false piety forbids you from accepting genuine differences of opinion for
>>what they are, even when unaccompanied by stylistic issues you may find
>>offensive.
>
> Nonsense. Trolling is a style of insult regardless of the topic and
> belief.

You're very mistaken.

>>>It makes no difference.
>>
>>Certainly not to those who seek to minimize debate by calling everyone
>>with whom they disagree "trolls."
>>
>>>Both are trolls by my understanding of the word.
>>
>>You mean your misunderstanding of the word, and/or your slovenly
>>reasoning skills that force you to demonize opponents rather than engage them.
>
> Engage them in what? This isn't normal conversation. This is you
> turning every topic into crazy talk.

No, this is others challenging your unquestioned faith in veganism. We cannot
open your mind -- you have to do that -- but we can, and we will, refute your
wild claims when you make them.

>>>Anyways,
>>>through all the insults in your posts, who can tell whether you
>>>believe that stuff
>>
>>You can ask questions before labeling people as trolls. Of course,
>>that requires a bit of civility on your part, too. Are you capable?
>
> Compared to the words you use, unprovoked on people, I think being
> called a troll would be a compliment.

Care to give examples? I've been polite and civil in my replies to you thus far.
You've yet to return the favor.

>>>or just want to use potty words and instigate outrage.
>>
>>I offer civility and respect to those who engage me intellectually.
>>Calling people with whom you disagree "trolls" does not engage anyone
>>intellectually. If nothing else, it's just the pot calling the kettle black. It also
>>shows that you're incapable of forming reasoned thoughts to defend veganism and
>>animal rights.
>
> Says who, you? I'm sure that cements it.

You see? I gave you a chance to prove me wrong. You've only proven me right. How
many chances do you think you get to make a good second impression?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>>You only "discuss" things when it agrees with your extreme
viewpoints.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why would you suggest my views are extreme rather than mainstream? I'm
> >>>>quite conventional.
> >>>
> >>>It doesn't surprise me that you think you are conventional - you are
NOT.
> >>
> >>Let's have some specifics here.
> >
> > Let's see, you are WAY far to the right politically,
>
> DAMMIT, BE SPECIFIC. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?

I'm not going there. The more specific I get the more defensive you will
get, particularly regarding politics.

> > you commonly argue against the grain of common belief,
>
> Examples?
>
> > your peculiar opposition to vegans
>
> Veganism IS peculiar. Opposition to it is quite conventional. What world
do you
> live in all of a sudden? Shall I find all the whiny posts in this group's
> archives about airlines and hotels and restaurants not catering to every
vegan's
> whims?

Note that peculiar doesn't describe veganism in my sentence, it describes
your 180 degree shift to oppose it. You suddenly became a staunch and
vehement opponent to veganism. I'm not making a case for or against veganism
here.

> > even though you have a vegan diet,
>
> My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs. So, too, is the fact that I run.

A vegan or vegan-like diet is unconventional in the broad sense. It says
that something about you is different. And how much do you run a week? 40
miles? 50 miles? That's a lot, more than all but marathon trainers.

> > you regularly run marathon distances, etc. It
> > all points to someone who tends to be unconventional.
>
> Ipse dixit. I may be a complex person, but I am not unconventional.

Being unconventional isn't a bad thing. To the contrary, many creative
people are unconventional.

> >>>You know, I enjoy debating with you because you have interesting ideas
> >>>and you express them very well. But you have a number of behaviors that
> >>>are very annoying. You generalize too much,
> >>
> >>Here's your chance to offer what specifically makes me unconventional,
> >>James. Let's hear it.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Still waiting for specifics.

Wait longer.

> >>>you make wrong assumptions about people, you always have to "win" by
any
> >>>means possible, and you are not very tolerant.
> >>
> >>Awfully rich coming from you. I haven't forgotten how Mr Ball was trying
> >>to discuss something with you civilly and all you wanted to do was be
> >>uncivil.
> >
> > I vaguely remember the thread you are referring to and "Mr. Ball" was
NOT
> > civil with me. He did become more civil with me in later threads when he
> > probably realized that we could find some common ground.
>
> I really got on your case about it because Mr Ball was asking you fair and
> unobjectionable questions and you just couldn't resist your base urge to
dig
> into him.

His questions weren't all fair and unobjectionable as you like to think
(selective memory or denial?). It had more to do with the way he asked
them - leading, provocative, and inflammatory.

> >>>>>Else you get in people's faces with an "eye for an eye" contempt that
> >>>>>you generalize vegans to have against non-vegans, except many times
> >>>>>worse.
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't address every post with which I disagree, and I don't labor on
> >>>>every point of disagreement I have with others.
> >>>
> >>>I guess some people around here would say "non sequitur".
> >>
> >>They would be very worng.
> >
> > You are wrong, see below.
>
> Where?

No wonder you couldn't find it, you snipped it out. Here I unsnipped it for
you. Look at it in the context of what was written and you will see that it
was non sequitur.

>> I didn't say that you address every point of contention. What I meant was
>> that I sense that you are very competitive and I KNOW you have a lot of
>> contempt for vegans, and so you come off as being very aggressive against
>> them.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>>You only "discuss" things when it agrees with your extreme
viewpoints.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why would you suggest my views are extreme rather than mainstream? I'm
> >>>>quite conventional.
> >>>
> >>>It doesn't surprise me that you think you are conventional - you are
NOT.
> >>
> >>Let's have some specifics here.
> >
> > Let's see, you are WAY far to the right politically,
>
> DAMMIT, BE SPECIFIC. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?

I'm not going there. The more specific I get the more defensive you will
get, particularly regarding politics.

> > you commonly argue against the grain of common belief,
>
> Examples?
>
> > your peculiar opposition to vegans
>
> Veganism IS peculiar. Opposition to it is quite conventional. What world
do you
> live in all of a sudden? Shall I find all the whiny posts in this group's
> archives about airlines and hotels and restaurants not catering to every
vegan's
> whims?

Note that peculiar doesn't describe veganism in my sentence, it describes
your 180 degree shift to oppose it. You suddenly became a staunch and
vehement opponent to veganism. I'm not making a case for or against veganism
here.

> > even though you have a vegan diet,
>
> My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs. So, too, is the fact that I run.

A vegan or vegan-like diet is unconventional in the broad sense. It says
that something about you is different. And how much do you run a week? 40
miles? 50 miles? That's a lot, more than all but marathon trainers.

> > you regularly run marathon distances, etc. It
> > all points to someone who tends to be unconventional.
>
> Ipse dixit. I may be a complex person, but I am not unconventional.

Being unconventional isn't a bad thing. To the contrary, many creative
people are unconventional.

> >>>You know, I enjoy debating with you because you have interesting ideas
> >>>and you express them very well. But you have a number of behaviors that
> >>>are very annoying. You generalize too much,
> >>
> >>Here's your chance to offer what specifically makes me unconventional,
> >>James. Let's hear it.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Still waiting for specifics.

Wait longer.

> >>>you make wrong assumptions about people, you always have to "win" by
any
> >>>means possible, and you are not very tolerant.
> >>
> >>Awfully rich coming from you. I haven't forgotten how Mr Ball was trying
> >>to discuss something with you civilly and all you wanted to do was be
> >>uncivil.
> >
> > I vaguely remember the thread you are referring to and "Mr. Ball" was
NOT
> > civil with me. He did become more civil with me in later threads when he
> > probably realized that we could find some common ground.
>
> I really got on your case about it because Mr Ball was asking you fair and
> unobjectionable questions and you just couldn't resist your base urge to
dig
> into him.

His questions weren't all fair and unobjectionable as you like to think
(selective memory or denial?). It had more to do with the way he asked
them - leading, provocative, and inflammatory.

> >>>>>Else you get in people's faces with an "eye for an eye" contempt that
> >>>>>you generalize vegans to have against non-vegans, except many times
> >>>>>worse.
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't address every post with which I disagree, and I don't labor on
> >>>>every point of disagreement I have with others.
> >>>
> >>>I guess some people around here would say "non sequitur".
> >>
> >>They would be very worng.
> >
> > You are wrong, see below.
>
> Where?

No wonder you couldn't find it, you snipped it out. Here I unsnipped it for
you. Look at it in the context of what was written and you will see that it
was non sequitur.

>> I didn't say that you address every point of contention. What I meant was
>> that I sense that you are very competitive and I KNOW you have a lot of
>> contempt for vegans, and so you come off as being very aggressive against
>> them.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>>>Let's have some specifics here.
>>>
>>>Let's see, you are WAY far to the right politically,
>>
>>DAMMIT, BE SPECIFIC. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?
>
> I'm not going there. The more specific I get the more defensive you will
> get, particularly regarding politics.

I'm defensive NOW because you've gone chickenshit on this. Don't throw out
things you can't or won't support. You opened the door, now come on in and
speak. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?

>>Examples?
>>
>>>your peculiar opposition to vegans
>>
>>Veganism IS peculiar. Opposition to it is quite conventional. What world
>>do you
>>live in all of a sudden? Shall I find all the whiny posts in this group's
>>archives about airlines and hotels and restaurants not catering to every
>>vegan's whims?
>
> Note that peculiar doesn't describe veganism in my sentence, it describes
> your 180 degree shift to oppose it. You suddenly became a staunch and
> vehement opponent to veganism. I'm not making a case for or against veganism
> here.

My opposition is not peculiar. You're fully aware of when and why I stopped
carrying water for vegans here. It may have stunned you or something, but that
doesn't make it peculiar. If anything is peculiar, it's that I ever parroted the
rhetoric of a political philosophy I never shared -- and some certainly did find
it peculiar that I was a Republican whose diet was "vegan."

>>>even though you have a vegan diet,
>>
>>My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs. So, too, is the fact that I run.
>
> A vegan or vegan-like diet is unconventional in the broad sense. It says
> that something about you is different. And how much do you run a week? 40
> miles? 50 miles? That's a lot, more than all but marathon trainers.

It's relative: running 10 miles a week is a lot to a couch potato who can't run
20 yards without getting winded. But does it have anything to do with being
unconventional? I don't think so.

>>>you regularly run marathon distances, etc. It
>>>all points to someone who tends to be unconventional.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. I may be a complex person, but I am not unconventional.
>
> Being unconventional isn't a bad thing. To the contrary, many creative
> people are unconventional.

What's your point, James? You made some claims about me that you're refusing to
support. I don't care for a discourse about what makes someone unconventional,
your claim was about me. Tell me why you think I'm not conventional.

<...>
>>Still waiting for specifics.
>
> Wait longer.

Just as I suspected. What a chickenshit.

<...>

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>>>Let's have some specifics here.
>>>
>>>Let's see, you are WAY far to the right politically,
>>
>>DAMMIT, BE SPECIFIC. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?
>
> I'm not going there. The more specific I get the more defensive you will
> get, particularly regarding politics.

I'm defensive NOW because you've gone chickenshit on this. Don't throw out
things you can't or won't support. You opened the door, now come on in and
speak. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?

>>Examples?
>>
>>>your peculiar opposition to vegans
>>
>>Veganism IS peculiar. Opposition to it is quite conventional. What world
>>do you
>>live in all of a sudden? Shall I find all the whiny posts in this group's
>>archives about airlines and hotels and restaurants not catering to every
>>vegan's whims?
>
> Note that peculiar doesn't describe veganism in my sentence, it describes
> your 180 degree shift to oppose it. You suddenly became a staunch and
> vehement opponent to veganism. I'm not making a case for or against veganism
> here.

My opposition is not peculiar. You're fully aware of when and why I stopped
carrying water for vegans here. It may have stunned you or something, but that
doesn't make it peculiar. If anything is peculiar, it's that I ever parroted the
rhetoric of a political philosophy I never shared -- and some certainly did find
it peculiar that I was a Republican whose diet was "vegan."

>>>even though you have a vegan diet,
>>
>>My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs. So, too, is the fact that I run.
>
> A vegan or vegan-like diet is unconventional in the broad sense. It says
> that something about you is different. And how much do you run a week? 40
> miles? 50 miles? That's a lot, more than all but marathon trainers.

It's relative: running 10 miles a week is a lot to a couch potato who can't run
20 yards without getting winded. But does it have anything to do with being
unconventional? I don't think so.

>>>you regularly run marathon distances, etc. It
>>>all points to someone who tends to be unconventional.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. I may be a complex person, but I am not unconventional.
>
> Being unconventional isn't a bad thing. To the contrary, many creative
> people are unconventional.

What's your point, James? You made some claims about me that you're refusing to
support. I don't care for a discourse about what makes someone unconventional,
your claim was about me. Tell me why you think I'm not conventional.

<...>
>>Still waiting for specifics.
>
> Wait longer.

Just as I suspected. What a chickenshit.

<...>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> ROTFLMAO What an absolute precious moment!! Keep up the good work
>> proving that animals mean *nothing* to you killer.
>
> Huh? Where do you get that nonsense? Voices in your head?
> What's the proof of the above, and name what I've killed
> intentionally.
============================
You're posting to usenet for obviously entertainment value only. Your last
posts were of nothing important(although none of yours really have been).
Your continued posting to usenet contributes to an ever increasing demand
for power and communication. Both of which cause massive amounts of animal
death and sufffering. And, guess what? You are part and parcel to those
deaths for no more reason than your selfish entertainment. That's why I
continue to say there are *no* real vegans on usenet. Real vegans just
aren't here. They are actually doing something to decrease their impact on
animals, you are just mouthing the words because you follow a simple rule
for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'

Now, which animals you want to start with? Fish? Birds? Give it a go,
killer.


>
>

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:38:39 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>>> ROTFLMAO What an absolute precious moment!! Keep up the good work
>>> proving that animals mean *nothing* to you killer.
>>
>> Huh? Where do you get that nonsense? Voices in your head?
>> What's the proof of the above, and name what I've killed
>> intentionally.
>============================
>You're posting to usenet for obviously entertainment value only. Your last
>posts were of nothing important(although none of yours really have been).
>Your continued posting to usenet contributes to an ever increasing demand
>for power and communication. Both of which cause massive amounts of animal
>death and sufffering. And, guess what?

We already know "what", Rick. According to you, every morsel
of food eaten by vegans kills animals. Every post to usenet kills
animals. All electricity generation and distribution of vegan foods
kills animals. Yet all the while this killing goes on, the production
of grass fed beef causes no collateral deaths at all.

[start - ipse dixit to Rick Etter]
> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> deaths.
============================
Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
[end]
Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15

You lie about the production of your beef and then go on to
insist that it's the vegans who lie about their food items. It's
clear to all that you're just a lying meatarian on a vegan
forum. That's all. A troll.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:02:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs.

Then why did you write;

"I am vegan primarily for health reasons; that there
are other benefits (reduced pollution, less harm to
animals, etc.) is also very appealing."
'usual suspect' Thu, 09 May 2002

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-09-09

"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
'usual suspect' 2002-10-09

From those quotes it's certain that your diet has everything
to do with your beliefs on health, the environment, and the
harm caused to animals, so why lie, "useless object"?

If others here opt for a vegan diet "primarily for health
reasons", "reduced pollution", "less harm to animals",
and because they "favour humane treatment, which to
[them] means not killing [animals] simply for [their] own
benefit", who are you to insist they are wrong when in
fact you've given those exact reasons for being vegan?

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:38:39 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>> ROTFLMAO What an absolute precious moment!! Keep up the good work
>>>> proving that animals mean *nothing* to you killer.
>>>
>>> Huh? Where do you get that nonsense? Voices in your head?
>>> What's the proof of the above, and name what I've killed
>>> intentionally.
>>============================
>>You're posting to usenet for obviously entertainment value only. Your
>>last
>>posts were of nothing important(although none of yours really have been).
>>Your continued posting to usenet contributes to an ever increasing demand
>>for power and communication. Both of which cause massive amounts of
>>animal
>>death and sufffering. And, guess what?
>
> We already know "what", Rick. According to you, every morsel
> of food eaten by vegans kills animals. Every post to usenet kills
> animals. All electricity generation and distribution of vegan foods
> kills animals. Yet all the while this killing goes on, the production
> of grass fed beef causes no collateral deaths at all.
======================
Nice try killer. Got it wrong again. I have said many times that they
*are* vegan foods that would cause little harm, but that *YOU* and the rest
of the usenet vegan wannabes aren't eating them. Too bad you can't keep
up, killer.


>
> [start - ipse dixit to Rick Etter]
>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and
>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
>> deaths.
> ============================
> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
> [end]
> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m
>
> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
> Rick Etter 2003-11-15
>
> You lie about the production of your beef and then go on to
> insist that it's the vegans who lie about their food items. It's
> clear to all that you're just a lying meatarian on a vegan
> forum. That's all. A troll.
>========================
Nope. ou just can't read for comprehension, killer.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:36:11 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:38:39 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>>>>> ROTFLMAO What an absolute precious moment!! Keep up the good work
>>>>> proving that animals mean *nothing* to you killer.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Where do you get that nonsense? Voices in your head?
>>>> What's the proof of the above, and name what I've killed
>>>> intentionally.
>>>============================
>>>You're posting to usenet for obviously entertainment value only. Your
>>>last
>>>posts were of nothing important(although none of yours really have been).
>>>Your continued posting to usenet contributes to an ever increasing demand
>>>for power and communication. Both of which cause massive amounts of
>>>animal
>>>death and sufffering. And, guess what?
>>
>> We already know "what", Rick. According to you, every morsel
>> of food eaten by vegans kills animals. Every post to usenet kills
>> animals. All electricity generation and distribution of vegan foods
>> kills animals. Yet all the while this killing goes on, the production
>> of grass fed beef causes no collateral deaths at all.
>======================
>Nice try killer. Got it wrong again. I have said many times that they
>*are* vegan foods that would cause little harm, but that *YOU* and the rest
>of the usenet vegan wannabes aren't eating them.

That isn't your usual rant here, and we both know that.
Your efforts on these vegan and animal-related groups
are a rant, that untold millions of animals are left to rot
for the vegan's convenience while the production of the
beef you claim to eat causes no collateral deaths at all.
You're a lying hypocrite.

>> [start - ipse dixit to Rick Etter]
>>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
>>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
>>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and
>>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
>>> deaths.
>> ============================
>> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
>> [end]
>> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m
>>
>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
>> Rick Etter 2003-11-15
>>
>> You lie about the production of your beef and then go on to
>> insist that it's the vegans who lie about their food items. It's
>> clear to all that you're just a lying meatarian on a vegan
>> forum. That's all. A troll.
>>========================
>Nope. ou just can't read for comprehension, killer.

You ought to at least spell your rants correctly before
accusing others of not being able to read, dummy.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 01:03:17 GMT, wowfabgroovy
> wrote:

>does anyone know what happened to five grain burger mix? it was a
>dried food with different grains/seeds in it (presumably 5 different
>types?) that you added water to and then fried. it was made by the
>same people who made something called sosmix, which was/is some sort
>of pink stuff that you also add water to and fry.
>
>
I notice you didn't get an answer!

Don't know where you live but both Sosmix and Burger mix are available
in UK supermarkets.

Dave