On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:58:38 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>long ago?

Usual Suspect hasn't quite made up his mind whether he's
a vegan or not, and this makes him bitch at all the other
vegans who don't suffer from his kind of wavering.

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

Retard wrote:

>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>long ago?
>
> Usual Suspect hasn't quite made up his mind whether he's
> a vegan or not,

I have, and I'm not, but you're too ****ing daft to notice. The irony is that
you, Dreck the Self-Crippled Town Cuckold, consume liters of Worcestershire
sauce, food from mass produced crops which kill animals, and pop pills tested on
animals while self-righteously claiming you're lifestyle is fully compatible
with your AR principles. Then again, you also take comparisons to ****wit
Harrison as compliments. You're a big fat idiot.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
> something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
> long ago?
>
> --
> http://www.scentednectar.com
> A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites.
=====================
Irony and hypocrisy on display! What a hoot! There was no 'need' for
this post, you did it entirly for *your* pleasure and entertainment, and the
animals be damned. Quite the bloody footprint you're leaving on usenet,
killer.


>
>
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> More signs of unhealthy vegans, surfing the web for stuff to fry.
>>
>
>

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:33:05 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard wrote:
>
>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>long ago?
>>
>> Usual Suspect hasn't quite made up his mind whether he's
>> a vegan or not,
>
>I have, and I'm not,

How can we ever be sure while history shows you
keep changing your mind all the time on most issues
raised in these animal related forums?

'USUAL SUSPECT'S NEWSGROUP TALK.

"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 personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

"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

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
'usual suspect' 2003-08-14

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
'usual suspect' 2003-06-10

"The manner of death of animals is usually irrelevant to me,
and that holds true in the case of so-called "canned" hunting.
What you negatively call "canned" is quite often NOT what
it's presented to be. I will agree that using retired circus and
zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in their
presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to
die anyway. Aren't they?"
'usual suspect' / 17 July 2003 19:09

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

"I reserve my compassion for humans,.."
'usual suspect' 8 Feb 2004

On burning chickens alive;
"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC." - 'usual suspect' 2004-02-12

"What's abusive about bullfighting?"
'usual suspect' 2004-06-26

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
'usual suspect' 2003-09-05

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:33:05 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard wrote:
>
>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>long ago?
>>
>> Usual Suspect hasn't quite made up his mind whether he's
>> a vegan or not,
>
>I have, and I'm not,

How can we ever be sure while history shows you
keep changing your mind all the time on most issues
raised in these animal related forums?

'USUAL SUSPECT'S NEWSGROUP TALK.

"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 personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

"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

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
'usual suspect' 2003-08-14

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
'usual suspect' 2003-06-10

"The manner of death of animals is usually irrelevant to me,
and that holds true in the case of so-called "canned" hunting.
What you negatively call "canned" is quite often NOT what
it's presented to be. I will agree that using retired circus and
zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in their
presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to
die anyway. Aren't they?"
'usual suspect' / 17 July 2003 19:09

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

"I reserve my compassion for humans,.."
'usual suspect' 8 Feb 2004

On burning chickens alive;
"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC." - 'usual suspect' 2004-02-12

"What's abusive about bullfighting?"
'usual suspect' 2004-06-26

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
'usual suspect' 2003-09-05

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:23:25 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>> Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>> something.
>
>I don't like unhealthy diets or phony philosophies, and veganism
> qualifies as both.

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

Did you go vegan to become unhealthy and follow a
philosophy which promotes more harm to animals?

wowfabgroovy wrote:

>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>long ago?
>
> you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.

Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism. My
posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as well as
sound nutritional recommendations. Just because you and other vegans choose to
approach the issues as "us versus them" doesn't make those who disagree with
your pseudo-religion trolls.

> presumably the old ladies in the knitting pattern groups were too
> tough for him.

Is that the best you can do?

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > went:
>
>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>long ago?
>
> you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
> presumably the old ladies in the knitting pattern groups were too
> tough for him.
====================
Actually, if anything, you are the one trolling here, killer. Usual and I
discuss the issue. Something you fail to do, and instead just post little
snppets of ignorance and intolerance. Typical vegan fare, but hardly
informative, eh hypocrite? Now, as to the group itself, where do you see
"cookery" in the title? Now, if it said 'crockery', vegans would have that
issue down pat. And, I suggest you go back to the beginning of the group
and look to see that ethical/rights issues were welcomed. Too bad for you
that you can't keep up, nor do you apparently know how to use your computer.

Now, you want to defend the vegan religion? Be a hero! No other vegan has
been able to prove all the ignorant claims, maybe you'll be the first, eh
killer?



Now, go have that nice blood-drenched lunch, hypocrite.

>
>

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > went:
>
>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>long ago?
>
> you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
> presumably the old ladies in the knitting pattern groups were too
> tough for him.
====================
Actually, if anything, you are the one trolling here, killer. Usual and I
discuss the issue. Something you fail to do, and instead just post little
snppets of ignorance and intolerance. Typical vegan fare, but hardly
informative, eh hypocrite? Now, as to the group itself, where do you see
"cookery" in the title? Now, if it said 'crockery', vegans would have that
issue down pat. And, I suggest you go back to the beginning of the group
and look to see that ethical/rights issues were welcomed. Too bad for you
that you can't keep up, nor do you apparently know how to use your computer.

Now, you want to defend the vegan religion? Be a hero! No other vegan has
been able to prove all the ignorant claims, maybe you'll be the first, eh
killer?



Now, go have that nice blood-drenched lunch, hypocrite.

>
>

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:39:01 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>"Reynard" wrote:
><...>
>>>I don't like unhealthy diets or phony philosophies, and veganism
>>>qualifies as both.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Did you go vegan to become unhealthy
>
>I have repeatedly said that I could include lean flesh, particularly from fish,
>in my diet were it appealing to my tastes.

That's another lie, as this quote below shows;

"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."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:39:01 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>"Reynard" wrote:
><...>
>>>I don't like unhealthy diets or phony philosophies, and veganism
>>>qualifies as both.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Did you go vegan to become unhealthy
>
>I have repeatedly said that I could include lean flesh, particularly from fish,
>in my diet were it appealing to my tastes.

That's another lie, as this quote below shows;

"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."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> wowfabgroovy wrote:
>
>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>long ago?
>>
>> you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
>
> Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism.

You only "discuss" things when it agrees with your extreme viewpoints. 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.You
are nasty, abusive, malicious, mean, vituperous, insulting, belittling,
degrading, and intimidating.

> My posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as
> well as sound nutritional recommendations.

True enough, but much less so in recent times.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news
>> wowfabgroovy wrote:
>>
>>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>>long ago?
>>>
>>> you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
>>
>> Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism.
>
> You only "discuss" things when it agrees with your extreme viewpoints.
> 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.You
> are nasty, abusive, malicious, mean, vituperous, insulting, belittling,
> degrading, and intimidating.
====================
And you're still an ignorant loon that kills animals for fun.


>
>> My posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as
>> well as sound nutritional recommendations.
>
> True enough, but much less so in recent times.
>
>
>
>

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> usual suspect > went:
>
>>wowfabgroovy wrote:
>>
>>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>>long ago?
>>>
>>> you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
>>
>>Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism. My
>>posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as well
>>as
>>sound nutritional recommendations. Just because you and other vegans
>>choose to
>>approach the issues as "us versus them" doesn't make those who disagree
>>with
>>your pseudo-religion trolls.
>
> yeah right. that's why you hijack every thread for whatever point
> you're trying to make.
>
>>
>>> presumably the old ladies in the knitting pattern groups were too
>>> tough for him.
>>
>>Is that the best you can do?
>
> not really, but it would be wasted on a cookery group troll. and it's
> probably not that far from the truth anyway.
==================
Hey troll, where do you see cookery in the title?

>
>

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> usual suspect > went:
>
>>wowfabgroovy wrote:
>>
>>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>>long ago?
>>>
>>> you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
>>
>>Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism. My
>>posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as well
>>as
>>sound nutritional recommendations. Just because you and other vegans
>>choose to
>>approach the issues as "us versus them" doesn't make those who disagree
>>with
>>your pseudo-religion trolls.
>
> yeah right. that's why you hijack every thread for whatever point
> you're trying to make.
>
>>
>>> presumably the old ladies in the knitting pattern groups were too
>>> tough for him.
>>
>>Is that the best you can do?
>
> not really, but it would be wasted on a cookery group troll. and it's
> probably not that far from the truth anyway.
==================
Hey troll, where do you see cookery in the title?

>
>

> > not really, but it would be wasted on a cookery group troll. and
it's
> > probably not that far from the truth anyway.
> ==================
> Hey troll, where do you see cookery in the title?

That was probably a paraphrasing. You're a food group troll. That's no
better or worse than a cookery troll.

SN
http://www.scentednectar.com
A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:00:46 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard snipped:
><...>
>>>I have repeatedly said that I could include lean flesh, particularly from fish,
>>>in my diet were it appealing to my tastes.
>>
>> That's another lie,
>
>Bullshit,

It's the truth, and your quotes which you keep snipping
because of the embarrassment they cause you prove it.

"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."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

and

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

How can you sit there and tell people you could now eat
flesh if you wanted to when all this time you've been
saying the complete opposite, that you dislike flesh and
cannot eat it on the basis that you favour the humane
treatment of animals, which to you means not killing them
for your benefit?

You were either lying then or you're lying now. Which is it?

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:00:46 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard snipped:
><...>
>>>I have repeatedly said that I could include lean flesh, particularly from fish,
>>>in my diet were it appealing to my tastes.
>>
>> That's another lie,
>
>Bullshit,

It's the truth, and your quotes which you keep snipping
because of the embarrassment they cause you prove it.

"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."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

and

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

How can you sit there and tell people you could now eat
flesh if you wanted to when all this time you've been
saying the complete opposite, that you dislike flesh and
cannot eat it on the basis that you favour the humane
treatment of animals, which to you means not killing them
for your benefit?

You were either lying then or you're lying now. Which is it?

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>>long ago?
>>>
>>>you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
>>
>>Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism.
>
> 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.

> 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.

> You
> are nasty, abusive, malicious, mean, vituperous, insulting, belittling,
> degrading, and intimidating.

Is that where you stopped or the thesaurus stopped?

>>My posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as
>>well as sound nutritional recommendations.
>
> True enough, but much less so in recent times.

Hell, James, I've been gone for five freakin' months. How many recipes did YOU
post in my absence?

wowfabgroovy wrote:
>>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>>long ago?
>>>
>>>you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
>>
>>Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism. My
>>posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as well as
>>sound nutritional recommendations. Just because you and other vegans choose to
>>approach the issues as "us versus them" doesn't make those who disagree with
>>your pseudo-religion trolls.
>
> yeah right. that's why you hijack every thread for whatever point
> you're trying to make.

I don't engage in every thread in this group.

>>>presumably the old ladies in the knitting pattern groups were too
>>>tough for him.
>>
>>Is that the best you can do?
>
> not really,

Then give it another try. You're coming off as a little pussy.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> That was probably a paraphrasing. You're a food group troll. That's no
> better or worse than a cookery troll.

He's not a troll. You don't know the definition of troll.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>>>long ago?
>>>>
>>>>you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
>>>
>>>Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism.
>>
>> 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.
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, you make wrong assumptions about people,
you always have to "win" by any means possible, and you are not very
tolerant.

>> 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". 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.

>> You are nasty, abusive, malicious, mean, vituperous, insulting,
>> belittling, degrading, and intimidating.
>
> Is that where you stopped or the thesaurus stopped?

It's where I stopped, but I could keep going if you wish. :^)

>>>My posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as
>>>well as sound nutritional recommendations.
>>
>> True enough, but much less so in recent times.
>
> Hell, James, I've been gone for five freakin' months. How many recipes did
> YOU post in my absence?

This is one of the many tricks you use to turn the tables on other people.
We are not talkign about me posting recipes, we are talking about YOU
posting recipes. I'm referring to the recent time since your anti-vegan
revelation, not the time of your recent absence. You used to post some
really good stuff, but that sharply dropped off since you've been frothing
at vegans.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > That was probably a paraphrasing. You're a food group troll.
That's no
> > better or worse than a cookery troll.
>
> He's not a troll. You don't know the definition of troll.

I've not been around this group long, but consider you and a few others
to be trolls.
Luckily, I have fun reading and then sometimes picking on worthy objects
like trolls.

SN
http://www.scentednectar.com
A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>>Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or
>>>>>>something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you
>>>>>>long ago?
>>>>>
>>>>>you have to wonder what sort of person would troll a cookery group.
>>>>
>>>>Who's trolling? I'm here for an honest and open discussion of veganism.
>>>
>>>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.

> 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.

> 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.

>>>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.

> 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.

They have thin skin.

>>>You are nasty, abusive, malicious, mean, vituperous, insulting,
>>>belittling, degrading, and intimidating.
>>
>>Is that where you stopped or the thesaurus stopped?
>
> It's where I stopped, but I could keep going if you wish. :^)

Get it off your chest.

>>>>My posting history is also replete with cooking advice and recipes, as
>>>>well as sound nutritional recommendations.
>>>
>>>True enough, but much less so in recent times.
>>
>>Hell, James, I've been gone for five freakin' months. How many recipes did
>>YOU post in my absence?
>
> This is one of the many tricks you use to turn the tables on other people.

It's not a trick. Answer my question.

<...>

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
>>He's not a troll. You don't know the definition of troll.
>
> I've not been around this group long, but consider you and a few others
> to be trolls.

On what grounds?
A troll is deliberately crafted to provoke others with the intention of
wasting their time and energy. A troll is a time thief. To troll is to
steal from people. That is what makes trolling heinous.

Trolls can be identified by their disengagement from a conversation or
argument. They do not believe what they say, but merely say it for
effect.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition

That is a standard definition. Etter believes what he posts. So do I. We are not
trolls. We just disagree with people like you.

> Luckily, I have fun reading and then sometimes picking on worthy objects
> like trolls.

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:11:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>
>>>>>I have repeatedly said that I could include lean
>>>>>flesh, particularly from fish, in my diet were it
>>>>>appealing to my tastes.
>>>>
>>>>That's another lie,
>>>
>>>Bullshit,
>
>No, you're a dole-scrounging shit-stirrer.

Childish name-calling is not a suitable replacement for
debate, and neither is your unethical snipping of the
evidence which proves you've been lying about your
vegan diet. Your quotes, which you keep snipping
because of the embarrassment they cause you, prove
that you've lied about your diet and about your definition
regarding the humane treatment of animals.

"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."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

and

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

How can you sit there and tell people you could now eat
flesh if you wanted to when all this time you've been
saying the complete opposite, that you dislike flesh and
cannot eat it on the basis that you favour the humane
treatment of animals, which to you means not killing them
for your benefit?

You were either lying then or you're lying now. Which is it?

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:11:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>
>>>>>I have repeatedly said that I could include lean
>>>>>flesh, particularly from fish, in my diet were it
>>>>>appealing to my tastes.
>>>>
>>>>That's another lie,
>>>
>>>Bullshit,
>
>No, you're a dole-scrounging shit-stirrer.

Childish name-calling is not a suitable replacement for
debate, and neither is your unethical snipping of the
evidence which proves you've been lying about your
vegan diet. Your quotes, which you keep snipping
because of the embarrassment they cause you, prove
that you've lied about your diet and about your definition
regarding the humane treatment of animals.

"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."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

and

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

How can you sit there and tell people you could now eat
flesh if you wanted to when all this time you've been
saying the complete opposite, that you dislike flesh and
cannot eat it on the basis that you favour the humane
treatment of animals, which to you means not killing them
for your benefit?

You were either lying then or you're lying now. Which is it?

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:01:26 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>
>Absolutely nothing that merits a response.

That's what you'd like others to believe, but the truth
is that what I've provided here are your massive
inconsistencies and lies, so it's small wonder why
you would want to avoid it by repeatedly snipping it
away and trying to change the subject.

'USUAL SUSPECT'S NEWSGROUP TALK.

"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 personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

"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

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
'usual suspect' 2003-08-14

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
'usual suspect' 2003-06-10

"The manner of death of animals is usually irrelevant to me,
and that holds true in the case of so-called "canned" hunting.
What you negatively call "canned" is quite often NOT what
it's presented to be. I will agree that using retired circus and
zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in their
presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to
die anyway. Aren't they?"
'usual suspect' / 17 July 2003 19:09

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

"I reserve my compassion for humans,.."
'usual suspect' 8 Feb 2004

On burning chickens alive;
"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC." - 'usual suspect' 2004-02-12

"What's abusive about bullfighting?"
'usual suspect' 2004-06-26

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
'usual suspect' 2003-09-05

Heh. Your views are anything BUT consistent, dummy.
You're all over the place since Jon clobbered you so hard
that it turned you into what we see today.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:01:26 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>
>Absolutely nothing that merits a response.

That's what you'd like others to believe, but the truth
is that what I've provided here are your massive
inconsistencies and lies, so it's small wonder why
you would want to avoid it by repeatedly snipping it
away and trying to change the subject.

'USUAL SUSPECT'S NEWSGROUP TALK.

"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 personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
'usual suspect' Date: 2002-06-11

"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

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
'usual suspect' 2003-08-14

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
'usual suspect' 2003-06-10

"The manner of death of animals is usually irrelevant to me,
and that holds true in the case of so-called "canned" hunting.
What you negatively call "canned" is quite often NOT what
it's presented to be. I will agree that using retired circus and
zoo animals who are conditioned to having humans in their
presence is not very sporting, but those animals are going to
die anyway. Aren't they?"
'usual suspect' / 17 July 2003 19:09

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

"I reserve my compassion for humans,.."
'usual suspect' 8 Feb 2004

On burning chickens alive;
"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC." - 'usual suspect' 2004-02-12

"What's abusive about bullfighting?"
'usual suspect' 2004-06-26

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
'usual suspect' 2003-09-05

Heh. Your views are anything BUT consistent, dummy.
You're all over the place since Jon clobbered you so hard
that it turned you into what we see today.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> >>He's not a troll. You don't know the definition of troll.
> >
> > I've not been around this group long, but consider you and a few
others
> > to be trolls.
>
> On what grounds?
> A troll is deliberately crafted to provoke others with the intention
of
> wasting their time and energy. A troll is a time thief. To troll is to
> steal from people. That is what makes trolling heinous.

A troll can also be described as a shitdisturber with the
intention of provoking and insulting people.

> Trolls can be identified by their disengagement from a conversation or
> argument. They do not believe what they say, but merely say it for
> effect.
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition
> That is a standard definition. Etter believes what he posts. So do I.
We are not
> trolls. We just disagree with people like you.

Some trolls believe the stuff they say and some don't. It makes no
difference. Both are trolls by my understanding of the word. Anyways,
through all the insults in your posts, who can tell whether you believe
that stuff or just want to use potty words and instigate outrage.

> > Luckily, I have fun reading and then sometimes picking on worthy
objects
> > like trolls.
>
> You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Ooooo, I'll be very careful then.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>A troll is deliberately crafted to provoke others with the intention
>>of wasting their time and energy. A troll is a time thief. To troll is to
>>steal from people. That is what makes trolling heinous.
>
> 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.

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.

>>Trolls can be identified by their disengagement from a conversation or
>>argument. They do not believe what they say, but merely say it for
>>effect.
>>http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition
>>That is a standard definition. Etter believes what he posts. So do I.
>>We are not trolls. We just disagree with people like you.
>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

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"?

> 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?

> even though you have a vegan diet,

My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs. So, too, is the fact that I run.

> 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.

>>>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.

>>>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.

>>>>>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?

<...>

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"?

> 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?

> even though you have a vegan diet,

My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs. So, too, is the fact that I run.

> 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.

>>>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.

>>>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.

>>>>>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?

<...>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > not really, but it would be wasted on a cookery group troll. and
> it's
>> > probably not that far from the truth anyway.
>> ==================
>> Hey troll, where do you see cookery in the title?
>
> That was probably a paraphrasing. You're a food group troll. That's no
> better or worse than a cookery troll.
===========================
As it relates to vegans, killer. Again, try using your computer to learn
something, since you don't care about killing animals anyway.


>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com
> A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites.
> =================
Irony and hypocrisy on display. What a hoot!!!


>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> <...>
>> >>He's not a troll. You don't know the definition of troll.
>> >
>> > I've not been around this group long, but consider you and a few
> others
>> > to be trolls.
>>
>> On what grounds?
>> A troll is deliberately crafted to provoke others with the intention
> of
>> wasting their time and energy. A troll is a time thief. To troll is to
>> steal from people. That is what makes trolling heinous.
>
> A troll can also be described as a shitdisturber with the
> intention of provoking and insulting people.
> =======================
ROTFLMAO What an absolute precious moment!! Keep up the good work
proving that animals mean *nothing* to you killer.



>> Trolls can be identified by their disengagement from a conversation or
>> argument. They do not believe what they say, but merely say it for
>> effect.
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition
>> That is a standard definition. Etter believes what he posts. So do I.
> We are not
>> trolls. We just disagree with people like you.
>
> Some trolls believe the stuff they say and some don't. It makes no
> difference. Both are trolls by my understanding of the word. Anyways,
> through all the insults in your posts, who can tell whether you believe
> that stuff or just want to use potty words and instigate outrage.
>
>> > Luckily, I have fun reading and then sometimes picking on worthy
> objects
>> > like trolls.
>>
>> You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.
>
> Ooooo, I'll be very careful then.
>
>

> 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.

> 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.

I don't know about your Five Grain burger mix but here is a recipe that uses
five grains. You'll want to replace the egg with something else, maybe a
little tofu.
-nancy-

http://www.recipesource.com/main-dis...0/rec0033.html


"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> 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 don't know about your Five Grain burger mix but here is a recipe that uses
five grains. You'll want to replace the egg with something else, maybe a
little tofu.
-nancy-

http://www.recipesource.com/main-dis...0/rec0033.html


"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
>

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?