Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil
conversation OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.

I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch. I await
all your nasty replies expressing outrage that I contributed to the
death of *one* tuna, because I'd love the opportunity to point out that
the rice in my sushi was responsible for far more animal deaths than the
little bit of fish I ate (on second thought, it was a couple generous
helpings). You wouldn't give a shit if I'd had my usual *vegetarian*
sushi today, even though it would've *still* caused animal deaths.

So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?
What is it about *ALL* the frogs, snakes, rats, nutria, raccoons,
rabbits, deer, birds, snails, and other animals killed in the course of
rice production that make their deaths acceptable?

Face it, you only object to the actual eating of animals. You don't give
a damn if they're killed in the billions. If one dead tuna or steer gets
eaten, you say it's bad; if thousands and thousands of animals killed
for rice or other grain production, you find it fully acceptable or even
pass the buck and blame the farmer for farming in a manner you
financially support. Your worldview is so utterly ****ed, and you're so
hypocritical.

Special PS to "Beach Runt": You said people who start eating meat again
after a period of abstaining get sick from it. It's been a matter of
years since I've eaten any kind of flesh, and I feel *quite* fine. The
fish was *very* fresh, so I've no reason for concern. You're as clueless
as they come.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:23:56 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

"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

Your views are anything but consistent, so the
question remains; "How can we believe you?"

Retard wrote:
Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore, you fat cuckold.

C. James Strutz wrote:
Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil conversation
OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.

Being that this is usenet, civil conversation OVER a meal isn't possible.
That leaves only uncivil conversation ABOUT it. :^)

And how ironic that you're the one to offer it.

I wonder if you also
enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,

The last major outbreak of food-borne hepatitis in the US involved GREEN
ONIONS. Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

bacterial contamination,

Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

and intestinal parasites.

Not related only to meat consumption. More people become ill from
tainted produce, not from tainted meat.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm

I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch. I await
all your nasty replies expressing outrage that I contributed to the death
of *one* tuna, because I'd love the opportunity to point out that the rice
in my sushi was responsible for far more animal deaths than the little bit
of fish I ate (on second thought, it was a couple generous helpings). You
wouldn't give a shit if I'd had my usual *vegetarian* sushi today, even
though it would've *still* caused animal deaths.

You can buy native wild rice that occurs naturally and is harvested without
involving ANY animal deaths.

Wild rice would be horrible wrapped in seaweed. The wild rice of which
you speak is also not widely available.

So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?

Because it's at least one less death.

Objecting only to 1001st death. Why be so cavalier about the lives of
the first 1000?

Face it, you only object to the actual eating of animals. You don't give a
damn if they're killed in the billions. If one dead tuna or steer gets
eaten, you say it's bad; if thousands and thousands of animals killed for
rice or other grain production, you find it fully acceptable or even pass
the buck and blame the farmer for farming in a manner you financially
support. Your worldview is so utterly ****ed, and you're so hypocritical.

Feel the love....

Feel the *truth*.

C. James Strutz wrote:
Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil conversation
OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.

Being that this is usenet, civil conversation OVER a meal isn't possible.
That leaves only uncivil conversation ABOUT it. :^)

And how ironic that you're the one to offer it.

I wonder if you also
enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,

The last major outbreak of food-borne hepatitis in the US involved GREEN
ONIONS. Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

bacterial contamination,

Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

and intestinal parasites.

Not related only to meat consumption. More people become ill from
tainted produce, not from tainted meat.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm

I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch. I await
all your nasty replies expressing outrage that I contributed to the death
of *one* tuna, because I'd love the opportunity to point out that the rice
in my sushi was responsible for far more animal deaths than the little bit
of fish I ate (on second thought, it was a couple generous helpings). You
wouldn't give a shit if I'd had my usual *vegetarian* sushi today, even
though it would've *still* caused animal deaths.

You can buy native wild rice that occurs naturally and is harvested without
involving ANY animal deaths.

Wild rice would be horrible wrapped in seaweed. The wild rice of which
you speak is also not widely available.

So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?

Because it's at least one less death.

Objecting only to 1001st death. Why be so cavalier about the lives of
the first 1000?

Face it, you only object to the actual eating of animals. You don't give a
damn if they're killed in the billions. If one dead tuna or steer gets
eaten, you say it's bad; if thousands and thousands of animals killed for
rice or other grain production, you find it fully acceptable or even pass
the buck and blame the farmer for farming in a manner you financially
support. Your worldview is so utterly ****ed, and you're so hypocritical.

Feel the love....

Feel the *truth*.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:19:09 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Reynard wrote:
Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore

I don't call you anything but a liar. You're all over
the place on every issue raised here, including your
said stance on being a vegan. Remember this (below)?

Since self-confessed vegan, Ususpect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"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

From that, Ususpect clearly believed his vegan
lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely
that "no animal must die for his nourishment or
enjoyment"

Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he
accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's
CD argument with nothing but a whimper.
[Jonathan Ball]
Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
I don't eat meat.
Therefore, no animals died for my diet.
[usual suspect]
That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing
the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not
true.
[end]

But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical
reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is
valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency?

ANIMAL RIGHTS

He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be
given rights, must be protected as human children
are, and not be killed for our own benefit;

"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

But, if he once believed animals should to be given
protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply
to minors, why does he advocate animal research and
testing on them? Also while holding such beliefs, why
does he criticise others when protesting against how
these fellow *minors* are being treated?

"When was the last time you visited a family or
factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you
observed. Did they have someone roaming around,
willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the
animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?"
usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08

What sort of "protection under the law (same as used
to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows
the eating and use of them for research?

This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing
as it was written by someone who refutes the idea
of animal rights;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit,
unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit
cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal?
"usual suspect" is a closet ARA.
[end]

Here's a few more of "usual suspect"'s quotes which
leave me in no doubt that he has been lying about his
beliefs for some years now.

"Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
protection under the law. But are they endowed with
any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

"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:
usual suspect wrote:


Retard wrote:

Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore

I don't call you anything

And that's as it should be, you fat, self-crippled, undisciplined cuckold.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:45:44 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:

Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore

I don't call you anything

And that's as it should be

I see you're back to snipping away the evidence which
proves you're a liar. How desperate you are, silly boy.

restore
Since self-confessed vegan, Ususpect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"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

From that, Ususpect clearly believed his vegan
lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely
that "no animal must die for his nourishment or
enjoyment"

Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he
accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's
CD argument with nothing but a whimper.
[Jonathan Ball]
Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
I don't eat meat.
Therefore, no animals died for my diet.
[usual suspect]
That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing
the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not
true.
[end]

But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical
reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is
valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency?

ANIMAL RIGHTS

He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be
given rights, must be protected as human children
are, and not be killed for our own benefit;

"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

But, if he once believed animals should to be given
protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply
to minors, why does he advocate animal research and
testing on them? Also while holding such beliefs, why
does he criticise others when protesting against how
these fellow *minors* are being treated?

"When was the last time you visited a family or
factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you
observed. Did they have someone roaming around,
willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the
animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?"
usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08

What sort of "protection under the law (same as used
to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows
the eating and use of them for research?

This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing
as it was written by someone who refutes the idea
of animal rights;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit,
unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit
cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal?
"usual suspect" is a closet ARA.
[end]

Here's a few more of "usual suspect"'s quotes which
leave me in no doubt that he has been lying about his
beliefs for some years now.

"Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
protection under the law. But are they endowed with
any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

"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."
end restore

You haven't fooled me into thinking your current stance
is anything but a temporary one, and you didn't fool me
when you tried passing yourself off as a vegan in the
first place either. You continually swap from one stance
to another because you have no guiding principle behind
them. You're a mess and merely follow the pack with
the loudest voices - that's all.

C. James Strutz wrote:
I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,

The last major outbreak of food-borne hepatitis in the US involved GREEN
ONIONS. Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

Prove it.

...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm

See also:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/food...mics121103.cfm

bacterial contamination,

Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

Prove it.

...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm

My point is proven.

and intestinal parasites.

Not related only to meat consumption. More people become ill from tainted
produce, not from tainted meat.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm

Your link does not prove that "more people become ill from tainted produce"
than from tainted meat.

That site supports the previous sentence. See the article cited above if
you have any quibble about the number of people who become ill from
tainted produce compared to meat.

In fact, I snipped this from your link: "People get
toxoplasmosis the following ways: - By consuming foods (such as raw or
undercooked meats, especially pork, lamb, or wild game) or drinking
untreated water (from rivers or ponds) that may contain the parasite."

You also conveniently left out the fact that nearly every parasite
listed on that site can enter a host through contaminated produce.

And this from http://www.mass.gov/dph/fpp/retail/pdf/gensus1.pdf

"There are several food safety concerns, which are unique to the preparation
and service of sushi in the retail setting. The rice handles best at
temperatures between 70 and 80 F, which is a favorable temperature range for
pathogen growth."

That pdf also gives instructions for safe handling. Sushi is quite safe
when safely and conscientiously prepared.
http://www.sushiran.com/etcetera/safe.html
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/food...ry/making.html

Enjoy your sushi....

I did. I also enjoy the fact that ninnies like you take exception to it.

You can buy native wild rice that occurs naturally and is harvested
without involving ANY animal deaths.

Wild rice would be horrible wrapped in seaweed. The wild rice of which you
speak is also not widely available.

I didn't necessarly mean for sushi.

Well, dummy, I wanted sushi today.

You talked generally of rice
contributing to thousands of animal deaths and I'm telling you it doesn't
have to be that way. Native wild rice IS available - I recently bought some
online.

Was it handpicked? Not stored in any kind of granary or food warehouse?
Hand-delivered? If yes to any of the previous questions, it's NOT CD-free.

So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?

Because it's at least one less death.

Objecting only to 1001st death. Why be so cavalier about the lives of the
first 1000?

I'm not being cavalier at all.

Yes, you are.

I know I can't save all 1001 lives so any
life that I save is better than none.

Your objection is *only* to the one that's eaten.

Retard wrote:
usual suspect wrote:

Retard wrote:

usual suspect wrote:

Retard wrote:


Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore

I don't call you anything

And that's as it should be


I see

Good. Now **** off.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:

Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore

I don't call you anything

And that's as it should be

I see

Good. Now **** off.

No. I shall always be here to show the reader where you
lie, little troll. Snipping the evidence of your lies away only
proves it to be true evidence, so it suits me fine when you
do it. Good luck with your new anti-vegan stance, but what
is this new stance and the arguments you now put forward
on Jon's behalf worth when we consider the efforts you
made while trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan
stance? You're asking that we forget your earlier stance
and arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do we
know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that doesn't
know left from right? You're just a heckler.

Reynard wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Retard wrote:

usual suspect wrote:

Retard wrote:

usual suspect wrote:

Retard wrote:


Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore

I don't call you anything

And that's as it should be

I see

Good. Now **** off.

Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:41:04 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

menu boy wrote:
[..]
Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.

One difference among the three: veganism is religion.

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

When can we expect the truth from you, liar suspect?

Retard wrote:
Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.

One difference among the three: veganism is religion.

*I* was off in the wrong direction. Unlike you, I learn from my mistakes
rather than keep repeating them. That's why you still make the same ones
over and over, you fat unemployed cuckold

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Reynard wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:

Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore

I don't call you anything

And that's as it should be

I see

Good. Now **** off.

Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.