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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #241 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> > You're still dodging. Would you eat
> > the steak? If not, how would you
> > explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> > simple questions. There is no reason
> > not to answer, is there?

>
> Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
> isn't it? You don't like a certain food, yet you find it served to you by

a
> gracious host. If you eat it, that's not good due to the yuk factor, and

if
> you leave it, you risk insulting your hostess, that's even worse. What do


If you feel that risking insult to
your host is even worse, then
we know what your decision
would be. I find though, that
decent people are not offended
if someone has dietary restrictions
and turns something down.

> you do, tell them that you think meat is murder? Lie and say you're
> allergic? That's weak. To the best of my knowledge, Buddhist monks who are
> strict vegetarians will eat meat if it is served to them for this reason.


Those monks are not strict
vegetarians or they would not
eat the meat. They would maybe
instead give it to some of the
hungry non-monks.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


  #242 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


do you really think that i may be the real father of any of Derek,s
children? should i have a DNA test so that i can have access?

  #245 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's ethically-confused Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws

>
> Copyright laws are vastly different


IOW, you "respect" marginal BS hair-splitting sophistry about "animal
rights" supported by very few misguided people rather than observe and
respect the rights of your fellow man upheld by international law.


  #246 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>>>>>How do you explain
>>>>>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?


You've yet to establish that I wouldn't.
  #247 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dutch wrote:
>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>not to answer, is there?

>
> Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
> isn't it?


I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and respect.
  #248 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>>Yes, you prefer to "respect" marginal BS hair-splitting sophistry about
>>"animal rights" supported by very few misguided people rather than
>>observe and respect the rights of your fellow man upheld by
>>international law.

>
> 'International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation


1. Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War.
2. The terms of that agreement included immediate destruction of WMD and
weapons inspections protocol.
3. Iraq did not live up to certain terms of the cease-fire. That in and
of itself makes the resumption of war *LEGAL*.
4. The UN Security Council resolved 17 times over 12 years that Iraq
face "consequences" for violating various terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
5. The threat of resumption of force against Iraq was always implied, if
not explicit, in the resolutions of the UNSC, including Resolution 1441.

The war was legal. Saddam had plenty of chances to comply with the
cease-fire agreement, and I think he was given too much time. The Gulf
War did not end with a permanent peace treaty. Resumption of war was one
of the penalties for engaging in the prohibited actions in the
cease-fire agreement.
  #249 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>>not to answer, is there?

>>
>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
>>isn't it? You don't like a certain food, yet you find it served to you by

>
> a
>
>>gracious host. If you eat it, that's not good due to the yuk factor, and

>
> if
>
>>you leave it, you risk insulting your hostess, that's even worse. What do

>
>
> If you feel that risking insult to
> your host is even worse, then
> we know what your decision
> would be. I find though, that
> decent people are not offended
> if someone has dietary restrictions


Veganism isn't a dietary restriction. It's an eating disorder.

> and turns something down.
>
>
>>you do, tell them that you think meat is murder? Lie and say you're
>>allergic? That's weak. To the best of my knowledge, Buddhist monks who are
>>strict vegetarians will eat meat if it is served to them for this reason.

>
> Those monks are not strict
> vegetarians or they would not
> eat the meat.


Buddhists are under no obligation to abstain from meat. Nor are
adherents of other religions. Hindus are allowed meat under certain
circumstances. The Buddha himself ate meat. Jesus ate meat. Mohammad ate
meat. Ascetics miss the meaning if they think they're holier for abstaining.

> They would maybe
> instead give it to some of the
> hungry non-monks.


You're such a clueless shit.
  #250 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dreck's afterbirth wrote:
> do you really think that i may be the real father of any of Derek,s
> children?


I have no idea if you are or not. Do you?

> should i have a DNA test


No. What purpose would it serve?

> so that i can have access?


Not if what Derk has written about your threatening his daughters is
true. Don't think that just because he and I don't get along that I find
you more respectable than I find him -- I don't. You'll never be half
the man your brother is, Dave.


  #251 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"useless cesspool" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
> >>>the steak? If not, how would you
> >>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> >>>simple questions. There is no reason
> >>>not to answer, is there?
> >>
> >>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
> >>isn't it? You don't like a certain food, yet you find it served to you

by
> >
> > a
> >
> >>gracious host. If you eat it, that's not good due to the yuk factor, and

> >
> > if
> >
> >>you leave it, you risk insulting your hostess, that's even worse. What

do
> >
> >
> > If you feel that risking insult to
> > your host is even worse, then
> > we know what your decision
> > would be. I find though, that
> > decent people are not offended
> > if someone has dietary restrictions

>
> Veganism isn't a dietary restriction. It's an eating disorder.


Maybe it was in your case.

> > and turns something down.
> >
> >
> >>you do, tell them that you think meat is murder? Lie and say you're
> >>allergic? That's weak. To the best of my knowledge, Buddhist monks who

are
> >>strict vegetarians will eat meat if it is served to them for this

reason.
> >
> > Those monks are not strict
> > vegetarians or they would not
> > eat the meat.

>
> Buddhists are under no obligation to abstain from meat. Nor are
> adherents of other religions. Hindus are allowed meat under certain
> circumstances. The Buddha himself ate meat. Jesus ate meat. Mohammad ate
> meat. Ascetics miss the meaning if they think they're holier for

abstaining.

Duh..Helloooo...I just said they are
not strictly vegetarians.

> > They would maybe
> > instead give it to some of the
> > hungry non-monks.

>
> You're such a clueless shit.


You've cut out a chunk of my post
leaving it out of context, followed
by a gratuitous insult. What's your
problem?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #252 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"useless cesspool" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dutch wrote:
> >>You're still dodging. Would you eat
> >>the steak? If not, how would you
> >>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> >>simple questions. There is no reason
> >>not to answer, is there?

> >
> > Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
> > isn't it?

>
> I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
> ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and

respect.

That person doesn't care and respect\
you too much if they expect you to
just drop your ways when they snap
their fingers. Or maybe you respect
them so much you haven't shared
info re your personal food ways with
them for fear they will think you're
weird. Fear of nonconformity.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #253 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>How do you explain
> >>>>>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?

>
> You've yet to establish that I wouldn't.


And yet to establish you would.
You keep avoiding outright saying
that you would eat the steak.
Would you?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #254 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>>>>not to answer, is there?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
>>>>isn't it? You don't like a certain food, yet you find it served to you

>
> by
>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>gracious host. If you eat it, that's not good due to the yuk factor, and
>>>
>>>if
>>>
>>>
>>>>you leave it, you risk insulting your hostess, that's even worse. What

>
> do
>
>>>
>>>If you feel that risking insult to
>>>your host is even worse, then
>>>we know what your decision
>>>would be. I find though, that
>>>decent people are not offended
>>>if someone has dietary restrictions

>>
>>Veganism isn't a dietary restriction. It's an eating disorder.

>
> Maybe


No, dummy, it is.

> You've cut out a chunk


Just the irrelevant bit.
  #255 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

43 year-old dependent Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>>>not to answer, is there?
>>>
>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
>>>isn't it?

>>
>>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
>>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
>>respect.

>
> That person doesn't care and respect\
> you too much if they expect you to
> just drop your ways when they snap
> their fingers.


Now you're moving the goalpost, dummy. You asked what I would do if a
*GRACIOUS* host offered me a large steak and small potato. Now you're
suggesting the host is an ingrate. Make up your overtoked brain-cell.


  #256 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>How do you explain
>>>>>>>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?

>>
>>You've yet to establish that I wouldn't.

>
> And yet


You continue to spin. Why are you so concerned about what I might
*hypothetically* eat?
  #257 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"usual suspect" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>>not to answer, is there?

>>
>> Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
>> isn't it?

>
> I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
> ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
> respect.


Good answer.


  #258 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"useless cesspool" > wrote in message
news
> 43 year-old dependent Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
> >>>>the steak? If not, how would you
> >>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> >>>>simple questions. There is no reason
> >>>>not to answer, is there?
> >>>
> >>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win

situation
> >>>isn't it?
> >>
> >>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
> >>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
> >>respect.

> >
> > That person doesn't care and respect\
> > you too much if they expect you to
> > just drop your ways when they snap
> > their fingers.

>
> Now you're moving the goalpost, dummy. You asked what I would do if a
> *GRACIOUS* host offered me a large steak and small potato. Now you're
> suggesting the host is an ingrate. Make up your overtoked brain-cell.


Boy you're cranky. Are you
constipated or something?
You still haven't answered the
original question though. Would
you eat the steak?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #259 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>How do you explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?
> >>
> >>You've yet to establish that I wouldn't.

> >
> > And yet

>
> You continue to spin. Why are you so concerned about what I might
> *hypothetically* eat?


Anyone up for a game of dodgeball?
Maybe being invited to dinner is a
foreign thing to you. It happens to
most people though. Veg*ns have
to let them know that it might be tough
feeding them because of their diet.
Many nice people have enough veg
food to fill up on. Other times they
don't get offended if you bring your
own, like veg patties to a bbq. At
restaurants there are usually veg
options even when they are called
side dishes. So, would you eat
that steak?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #260 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote
> > Dutch wrote:
> >>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
> >>>the steak? If not, how would you
> >>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> >>>simple questions. There is no reason
> >>>not to answer, is there?
> >>
> >> Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win

situation
> >> isn't it?

> >
> > I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
> > ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
> > respect.

>
> Good answer.


I disagree. Would someone you
care about and respect think badly
of you if they knew you followed a
certain diet? I think not. Why would
a decent person take it personally?
A truly good person simply doesn't
offer you your restricted items after
they find out. They don't mind
talking about it either, so if they are
having a dinner where the only
vegan item is side of green peas,
one can eat before the get-together
or bring something. People who
get offended at having their food
turned down by someone who has
dietary restrictions are not friends
at all.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/




  #261 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "usual suspect" > wrote
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>> >>>the steak? If not, how would you
>> >>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>> >>>simple questions. There is no reason
>> >>>not to answer, is there?
>> >>
>> >> Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win

> situation
>> >> isn't it?
>> >
>> > I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
>> > ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
>> > respect.

>>
>> Good answer.

>
> I disagree. Would someone you
> care about and respect think badly
> of you if they knew you followed a
> certain diet? I think not.


It's not your diet that offends them, it's the act of turning down food
offered to you.

> Why would
> a decent person take it personally?


Because they have invested time and money in an act of giving.

> A truly good person simply doesn't
> offer you your restricted items after
> they find out.


You're assuming they knew in advance, that's not necessarily the case.

> They don't mind
> talking about it either, so if they are
> having a dinner where the only
> vegan item is side of green peas,
> one can eat before the get-together
> or bring something. People who
> get offended at having their food
> turned down by someone who has
> dietary restrictions are not friends
> at all.


The person is not a friend, they are a *host*.



  #262 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:19:19 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Dreck's afterbirth wrote:
>>
>> do you really think that i may be the real father of any of Derek,s
>> children?

>
>I have no idea if you are or not. Do you?
>
>> should i have a DNA test

>
>No. What purpose would it serve?
>
>> so that i can have access?

>
>Not if what Derk has written about your threatening his daughters is
>true. Don't think that just because he and I don't get along that I find
>you more respectable than I find him -- I don't. You'll never be half
>the man your brother is, Dave.


Being that he's my identical mirror twin, your last sentence
could be easily dismissed as false, though not by me. We're
two halves of a whole, and my greatest of all embarrassments
and shame is in having such an association with him, for want
of a better term, and in not being in a position to do anything
about it. Ask yourself how you would cope, not just here but
in life, with a life-long mortal enemy who looked like you, talked
like you, was always mistaken as BEing you (even by your
parents), and did everything in his power to take what rightly
belonged to you only to destroy it, even if it cost him dear while
doing it.

When my own identical mirror twin boys were born, again, one
left-handed as David is, and then later found to be both as
competitive as he and myself are against each other for the
smallest of personal gain, I didn't know whether to laugh or
cry, so I set myself the task in not letting history repeat itself
by taking complete control over their up-bringing. As a result I
now have two adult sons who are inseparable while at the same
time content with what they are as separate individuals. Unlike
David and myself they are proud to be twins. It wasn't easy to
change fate, but I did it because I knew it had to be done and
was made 'prepared' for it.
  #263 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "usual suspect" > wrote
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
> >> >>>the steak? If not, how would you
> >> >>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> >> >>>simple questions. There is no reason
> >> >>>not to answer, is there?
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win

> > situation
> >> >> isn't it?
> >> >
> >> > I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences

for
> >> > ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
> >> > respect.
> >>
> >> Good answer.

> >
> > I disagree. Would someone you
> > care about and respect think badly
> > of you if they knew you followed a
> > certain diet? I think not.

>
> It's not your diet that offends them, it's the act of turning down food
> offered to you.


Only if it's given to you as a
surprise. If it happens AFTER
you've been invited and did not
(or was scared to) tell them you
are veg*n, then I see how it can
offend.

> > Why would
> > a decent person take it personally?

>
> Because they have invested time and money in an act of giving.
>
> > A truly good person simply doesn't
> > offer you your restricted items after
> > they find out.

>
> You're assuming they knew in advance, that's not necessarily the case.


If it's a person you care about and
respect then you would know each
other's diets, being that you know
each other well. If it's a stranger,
like a neighbourhood welcome
group to new neighbours, then you
can't be scared to say you are
veg*n.

> > They don't mind
> > talking about it either, so if they are
> > having a dinner where the only
> > vegan item is side of green peas,
> > one can eat before the get-together
> > or bring something. People who
> > get offended at having their food
> > turned down by someone who has
> > dietary restrictions are not friends
> > at all.

>
> The person is not a friend, they are a *host*.


Who ever they are, they shouldn't
feel offended for someone else's
dietary choices. I have no trouble
saying to people "You might want
to think twice about inviting me.
I'm hard to feed being vegetarian.".
More often than not, there turns
out to be things I can eat.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


  #264 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote


>> The person is not a friend, they are a *host*.

>
> Who ever they are, they shouldn't
> feel offended for someone else's
> dietary choices.


It's not up to you to decide for everyone else under what circumstances they
should and should not feel offended. In some cultures it's rude to accept a
dinner invitation with conditions attached. You're operating from a narrow
urban Canadian point of view and expecting everyone else to think as you do.






  #265 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote

>
> >> The person is not a friend, they are a *host*.

> >
> > Who ever they are, they shouldn't
> > feel offended for someone else's
> > dietary choices.

>
> It's not up to you to decide for everyone else under what circumstances

they
> should and should not feel offended. In some cultures it's rude to accept

a
> dinner invitation with conditions attached. You're operating from a narrow
> urban Canadian point of view and expecting everyone else to think as you

do.

Get real. We are not talking about
some mythical other culture with
your made-up rules.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/




  #266 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

43 year-old dependent Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>>>>>not to answer, is there?
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win

>
> situation
>
>>>>>isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
>>>>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
>>>>respect.
>>>
>>>That person doesn't care and respect\
>>>you too much if they expect you to
>>>just drop your ways when they snap
>>>their fingers.

>>
>>Now you're moving the goalpost, dummy. You asked what I would do if a
>>*GRACIOUS* host offered me a large steak and small potato. Now you're
>>suggesting the host is an ingrate. Make up your overtoked brain-cell.

>
> Boy you're cranky.


No, I'm not. I'm amused that you keep changing the situation around
because you don't like the answer. First it's a gracious host, then it's
no longer a gracious host, now you're twisting scenarios around to
include restaurants. Make up your brain-cell, Skanky.
  #267 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>How do you explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?
>>>>
>>>>You've yet to establish that I wouldn't.
>>>
>>>And yet

>>
>>You continue to spin. Why are you so concerned about what I might
>>*hypothetically* eat?

>
> Maybe being invited to dinner is a
> foreign thing to you.


Not at all.

> Veg*ns have to let them know that it might be tough
> feeding them because of their diet.


No, you orthorexic vegans are such whiny ingrates that you'd impose on
your hosts and make outrageous demands.

*mocking Skanky's whiny drama queen screech* "It's tough to feed
meeeeeeee. I'd better bring MY OWN food because I don't know where yours
has been."

> Many nice people


Nice people don't make a big deal when invited to others' for food and
fun. You do. Therefore, you're not a nice person. QED.
  #268 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> 43 year-old dependent Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
> >>>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
> >>>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> >>>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
> >>>>>>not to answer, is there?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win

> >
> > situation
> >
> >>>>>isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences

for
> >>>>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
> >>>>respect.
> >>>
> >>>That person doesn't care and respect\
> >>>you too much if they expect you to
> >>>just drop your ways when they snap
> >>>their fingers.
> >>
> >>Now you're moving the goalpost, dummy. You asked what I would do if a
> >>*GRACIOUS* host offered me a large steak and small potato. Now you're
> >>suggesting the host is an ingrate. Make up your overtoked brain-cell.

> >
> > Boy you're cranky.

>
> No, I'm not. I'm amused that you keep changing the situation around
> because you don't like the answer. First it's a gracious host, then it's
> no longer a gracious host, now you're twisting scenarios around to
> include restaurants. Make up your brain-cell, Skanky.


Yet you still don't answer. Hmmm.
Answer the original question. The
gracious host version, since you
first brought that one up. You are
being really really really evasive.
Have you never been invited to a
dinner?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


  #269 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>How do you explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?
> >>>>
> >>>>You've yet to establish that I wouldn't.
> >>>
> >>>And yet
> >>
> >>You continue to spin. Why are you so concerned about what I might
> >>*hypothetically* eat?

> >
> > Maybe being invited to dinner is a
> > foreign thing to you.

>
> Not at all.


Would you eat the steak?

> > Veg*ns have to let them know that it might be tough
> > feeding them because of their diet.

>
> No, you orthorexic vegans are such whiny ingrates that you'd impose on
> your hosts and make outrageous demands.


Would you eat the steak?

> *mocking Skanky's whiny drama queen screech* "It's tough to feed
> meeeeeeee. I'd better bring MY OWN food because I don't know where yours
> has been."


Would you eat the steak?

> > Many nice people

>
> Nice people don't make a big deal when invited to others' for food and
> fun. You do. Therefore, you're not a nice person. QED.


Would you eat the steak?



--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


  #270 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>>>>not to answer, is there?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win

>
> situation
>
>>>>isn't it?
>>>
>>>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
>>>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
>>>respect.

>>
>>Good answer.

>
> I disagree.


Because you're a melodramatic ingrate who sees dinner invitations as an
opportunity to proselytize others.

> Would someone you
> care about and respect think badly
> of you if they knew you followed a
> certain diet?


Why the hell should they be preoccupied with what others put in their
bodies? What does that say about YOU that they'd associate you with your
eating disorder?

> People who get offended at having their food
> turned down by someone who has
> dietary restrictions are not friends
> at all.


Those are NOT dietary restrictions. They're evidence of your eating
disorder.


  #271 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
. ..
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
> >>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
> >>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> >>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
> >>>>>not to answer, is there?
> >>>>
> >>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win

> >
> > situation
> >
> >>>>isn't it?
> >>>
> >>>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
> >>>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
> >>>respect.
> >>
> >>Good answer.

> >
> > I disagree.

>
> Because you're a melodramatic ingrate who sees dinner invitations as an
> opportunity to proselytize others.
>
> > Would someone you
> > care about and respect think badly
> > of you if they knew you followed a
> > certain diet?

>
> Why the hell should they be preoccupied with what others put in their
> bodies? What does that say about YOU that they'd associate you with your
> eating disorder?
>
> > People who get offended at having their food
> > turned down by someone who has
> > dietary restrictions are not friends
> > at all.

>
> Those are NOT dietary restrictions. They're evidence of your eating
> disorder.


All that talk you're doing and you
still won't answer the question.
Would you eat the steak?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


  #272 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>43 year-old dependent Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>>>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>>>>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>>>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>>>>>>>not to answer, is there?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win
>>>
>>>situation
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences

>
> for
>
>>>>>>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
>>>>>>respect.
>>>>>
>>>>>That person doesn't care and respect\
>>>>>you too much if they expect you to
>>>>>just drop your ways when they snap
>>>>>their fingers.
>>>>
>>>>Now you're moving the goalpost, dummy. You asked what I would do if a
>>>>*GRACIOUS* host offered me a large steak and small potato. Now you're
>>>>suggesting the host is an ingrate. Make up your overtoked brain-cell.
>>>
>>>Boy you're cranky.

>>
>>No, I'm not. I'm amused that you keep changing the situation around
>>because you don't like the answer. First it's a gracious host, then it's
>>no longer a gracious host, now you're twisting scenarios around to
>>include restaurants. Make up your brain-cell, Skanky.

>
>
> Yet you still don't answer.


How can he hit a moving target, you ****ing asshole?
  #273 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>43 year-old dependent Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
> >>>>>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
> >>>>>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> >>>>>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
> >>>>>>>>not to answer, is there?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win
> >>>
> >>>situation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>isn't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences

> >
> > for
> >
> >>>>>>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
> >>>>>>respect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That person doesn't care and respect\
> >>>>>you too much if they expect you to
> >>>>>just drop your ways when they snap
> >>>>>their fingers.
> >>>>
> >>>>Now you're moving the goalpost, dummy. You asked what I would do if a
> >>>>*GRACIOUS* host offered me a large steak and small potato. Now you're
> >>>>suggesting the host is an ingrate. Make up your overtoked brain-cell.
> >>>
> >>>Boy you're cranky.
> >>
> >>No, I'm not. I'm amused that you keep changing the situation around
> >>because you don't like the answer. First it's a gracious host, then it's
> >>no longer a gracious host, now you're twisting scenarios around to
> >>include restaurants. Make up your brain-cell, Skanky.

> >
> >
> > Yet you still don't answer.

>
> How can he hit a moving target, you ****ing asshole?


I don't care which "target" he hits.
Would he eat the steak, you ****ing
asshole?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


  #274 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote

>>
>> >> The person is not a friend, they are a *host*.
>> >
>> > Who ever they are, they shouldn't
>> > feel offended for someone else's
>> > dietary choices.

>>
>> It's not up to you to decide for everyone else under what circumstances

> they
>> should and should not feel offended. In some cultures it's rude to accept

> a
>> dinner invitation with conditions attached. You're operating from a
>> narrow
>> urban Canadian point of view and expecting everyone else to think as you

> do.
>
> Get real. We are not talking about
> some mythical other culture with
> your made-up rules.


Have you looked around lately? White anglo-saxon culture is the minority in
Canada. If you go to someone's home for dinner the onus should be on you to
determine what their culture dictates. If you are sure that they won't mind
catering to your self-imposed dietary rules, and inform them in advance then
there should be no problem.


  #275 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. .
> pearl wrote:
> >>Yes, you prefer to "respect" marginal BS hair-splitting sophistry about
> >>"animal rights" supported by very few misguided people rather than
> >>observe and respect the rights of your fellow man upheld by
> >>international law.

> >
> > 'International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation

--restore--
This sections examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq.
Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General
stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would
"not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts
now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating
international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct
of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK
of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also
looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.
.....
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...k/lawindex.htm
--

> 1. Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War.
> 2. The terms of that agreement included immediate destruction of WMD and
> weapons inspections protocol.
> 3. Iraq did not live up to certain terms of the cease-fire. That in and
> of itself makes the resumption of war *LEGAL*.
> 4. The UN Security Council resolved 17 times over 12 years that Iraq
> face "consequences" for violating various terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
> 5. The threat of resumption of force against Iraq was always implied, if
> not explicit, in the resolutions of the UNSC, including Resolution 1441.
>
> The war was legal. Saddam had plenty of chances to comply with the
> cease-fire agreement, and I think he was given too much time. The Gulf
> War did not end with a permanent peace treaty. Resumption of war was one
> of the penalties for engaging in the prohibited actions in the
> cease-fire agreement.


'Any claim that "material breach" of cease fire obligations by Iraq
justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf
War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus
state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine
whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach
requires renewed use of force.

It is fundamental that the UN Charter, Article 2(3) and (4), gives
priority to the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use of
force. Article 2(4) barring the threat or use of force has been
described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory
norm of international law, from which states cannot derogate.
(Nicaragua v United States, [1986] ICJ Reports 14, at para. 190)

Strained interpretations of Security Council resolutions, especially
when opposed, as in the case of Iraq, by a majority of other
Security Council members, cannot overcome those fundamental
principles. Rather, given the values embedded in the Charter, the
burden is on those who claim use of force has been authorized.

Despite U.S. claims over the years that resolutions subsequent to
Resolution 687 have provided the basis for U.S. use of force
against Iraq, the Bush administration is now (2002) seeking a new
resolution authorizing use of force should Iraq continue to fail to
comply with Security Council requirements. Practically speaking,
then, the Bush administration accepts that existing resolutions do
not authorize use of force.

Conclusion

Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which
the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense
against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security
Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or
restore international peace and security. Neither of those
circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force
against Iraq is unlawful.

http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/Iraqstatemt.htm

Yes, 'usual suspect' prefers to "respect" and disseminate the
cabal's propaganda, rather than observe and respect the rights
of humankind and uphold international and domestic US law.







  #276 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> The person is not a friend, they are a *host*.
> >> >
> >> > Who ever they are, they shouldn't
> >> > feel offended for someone else's
> >> > dietary choices.
> >>
> >> It's not up to you to decide for everyone else under what circumstances

> > they
> >> should and should not feel offended. In some cultures it's rude to

accept
> > a
> >> dinner invitation with conditions attached. You're operating from a
> >> narrow
> >> urban Canadian point of view and expecting everyone else to think as

you
> > do.
> >
> > Get real. We are not talking about
> > some mythical other culture with
> > your made-up rules.

>
> Have you looked around lately? White anglo-saxon culture is the minority

in
> Canada. If you go to someone's home for dinner the onus should be on you

to
> determine what their culture dictates. If you are sure that they won't

mind
> catering to your self-imposed dietary rules, and inform them in advance

then
> there should be no problem.


I don't care where someone's from.
Why do you figure I'm talking about
wasp culture? It's up to the veg*n
to tell whoever is doing the invite
about their dietary restrictions. If
any inviter takes it as an insult, so
be it, although I can't think of any
culture that by it's nature is insulted
by other's diets.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #277 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> All that talk you're doing and you
> still won't answer the question.
> Would you eat the steak?


He answered the question.


  #278 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > All that talk you're doing and you
> > still won't answer the question.
> > Would you eat the steak?

>
> He answered the question.


No he didn't. He talked around
it and avoided answering.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


  #279 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>>>>>the steak? If not, how would you
>>>>>>>explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>>>>>simple questions. There is no reason
>>>>>>>not to answer, is there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win
>>>
>>>situation
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal preferences for
>>>>>ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
>>>>>respect.
>>>>
>>>>Good answer.
>>>
>>>I disagree.

>>
>>Because you're a melodramatic ingrate who sees dinner invitations as an
>>opportunity to proselytize others.
>>
>>
>>>Would someone you
>>>care about and respect think badly
>>>of you if they knew you followed a
>>>certain diet?

>>
>>Why the hell should they be preoccupied with what others put in their
>>bodies? What does that say about YOU that they'd associate you with your
>>eating disorder?
>>
>>
>>>People who get offended at having their food
>>>turned down by someone who has
>>>dietary restrictions are not friends
>>>at all.

>>
>>Those are NOT dietary restrictions. They're evidence of your eating
>>disorder.

>
> All that


How many times have you:
A. eaten before attending a dinner or party?
B. carried your own food to a dinner, party, or BBQ?
C. refused generosities extended to you with diatribes against something
you don't eat?
D. given a diatribe because something you don't eat was offered to you?

If you answer once or more to any of those three questions, you have an
eating disorder and are a rude, inconsiderate guest.
  #280 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

usual suspect wrote:

> Skanky Nutball wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>>>> You're still dodging. Would you eat
>>>>>>>> the steak? If not, how would you
>>>>>>>> explain to your gracious hosts? Two
>>>>>>>> simple questions. There is no reason
>>>>>>>> not to answer, is there?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> situation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't consider it no-win. I can put aside my personal
>>>>>> preferences for
>>>>>> ONE meal a lot easier than risk offending someone I care about and
>>>>>> respect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because you're a melodramatic ingrate who sees dinner invitations as an
>>> opportunity to proselytize others.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Would someone you
>>>> care about and respect think badly
>>>> of you if they knew you followed a
>>>> certain diet?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why the hell should they be preoccupied with what others put in their
>>> bodies? What does that say about YOU that they'd associate you with your
>>> eating disorder?
>>>
>>>
>>>> People who get offended at having their food
>>>> turned down by someone who has
>>>> dietary restrictions are not friends
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Those are NOT dietary restrictions. They're evidence of your eating
>>> disorder.

>>
>>
>> All that

>
>
> How many times have you:
> A. eaten before attending a dinner or party?
> B. carried your own food to a dinner, party, or BBQ?
> C. refused generosities extended to you with diatribes against something
> you don't eat?
> D. given a diatribe because something you don't eat was offered to you?
>
> If you answer once or more to any of those three questions, you have an
> eating disorder and are a rude, inconsiderate guest.


She's an asshole.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tonight's Dinner Fare & Christmas Meals ~patches~ General Cooking 0 19-12-2005 12:13 AM
Fair Fare Melba's Jammin' Preserving 9 09-09-2005 02:04 AM
Dinner Party Fare Donna Rose General Cooking 11 05-07-2004 08:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"