Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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*. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tonight's Dinner Fare & Christmas Meals | General Cooking | |||
Fair Fare | Preserving | |||
Dinner Party Fare | General Cooking |