http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051122/hl_nm/food_dc

C. James Strutz wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051122/hl_nm/food_dc

From the article:

[V]egetables and fruits triggered 31 outbreaks from 2002 to
2003, compared with 29 for chicken and other poultry, according
to the report.

Overall, contaminated tomatoes, sprouts and other produce made
28,315 people sick during 554 outbreaks from 1990 to 2003 -- 20
percent of all cases CSPI analyzed.

Chicken made 14,729 people sick in 476 outbreaks, and eggs were
responsible for 10,847 illnesses from 329 outbreaks, according
to the group.

Another myth is shattered. Veganism doesn't protect people from food
poisoning.

usual suspect wrote:
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051122/hl_nm/food_dc
>
> From the article:
>
> [V]egetables and fruits triggered 31 outbreaks from 2002 to
> 2003, compared with 29 for chicken and other poultry, according
> to the report.
>
> Overall, contaminated tomatoes, sprouts and other produce made
> 28,315 people sick during 554 outbreaks from 1990 to 2003 -- 20
> percent of all cases CSPI analyzed.
>
> Chicken made 14,729 people sick in 476 outbreaks, and eggs were
> responsible for 10,847 illnesses from 329 outbreaks, according
> to the group.
>
> Another myth is shattered. Veganism doesn't protect people from food
> poisoning.

You overlooked this part:
It is not the veggies that made people sick; it is the crap that is on
them. Eat (or drink) your veggies, but wash them first.

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> usual suspect wrote:
>> C. James Strutz wrote:
>> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051122/hl_nm/food_dc
>>
>> From the article:
>>
>> [V]egetables and fruits triggered 31 outbreaks from 2002 to
>> 2003, compared with 29 for chicken and other poultry,
>> according
>> to the report.
>>
>> Overall, contaminated tomatoes, sprouts and other produce made
>> 28,315 people sick during 554 outbreaks from 1990 to 2003 --
>> 20
>> percent of all cases CSPI analyzed.
>>
>> Chicken made 14,729 people sick in 476 outbreaks, and eggs
>> were
>> responsible for 10,847 illnesses from 329 outbreaks, according
>> to the group.
>>
>> Another myth is shattered. Veganism doesn't protect people
>> from food
>> poisoning.
>
> You overlooked this part:
>

Quote:

> "Pathogens can adhere to the rough surfaces of fruits and > vegetables, > so consumers should take precautions, such as washing produce > under > running water," the report said, adding people should "still > eat plenty > of produce." >

>
> It is not the veggies that made people sick; it is the crap
> that is on
> them. Eat (or drink) your veggies, but wash them first.
>=============================
And if you properly cook meat it doesn't make you sick either.
Still looks like the vggies made more people sick, did you miss
that part?

Jerry Story wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051122/hl_nm/food_dc
>>
>> From the article:
>>
>> [V]egetables and fruits triggered 31 outbreaks from 2002 to
>> 2003, compared with 29 for chicken and other poultry, according
>> to the report.
>>
>> Overall, contaminated tomatoes, sprouts and other produce made
>> 28,315 people sick during 554 outbreaks from 1990 to 2003 -- 20
>> percent of all cases CSPI analyzed.
>>
>> Chicken made 14,729 people sick in 476 outbreaks, and eggs were
>> responsible for 10,847 illnesses from 329 outbreaks, according
>> to the group.
>>
>>Another myth is shattered. Veganism doesn't protect people from food
>>poisoning.
>
>
> You overlooked this part:
>

Quote:

> "Pathogens can adhere to the rough surfaces of fruits and vegetables, > so consumers should take precautions, such as washing produce under > running water," the report said, adding people should "still eat plenty > of produce." >

>
> It is not the veggies that made people sick; it is the crap that is on
> them. Eat (or drink) your veggies, but wash them first.
>


It's well documented that more produce is essential to the diet.
However, the conditions food is grown in can be deplorable. Especially
if you purchase commercial products. The lesson is to carefully clean
all produce.


Also, if possible buy local produce, which you should also clean.

rick wrote:
> And if you properly cook meat it doesn't make you sick either.
> Still looks like the vggies made more people sick, did you miss
> that part?

You are not thinking clearly. It is not the veggies that make people
sick, but the crap that is on them. Compare properly cooked meat with
-washed- veggies.

If you dunked some veggies in an unflushed toilet and then ate the
veggies and got sick, would you blame the veggies for making you sick?

Jerry Story wrote:
> rick wrote:
> > And if you properly cook meat it doesn't make you sick either.
> > Still looks like the vggies made more people sick, did you miss
> > that part?
>
> You are not thinking clearly. It is not the veggies that make people
> sick, but the crap that is on them. Compare properly cooked meat with
> -washed- veggies.
>
> If you dunked some veggies in an unflushed toilet and then ate the
> veggies and got sick, would you blame the veggies for making you sick?


ricky would........but normal people wouldn't.

rick wrote:
> "Jerry Story" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > usual suspect wrote:
> >> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051122/hl_nm/food_dc
> >>
> >> From the article:
> >>
> >> [V]egetables and fruits triggered 31 outbreaks from 2002 to
> >> 2003, compared with 29 for chicken and other poultry,
> >> according
> >> to the report.
> >>
> >> Overall, contaminated tomatoes, sprouts and other produce made
> >> 28,315 people sick during 554 outbreaks from 1990 to 2003 --
> >> 20
> >> percent of all cases CSPI analyzed.
> >>
> >> Chicken made 14,729 people sick in 476 outbreaks, and eggs
> >> were
> >> responsible for 10,847 illnesses from 329 outbreaks, according
> >> to the group.
> >>
> >> Another myth is shattered. Veganism doesn't protect people
> >> from food
> >> poisoning.
> >
> > You overlooked this part:
> >

Quote:

> > "Pathogens can adhere to the rough surfaces of fruits and > > vegetables, > > so consumers should take precautions, such as washing produce > > under > > running water," the report said, adding people should "still > > eat plenty > > of produce." > >

> >
> > It is not the veggies that made people sick; it is the crap
> > that is on
> > them. Eat (or drink) your veggies, but wash them first.
> >=============================



> And if you properly cook meat it doesn't make you sick either.


really? What temperature should the meat be cooked at so the
cholesterol is destroyed?

What temperature to destroy PRIONS?







> Still looks like the vggies made more people sick, did you miss
> that part?

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> rick wrote:
>> And if you properly cook meat it doesn't make you sick either.
>> Still looks like the vggies made more people sick, did you
>> miss
>> that part?
>
> You are not thinking clearly. It is not the veggies that make
> people
> sick, but the crap that is on them. Compare properly cooked
> meat with
> -washed- veggies.
>
> If you dunked some veggies in an unflushed toilet and then ate
> the
> veggies and got sick, would you blame the veggies for making
> you sick?
>===================================
LOL Thanks for proving you have to clutch at straws, killer.
Keep up the good work!!

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Jerry Story" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > usual suspect wrote:
>> >> C. James Strutz wrote:
>> >> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051122/hl_nm/food_dc
>> >>
>> >> From the article:
>> >>
>> >> [V]egetables and fruits triggered 31 outbreaks from 2002 to
>> >> 2003, compared with 29 for chicken and other poultry,
>> >> according
>> >> to the report.
>> >>
>> >> Overall, contaminated tomatoes, sprouts and other produce
>> >> made
>> >> 28,315 people sick during 554 outbreaks from 1990 to
>> >> 2003 --
>> >> 20
>> >> percent of all cases CSPI analyzed.
>> >>
>> >> Chicken made 14,729 people sick in 476 outbreaks, and eggs
>> >> were
>> >> responsible for 10,847 illnesses from 329 outbreaks,
>> >> according
>> >> to the group.
>> >>
>> >> Another myth is shattered. Veganism doesn't protect people
>> >> from food
>> >> poisoning.
>> >
>> > You overlooked this part:
>> >

Quote:

>> > "Pathogens can adhere to the rough surfaces of fruits and >> > vegetables, >> > so consumers should take precautions, such as washing >> > produce >> > under >> > running water," the report said, adding people should "still >> > eat plenty >> > of produce." >> >

>> >
>> > It is not the veggies that made people sick; it is the crap
>> > that is on
>> > them. Eat (or drink) your veggies, but wash them first.
>> >=============================
>
>
>
>> And if you properly cook meat it doesn't make you sick either.
>
>
> really? What temperature should the meat be cooked at so the
> cholesterol is destroyed?
>
> What temperature to destroy PRIONS?
=============================
Tell us master of the inane. But you'll have to resort to your
lys as usual...

cue the spew....


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Still looks like the vggies made more people sick, did you
>> miss
>> that part?
>

Larry Fruity's boy Jerry wrote:
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051122/hl_nm/food_dc
>>
>> From the article:
>>
>> [V]egetables and fruits triggered 31 outbreaks from 2002 to
>> 2003, compared with 29 for chicken and other poultry, according
>> to the report.
>>
>> Overall, contaminated tomatoes, sprouts and other produce made
>> 28,315 people sick during 554 outbreaks from 1990 to 2003 -- 20
>> percent of all cases CSPI analyzed.
>>
>> Chicken made 14,729 people sick in 476 outbreaks, and eggs were
>> responsible for 10,847 illnesses from 329 outbreaks, according
>> to the group.
>>
>>Another myth is shattered. Veganism doesn't protect people from food
>>poisoning.
>
> You overlooked this part:

I didn't overlook anything.

>

Quote:

> "Pathogens can adhere to the rough surfaces of fruits and vegetables, > so consumers should take precautions, such as washing produce under > running water," the report said, adding people should "still eat plenty > of produce." >

>
> It is not the veggies that made people sick; it is the crap that is on
> them.

It's not meat that makes people sick, either, but improper or careless
slaughter and/or handling. Properly handled and cooked meat is as safe
and nutritious as cleaned produce.

its wrote:
<...>
>>And if you properly cook meat it doesn't make you sick either.
>
> really?

Really. Dietary cholesterol doesn't cause acute illness, except in
people with very, very rare disorders.

> What temperature should the meat be cooked at so the
> cholesterol is destroyed?

Dietary cholesterol doesn't correlate directly with rises in serum
cholesterol, dummy, as I've shown you previously. What DOES correlate
with increased serum cholesterol is consumption of saturated fats --
which can be present in vegetarian diets in greater proportion than in
sensible meat-included diets.

> What temperature to destroy PRIONS?

Prion contamination in meat is extremely rare, especially in North
America, New Zealand, Australia, etc.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

[-snip-]

> It's not meat that makes people sick, either, but improper or careless
> slaughter and/or handling. Properly handled and cooked meat is as safe
> and nutritious as cleaned produce.

You used to be vegan for both health
and aesthetic reasons. Now you are
a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
once at a sushi place and your omega
suppliments. Above you disclaim
your health reasons, leaving the
aesthetic ones. What is it that you
find disgusting about eating meat?


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

Skanky wrote:
> You used to be vegan

Wrong. Veganism is based on the flawed pseudo-philosophy of animal
rights, which I've always opposed. I never shared the underlying animal
rights tenets of veganism. Properly speaking, I was a very strict
vegetarian.

> for both health
> and aesthetic reasons.

You err if you suggest that vegetarianism is healthy and meat isn't;
there are distinctions within each that are healthful and unhealthful.
I've stipulated that meat can be part of a healthful diet.

> Now you are
> a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
> once at a sushi place and your omega
> suppliments.

Learn to spell. It's an omega-3 supplement.

> Above you disclaim
> your health reasons, leaving the
> aesthetic ones.

Strawman. I disagree with your loony position that vegetarianism is
inherently healthier than diets that include meat. As I noted above,
there is significant variation within vegetarian and meat-included
diets. Meat CAN be part of a healthful diet. Vegetarianism CAN be part
of a healthful diet. When comparing the healthful versions of both kinds
of diet, there are no differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.

> What is it that you
> find disgusting about eating meat?

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care much for the taste or texture
of meat. I'm not like you -- you've admitted you enjoy the smell of
sizzling steaks, and you regularly consume fake-meat products. Since you
enjoy it so much, why do you avoid it?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

Your fake email says a lot about
who you are trying to be.

> Skanky wrote:
> > You used to be vegan
>
> Wrong. Veganism is based on the flawed pseudo-philosophy of animal
> rights, which I've always opposed. I never shared the underlying animal
> rights tenets of veganism. Properly speaking, I was a very strict
> vegetarian.

A dietary vegan.

> > for both health
> > and aesthetic reasons.
>
> You err if you suggest that vegetarianism is healthy and meat isn't;
> there are distinctions within each that are healthful and unhealthful.
> I've stipulated that meat can be part of a healthful diet.

It's the aesthetics that I'm curious
about. That's why I bring it up. I
already know you now disclaim
your former health reasons.

> > Now you are
> > a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
> > once at a sushi place and your omega
> > suppliments.
>
> Learn to spell. It's an omega-3 supplement.

Even your fish oil is flavoured for
camoflage of taste.

> > Above you disclaim
> > your health reasons, leaving the
> > aesthetic ones.
>
> Strawman. I disagree with your loony position that vegetarianism is
> inherently healthier than diets that include meat. As I noted above,
> there is significant variation within vegetarian and meat-included
> diets. Meat CAN be part of a healthful diet. Vegetarianism CAN be part
> of a healthful diet. When comparing the healthful versions of both kinds
> of diet, there are no differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.

It's the aesthetic reasons I'm curious
about here.

> > What is it that you
> > find disgusting about eating meat?
>
> Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care much for the taste or texture
> of meat. I'm not like you -- you've admitted you enjoy the smell of
> sizzling steaks, and you regularly consume fake-meat products. Since you
> enjoy it so much, why do you avoid it?

Aesthetically speaking, I find the
idea of eating dead body parts to
be gross, no matter how nice it
smells. I like the smell of decaying
leaves in the forest too, but you
won't see me eating them. Anyway,
how can you say that you don't like
the taste or texture when there are
so many different ones? I have a
reason why I don't eat any meat,
but you don't. There's way too many
tastes and textures in the meat
world. Compare bacon to liver to
roast beef to pork chops to chicken.
I think that you really just don't like
the idea of eating body parts but
don't want to admit it.


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

Skanky wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
>
> Your fake email says a lot about
> who you are trying to be.

Your concern about it says a lot more about what you *are*.

>>Skanky wrote:
>>
>>>You used to be vegan
>>
>>Wrong. Veganism is based on the flawed pseudo-philosophy of animal
>>rights, which I've always opposed. I never shared the underlying animal
>>rights tenets of veganism. Properly speaking, I was a very strict
>>vegetarian.
>
> A dietary vegan.

Oxymoron. I will address various points of the definition contextually
to disabuse this chronic misunderstanding of yours.

Vegans use as their *primary* motivation the concept of reducing
animal suffering.

My emphasis. "Animal suffering" is not, nor has it ever been, one of my
primary motivations.

Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed
by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical
veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to
avoid causing suffering to any other living creature.

While I concur that animals should be treated well and not subjected to
deplorable conditions or abused, I disagree that raising animals for
food, for clothing, or for research constitutes abuse, suffering, etc.

Animals are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to
a life as free from suffering as possible....

This is a peculiar view which I do not share.

*There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan."*

This is the part you do not comprehend. I'm not sure what your
stumblingblock is, but perhaps it has something to do with your desire
that the whole world go vegan (even though you, personally, are not).
Veganism is NOT about food. It's about the pseudo-philosophy of animal
rights.

A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
compassion for animals.

I've noted over the past couple years that I would probably add at least
fish back to my diet. As it is now, I don't scan labels looking for
minute traces of POSSIBLY animal-derived ingredients; I'm not a purist
or zealot. I've admitted that sometimes I consume dairy ingredients as
well as "egg parts" (whites in some products, and my omega-3 supplement
has a little bit of egg yolk as an emulsifier). I'm not a "total
vegetarian" by anything but the loosest definition.

However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping animals,

I'm not opposed to helping animals, but I'm unconvinced veganism does
that. "Dietary vegan" is inappropriate because veganism is based on
animal rights, not on health or diet or food. Veganism isn't about what
goes into your mouth, but rather on what comes out of it -- pompous
sanctimony about saving animals even though veganism doesn't save animals.

and a term such
as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
shoes.
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

There are other suitable names for those people lacking a diet-based
agenda, whether their diets contain meat or not. "Health-oriented
vegetarian" certainly would distinguish between views associated with
improving or increasing health and the doctrinaire bullshit of veganism.
"Flexitarian" is also a health-oriented category but it doesn't apply to
those who are strictly vegetarian.

>>>for both health
>>>and aesthetic reasons.
>>
>>You err if you suggest that vegetarianism is healthy and meat isn't;
>>there are distinctions within each that are healthful and unhealthful.
>>I've stipulated that meat can be part of a healthful diet.
>
> It's the aesthetics that I'm curious
> about. That's why I bring it up. I
> already know you now disclaim
> your former health reasons.

What you don't seem to grasp is that I think diets can be healthful
whether they contain meat or not. I've always encouraged those who
consume meat to choose leaner cuts and to eat fattier cuts in
moderation. That's what's missing from your life -- moderation.

>>>Now you are
>>>a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
>>>once at a sushi place and your omega
>>>suppliments.
>>
>>Learn to spell. It's an omega-3 supplement.
>
> Even your fish oil is flavoured for
> camoflage of taste.

Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should
at least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem
consuming Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy
or meaty taste.

>>>Above you disclaim
>>>your health reasons, leaving the
>>>aesthetic ones.
>>
>>Strawman. I disagree with your loony position that vegetarianism is
>>inherently healthier than diets that include meat. As I noted above,
>>there is significant variation within vegetarian and meat-included
>>diets. Meat CAN be part of a healthful diet. Vegetarianism CAN be part
>>of a healthful diet. When comparing the healthful versions of both kinds
>>of diet, there are no differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.
>
> It's the aesthetic reasons I'm curious
> about here.

You still engaged in building a strawman.

>>>What is it that you
>>>find disgusting about eating meat?
>>
>>Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care much for the taste or texture
>>of meat. I'm not like you -- you've admitted you enjoy the smell of
>>sizzling steaks, and you regularly consume fake-meat products. Since you
>>enjoy it so much, why do you avoid it?
>
> Aesthetically speaking, I find the
> idea of eating dead body parts to
> be gross, no matter how nice it
> smells.

Then why do you shun healthy products like fish oil, which isn't a dead
body part (at least not after its been processed into something
palatable and enjoyable)? Do you search for micrograms of dead animal
parts like those found in the following lists?
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/faqingredients.htm
http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/animal-ingredients.htm

> I like the smell of decaying
> leaves in the forest too, but you
> won't see me eating them.

They're not as nutritious as meat is; I also doubt you'd be able to
digest them as well as you would meat.

> Anyway, how can you say that you don't like
> the taste or texture when there are
> so many different ones?

There are some kinds of meat I find more off-putting than others. I
admit I really enjoy seafood. I'm not quite as big on poultry as I am on
fish, but I prefer chicken or turkey to pork or beef. I also prefer goat
and game (venison) to pork and beef.

> I have a reason why I don't eat any meat,
> but you don't.

Bullshit. I've explained that I don't care for most kinds of meat and
that I would probably add fish back to my diet. Why are you so concerned
with what anyone else eats?

> I think that you really just don't like
> the idea of eating body parts

You're wrong. I've said I would add fish back into my diet, and I have.
I've also admitted that I don't turn down dishes just because they have
small pieces of bacon in them. I told you that I would rather eat a
steak thrown in front of me -- remember the context of your stupid
hypothetical -- than offend a host with a diatribe against meat (like
you gave your poor "friends"). I don't have the same objections you do,
nor do I act objectionably like you do with lectures to strangers,
bringing my own dishes to dinners, etc.:

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.
-- Skanky

I have no trouble
saying to people "You might want
to think twice about inviting me.
I'm hard to feed being vegetarian.".
-- Skanky

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.
-- Skanky

Other times they
don't get offended if you bring your
own, like veg patties to a bbq.
-- Skanky

BTW, there are two things I turn down even faster than I turn down meat,
softdrinks and candy. Stir some shit over that sometime.

> but don't want to admit it.

Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot
about that already, dummy?

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.
-- 29 Dec 2004: http://tinyurl.com/a2m5u

Also: I don't stress out over little bits of bacon hidden in
vegetable dishes and count them when considering my standing
among moral-lessers like you.
-- 13 Nov 2005

You're irrational, Skanky, because not only do you obsess over what you
eat, you obsess over what *other* people choose to eat.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> >
> > Your fake email says a lot about
> > who you are trying to be.
>
> Your concern about it says a lot more about what you *are*.

No concern, just pointing it out as
it was interesting in showing what
you're made of.

> >>Skanky wrote:
> >>
> >>>You used to be vegan
> >>
> >>Wrong. Veganism is based on the flawed pseudo-philosophy of animal
> >>rights, which I've always opposed. I never shared the underlying animal
> >>rights tenets of veganism. Properly speaking, I was a very strict
> >>vegetarian.
> >
> > A dietary vegan.
>
> Oxymoron. I will address various points of the definition contextually
> to disabuse this chronic misunderstanding of yours.

The AR definition is not the only one.
Some people use the dietary def.
But obviously this pushes some
button for you.

> Vegans use as their *primary* motivation the concept of reducing
> animal suffering.
>
> My emphasis. "Animal suffering" is not, nor has it ever been, one of my
> primary motivations.
>
> Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed
> by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical
> veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to
> avoid causing suffering to any other living creature.
>
> While I concur that animals should be treated well and not subjected to
> deplorable conditions or abused, I disagree that raising animals for
> food, for clothing, or for research constitutes abuse, suffering, etc.
>
> Animals are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to
> a life as free from suffering as possible....
>
> This is a peculiar view which I do not share.
>
> *There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan."*
>
> This is the part you do not comprehend. I'm not sure what your
> stumblingblock is, but perhaps it has something to do with your desire
> that the whole world go vegan (even though you, personally, are not).
> Veganism is NOT about food. It's about the pseudo-philosophy of animal
> rights.
>
> A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
> health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
> compassion for animals.
>
> I've noted over the past couple years that I would probably add at least
> fish back to my diet. As it is now, I don't scan labels looking for
> minute traces of POSSIBLY animal-derived ingredients; I'm not a purist
> or zealot. I've admitted that sometimes I consume dairy ingredients as
> well as "egg parts" (whites in some products, and my omega-3 supplement
> has a little bit of egg yolk as an emulsifier). I'm not a "total
> vegetarian" by anything but the loosest definition.
>
> However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
> veganism is by definition about helping animals,
>
> I'm not opposed to helping animals, but I'm unconvinced veganism does
> that. "Dietary vegan" is inappropriate because veganism is based on
> animal rights, not on health or diet or food. Veganism isn't about what
> goes into your mouth, but rather on what comes out of it -- pompous
> sanctimony about saving animals even though veganism doesn't save animals.
>
> and a term such
> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
> shoes.
> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>
> There are other suitable names for those people lacking a diet-based
> agenda, whether their diets contain meat or not. "Health-oriented
> vegetarian" certainly would distinguish between views associated with
> improving or increasing health and the doctrinaire bullshit of veganism.
> "Flexitarian" is also a health-oriented category but it doesn't apply to
> those who are strictly vegetarian.
>
> >>>for both health
> >>>and aesthetic reasons.
> >>
> >>You err if you suggest that vegetarianism is healthy and meat isn't;
> >>there are distinctions within each that are healthful and unhealthful.
> >>I've stipulated that meat can be part of a healthful diet.
> >
> > It's the aesthetics that I'm curious
> > about. That's why I bring it up. I
> > already know you now disclaim
> > your former health reasons.
>
> What you don't seem to grasp is that I think diets can be healthful
> whether they contain meat or not. I've always encouraged those who
> consume meat to choose leaner cuts and to eat fattier cuts in
> moderation. That's what's missing from your life -- moderation.

I'm not talking about health reasons.
I already know that you have changed
your mind about that.

> >>>Now you are
> >>>a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
> >>>once at a sushi place and your omega
> >>>suppliments.
> >>
> >>Learn to spell. It's an omega-3 supplement.
> >
> > Even your fish oil is flavoured for
> > camoflage of taste.
>
> Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should
> at least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem
> consuming Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy
> or meaty taste.

The U is not a redundant vowel. It's
the proper spelling in Canada. If you
don't know that by now, well, there's
no helping you.

> >>>Above you disclaim
> >>>your health reasons, leaving the
> >>>aesthetic ones.
> >>
> >>Strawman. I disagree with your loony position that vegetarianism is
> >>inherently healthier than diets that include meat. As I noted above,
> >>there is significant variation within vegetarian and meat-included
> >>diets. Meat CAN be part of a healthful diet. Vegetarianism CAN be part
> >>of a healthful diet. When comparing the healthful versions of both kinds
> >>of diet, there are no differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.
> >
> > It's the aesthetic reasons I'm curious
> > about here.
>
> You still engaged in building a strawman.

No strawman. It's the aesthetics
that I've made into the subject here.

> >>>What is it that you
> >>>find disgusting about eating meat?
> >>
> >>Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care much for the taste or texture
> >>of meat. I'm not like you -- you've admitted you enjoy the smell of
> >>sizzling steaks, and you regularly consume fake-meat products. Since you
> >>enjoy it so much, why do you avoid it?
> >
> > Aesthetically speaking, I find the
> > idea of eating dead body parts to
> > be gross, no matter how nice it
> > smells.
>
> Then why do you shun healthy products like fish oil, which isn't a dead
> body part (at least not after its been processed into something
> palatable and enjoyable)? Do you search for micrograms of dead animal
> parts like those found in the following lists?
> http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/faqingredients.htm
> http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/animal-ingredients.htm

Fish oil is so a dead body part.
They don't squeeze it out of live
fish and then send them on their
way.

> > I like the smell of decaying
> > leaves in the forest too, but you
> > won't see me eating them.
>
> They're not as nutritious as meat is; I also doubt you'd be able to
> digest them as well as you would meat.
>
> > Anyway, how can you say that you don't like
> > the taste or texture when there are
> > so many different ones?
>
> There are some kinds of meat I find more off-putting than others. I
> admit I really enjoy seafood. I'm not quite as big on poultry as I am on
> fish, but I prefer chicken or turkey to pork or beef. I also prefer goat
> and game (venison) to pork and beef.

Yet for many years you've not
eaten chicken or turkey or 'game'
or goat.

> > I have a reason why I don't eat any meat,
> > but you don't.
>
> Bullshit. I've explained that I don't care for most kinds of meat and
> that I would probably add fish back to my diet. Why are you so concerned
> with what anyone else eats?

When you pick on others for their
dietary choices, you open your own
up for comment.

> > I think that you really just don't like
> > the idea of eating body parts
>
> You're wrong. I've said I would add fish back into my diet, and I have.
> I've also admitted that I don't turn down dishes just because they have
> small pieces of bacon in them. I told you that I would rather eat a
> steak thrown in front of me -- remember the context of your stupid
> hypothetical -- than offend a host with a diatribe against meat (like
> you gave your poor "friends"). I don't have the same objections you do,
> nor do I act objectionably like you do with lectures to strangers,
> bringing my own dishes to dinners, etc.:

But since fish and some (probably fake)
bacon bits have been your only fall from
vegetarianism, I must assume then that
you have not been invited anywhere for
dinner. Your personality and abusive
nature is likely to blame for this.

> 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.
> -- Skanky
>
> I have no trouble
> saying to people "You might want
> to think twice about inviting me.
> I'm hard to feed being vegetarian.".
> -- Skanky
>
> 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.
> -- Skanky
>
> Other times they
> don't get offended if you bring your
> own, like veg patties to a bbq.
> -- Skanky

There's nothing wrong with the above
quotes except your insulting change of
my name. Why are you unable to
engage in civil conversations?

> BTW, there are two things I turn down even faster than I turn down meat,
> softdrinks and candy. Stir some shit over that sometime.

Not surprising. No one would ever
accuse you of being 'sweet'.

> > but don't want to admit it.
>
> Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot
> about that already, dummy?
>
> 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.
> -- 29 Dec 2004: http://tinyurl.com/a2m5u
>
> Also: I don't stress out over little bits of bacon hidden in
> vegetable dishes and count them when considering my standing
> among moral-lessers like you.
> -- 13 Nov 2005
>
> You're irrational, Skanky, because not only do you obsess over what you
> eat, you obsess over what *other* people choose to eat.

Whoa, I guess I pressed a little button!


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

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
>> "usual suspect" > wrote in message

> Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should at
> least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem consuming
> Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy or meaty
> taste.

I received my Nordic Nutritionals omega-3 supplements the other day. I
ordered soft gels containing 1280 mg total omega-3 and their single serving
travel packs containing 1750 mg total omega-3. The travel pack things are
*very* thinly disguised with lemon flavor - they taste fishy going down,
fishy coming back up, and fishy *all day* if you happen to get some on your
fingers. It's texture is oily, not pasty (NN doesn't use any emulsifier).
The soft gels, on the other hand, have no fishy after tastes at all.

I ordered the free samples of the Coromega things - similar to the NN travel
packs but are flavored with orange. I can't imagine that anything can mask
the flavor of fish oil but I will try the Coromega things when I receive
them and will compare with the NN travel packs. BTW, I was on my
cross-trainer this morning and happened to see an infomercial on TV about
yet another producer of omega-3 supplements: Iceland Health
(www.icelandhealth.com). Their super-strength soft gels have less than half
the mg of total omega-3 than NN does.

> Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot about
> that already, dummy?
>
> 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.

There's nothing civil about these discussions. Can't we PLEASE have civility
on Thanksgiving of all days? Dispense with the name-calling, insults,
put-downs, and other forms of aggression.

> 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?

WHO CARES???!!! Everybody here understand the concept of collateral deaths.
Give it a rest already....

Skanky wrote:
>>>Your fake email says a lot about
>>>who you are trying to be.
>>
>>Your concern about it says a lot more about what you *are*.
>
> No concern,

You were concerned enough to make a statement about it. Thanks for
emoting for my amusement.

>>>A dietary vegan.
>>
>>Oxymoron. I will address various points of the definition contextually
>>to disabuse this chronic misunderstanding of yours.
>
> The AR definition is not the only one.

It is the ONLY definition.

>> Vegans use as their *primary* motivation the concept of reducing
>> animal suffering.
>>
>>My emphasis. "Animal suffering" is not, nor has it ever been, one of my
>>primary motivations.
>>
>>Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed
>> by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical
>> veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to
>> avoid causing suffering to any other living creature.
>>
>>While I concur that animals should be treated well and not subjected to
>>deplorable conditions or abused, I disagree that raising animals for
>>food, for clothing, or for research constitutes abuse, suffering, etc.
>>
>>Animals are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to
>>a life as free from suffering as possible....
>>
>>This is a peculiar view which I do not share.
>>
>> *There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan."*
>>
>>This is the part you do not comprehend. I'm not sure what your
>>stumblingblock is, but perhaps it has something to do with your desire
>>that the whole world go vegan (even though you, personally, are not).
>>Veganism is NOT about food. It's about the pseudo-philosophy of animal
>>rights.
>>
>>A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
>>health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
>>compassion for animals.
>>
>>I've noted over the past couple years that I would probably add at least
>>fish back to my diet. As it is now, I don't scan labels looking for
>>minute traces of POSSIBLY animal-derived ingredients; I'm not a purist
>>or zealot. I've admitted that sometimes I consume dairy ingredients as
>>well as "egg parts" (whites in some products, and my omega-3 supplement
>>has a little bit of egg yolk as an emulsifier). I'm not a "total
>>vegetarian" by anything but the loosest definition.
>>
>>However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
>> veganism is by definition about helping animals,
>>
>>I'm not opposed to helping animals, but I'm unconvinced veganism does
>>that. "Dietary vegan" is inappropriate because veganism is based on
>>animal rights, not on health or diet or food. Veganism isn't about what
>>goes into your mouth, but rather on what comes out of it -- pompous
>>sanctimony about saving animals even though veganism doesn't save animals.
>>
>>and a term such
>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
>> shoes.
>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>>
>>There are other suitable names for those people lacking a diet-based
>>agenda, whether their diets contain meat or not. "Health-oriented
>>vegetarian" certainly would distinguish between views associated with
>>improving or increasing health and the doctrinaire bullshit of veganism.
>>"Flexitarian" is also a health-oriented category but it doesn't apply to
>>those who are strictly vegetarian.

"Confused vegan-wannabe passivist pothead" is that category that applies
to you.

>>>>>Now you are
>>>>>a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
>>>>>once at a sushi place and your omega
>>>>>suppliments.
>>>>
>>>>Learn to spell. It's an omega-3 supplement.
>>>
>>>Even your fish oil is flavoured for
>>>camoflage of taste.
>>
>>Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should
>>at least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem
>>consuming Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy
>>or meaty taste.
>
> The U is not a redundant vowel.

Yes, it is.

>>>>>Above you disclaim
>>>>>your health reasons, leaving the
>>>>>aesthetic ones.
>>>>
>>>>Strawman. I disagree with your loony position that vegetarianism is
>>>>inherently healthier than diets that include meat. As I noted above,
>>>>there is significant variation within vegetarian and meat-included
>>>>diets. Meat CAN be part of a healthful diet. Vegetarianism CAN be part
>>>>of a healthful diet. When comparing the healthful versions of both kinds
>>>>of diet, there are no differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.
>>>
>>>It's the aesthetic reasons I'm curious
>>>about here.
>>
>>You still engaged in building a strawman.
>
> No strawman.

It's a strawman -- you suggested my position is something that isn't my
position.

>>>>>What is it that you
>>>>>find disgusting about eating meat?
>>>>
>>>>Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care much for the taste or texture
>>>>of meat. I'm not like you -- you've admitted you enjoy the smell of
>>>>sizzling steaks, and you regularly consume fake-meat products. Since you
>>>>enjoy it so much, why do you avoid it?
>>>
>>>Aesthetically speaking, I find the
>>>idea of eating dead body parts to
>>>be gross, no matter how nice it
>>>smells.
>>
>>Then why do you shun healthy products like fish oil, which isn't a dead
>>body part (at least not after its been processed into something
>>palatable and enjoyable)? Do you search for micrograms of dead animal
>>parts like those found in the following lists?
>>http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/faqingredients.htm
>>http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/animal-ingredients.htm

Answer my questions, Skanky.

>>>I like the smell of decaying
>>>leaves in the forest too, but you
>>>won't see me eating them.
>>
>>They're not as nutritious as meat is; I also doubt you'd be able to
>>digest them as well as you would meat.
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, how can you say that you don't like
>>>the taste or texture when there are
>>>so many different ones?
>>
>>There are some kinds of meat I find more off-putting than others. I
>>admit I really enjoy seafood. I'm not quite as big on poultry as I am on
>>fish, but I prefer chicken or turkey to pork or beef. I also prefer goat
>>and game (venison) to pork and beef.
>
> Yet for many years you've not
> eaten chicken or turkey or 'game'
> or goat.

I had some turkey this afternoon. Also had some bacon in at least one of
the vegetable dishes.

>>>I have a reason why I don't eat any meat,
>>>but you don't.
>>
>>Bullshit. I've explained that I don't care for most kinds of meat and
>>that I would probably add fish back to my diet. Why are you so concerned
>>with what anyone else eats?
>
> When you

Answer my question. Why are you so concerned with what I eat?

>>>I think that you really just don't like
>>>the idea of eating body parts
>>
>>You're wrong. I've said I would add fish back into my diet, and I have.
>>I've also admitted that I don't turn down dishes just because they have
>>small pieces of bacon in them. I told you that I would rather eat a
>>steak thrown in front of me -- remember the context of your stupid
>>hypothetical -- than offend a host with a diatribe against meat (like
>>you gave your poor "friends"). I don't have the same objections you do,
>>nor do I act objectionably like you do with lectures to strangers,
>>bringing my own dishes to dinners, etc.:
>
> But since fish and some (probably fake)
> bacon bits

No, it was real bacon. From a real pig.

> have been your only fall from
> vegetarianism, I must assume then that
> you have not been invited anywhere for
> dinner.

Non sequitur. If you're referring back to your ridiculous hypothetical,
remember your goofy context for it -- you asked what I would do if my
host loaded my plate with a huge steak and small potato. Nobody's put me
in THAT particular situation.

>> 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.
>> -- Skanky
>>
>> I have no trouble
>> saying to people "You might want
>> to think twice about inviting me.
>> I'm hard to feed being vegetarian.".
>> -- Skanky
>>
>> 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.
>> -- Skanky
>>
>> Other times they
>> don't get offended if you bring your
>> own, like veg patties to a bbq.
>> -- Skanky
>
> There's nothing wrong with the above

They prove you're a whiny ingrate who puts a dubious ideal like
"veganism" above good manners.

>>BTW, there are two things I turn down even faster than I turn down meat,
>>softdrinks and candy. Stir some shit over that sometime.
>
> Not surprising. No one would ever
> accuse you of being 'sweet'.

You'd be very surprised.

>>>but don't want to admit it.
>>
>>Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot
>>about that already, dummy?
>>
>>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.
>>-- 29 Dec 2004: http://tinyurl.com/a2m5u
>>
>>Also: I don't stress out over little bits of bacon hidden in
>>vegetable dishes and count them when considering my standing
>>among moral-lessers like you.
>>-- 13 Nov 2005
>>
>>You're irrational, Skanky, because not only do you obsess over what you
>>eat, you obsess over what *other* people choose to eat.
>
> Whoa,

Your lies that I either don't like "body parts" or won't admit to having
eaten them have been debunked. I have admitted to eating certain kinds
(sashimi, turkey) or amounts (small bacon pieces in vegetable dishes) of
meat.

You've expressed a fondness for the smell of real meat. Despite your
childish objections to eating "body parts," you've admitted you like it
when people turn soy and wheat into pieces that taste, smell, and feel
*just like* "body parts." I think maybe you need to reconsider your
little attempt at shit-stirring and do some serious introspection. You
don't have any real objections to real meat because there's no
qualitative difference between it and the fake meat you willfully gobble.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should at
>>least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem consuming
>>Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy or meaty
>>taste.
>
> I received my Nordic Nutritionals omega-3 supplements the other day. I
> ordered soft gels containing 1280 mg total omega-3 and their single serving
> travel packs containing 1750 mg total omega-3.

What's the breakdown for EPA/DHA?

> The travel pack things are
> *very* thinly disguised with lemon flavor -

Heh. I was afraid of that.

> they taste fishy going down,
> fishy coming back up, and fishy *all day* if you happen to get some on your
> fingers.

Do your cats seem a little clingy now?

> It's texture is oily, not pasty (NN doesn't use any emulsifier).
> The soft gels, on the other hand, have no fishy after tastes at all.

That's good. The most common complaint I've heard about fish oil
supplements is that they give people fishy burps.

> I ordered the free samples of the Coromega things - similar to the NN travel
> packs but are flavored with orange. I can't imagine that anything can mask
> the flavor of fish oil but I will try the Coromega things when I receive
> them and will compare with the NN travel packs.

No fishy taste at all.

> BTW, I was on my
> cross-trainer this morning and happened to see an infomercial on TV about
> yet another producer of omega-3 supplements: Iceland Health
> (www.icelandhealth.com). Their super-strength soft gels have less than half
> the mg of total omega-3 than NN does.

Don't buy supplements from infomercials. Or multi-level marketers.

>>Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot about
>>that already, dummy?
>>
>>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.
>
> There's nothing civil about these discussions.

Skanky started it. 0:-)

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>Your fake email says a lot about
> >>>who you are trying to be.
> >>
> >>Your concern about it says a lot more about what you *are*.
> >
> > No concern,
>
> You were concerned enough to make a statement about it. Thanks for
> emoting for my amusement.

Just pointing it out to you how
transparent you are.

> >>>A dietary vegan.
> >>
> >>Oxymoron. I will address various points of the definition contextually
> >>to disabuse this chronic misunderstanding of yours.
> >
> > The AR definition is not the only one.
>
> It is the ONLY definition.

No it's not.
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
Check out their main definition. They
put the AR one as a specialty definition.

> >> Vegans use as their *primary* motivation the concept of
reducing
> >> animal suffering.
> >>
> >>My emphasis. "Animal suffering" is not, nor has it ever been, one of my
> >>primary motivations.
> >>
> >>Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed
> >> by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical
> >> veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to
> >> avoid causing suffering to any other living creature.
> >>
> >>While I concur that animals should be treated well and not subjected to
> >>deplorable conditions or abused, I disagree that raising animals for
> >>food, for clothing, or for research constitutes abuse, suffering, etc.
> >>
> >>Animals are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to
> >>a life as free from suffering as possible....
> >>
> >>This is a peculiar view which I do not share.
> >>
> >> *There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan."*
> >>
> >>This is the part you do not comprehend. I'm not sure what your
> >>stumblingblock is, but perhaps it has something to do with your desire
> >>that the whole world go vegan (even though you, personally, are not).
> >>Veganism is NOT about food. It's about the pseudo-philosophy of animal
> >>rights.
> >>
> >>A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
> >>health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
> >>compassion for animals.
> >>
> >>I've noted over the past couple years that I would probably add at least
> >>fish back to my diet. As it is now, I don't scan labels looking for
> >>minute traces of POSSIBLY animal-derived ingredients; I'm not a purist
> >>or zealot. I've admitted that sometimes I consume dairy ingredients as
> >>well as "egg parts" (whites in some products, and my omega-3 supplement
> >>has a little bit of egg yolk as an emulsifier). I'm not a "total
> >>vegetarian" by anything but the loosest definition.
> >>
> >>However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
> >> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
> >> veganism is by definition about helping animals,
> >>
> >>I'm not opposed to helping animals, but I'm unconvinced veganism does
> >>that. "Dietary vegan" is inappropriate because veganism is based on
> >>animal rights, not on health or diet or food. Veganism isn't about what
> >>goes into your mouth, but rather on what comes out of it -- pompous
> >>sanctimony about saving animals even though veganism doesn't save
animals.
> >>
> >>and a term such
> >> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid
eating
> >> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
leather
> >> shoes.
> >>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> >>
> >>There are other suitable names for those people lacking a diet-based
> >>agenda, whether their diets contain meat or not. "Health-oriented
> >>vegetarian" certainly would distinguish between views associated with
> >>improving or increasing health and the doctrinaire bullshit of veganism.
> >>"Flexitarian" is also a health-oriented category but it doesn't apply to
> >>those who are strictly vegetarian.
>
> "Confused vegan-wannabe passivist pothead" is that category that applies
> to you.
>
> >>>>>Now you are
> >>>>>a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
> >>>>>once at a sushi place and your omega
> >>>>>suppliments.
> >>>>
> >>>>Learn to spell. It's an omega-3 supplement.
> >>>
> >>>Even your fish oil is flavoured for
> >>>camoflage of taste.
> >>
> >>Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should
> >>at least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem
> >>consuming Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy
> >>or meaty taste.
> >
> > The U is not a redundant vowel.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> >>>>>Above you disclaim
> >>>>>your health reasons, leaving the
> >>>>>aesthetic ones.
> >>>>
> >>>>Strawman. I disagree with your loony position that vegetarianism is
> >>>>inherently healthier than diets that include meat. As I noted above,
> >>>>there is significant variation within vegetarian and meat-included
> >>>>diets. Meat CAN be part of a healthful diet. Vegetarianism CAN be part
> >>>>of a healthful diet. When comparing the healthful versions of both
kinds
> >>>>of diet, there are no differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.
> >>>
> >>>It's the aesthetic reasons I'm curious
> >>>about here.
> >>
> >>You still engaged in building a strawman.
> >
> > No strawman.
>
> It's a strawman -- you suggested my position is something that isn't my
> position.
>
> >>>>>What is it that you
> >>>>>find disgusting about eating meat?
> >>>>
> >>>>Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care much for the taste or
texture
> >>>>of meat. I'm not like you -- you've admitted you enjoy the smell of
> >>>>sizzling steaks, and you regularly consume fake-meat products. Since
you
> >>>>enjoy it so much, why do you avoid it?
> >>>
> >>>Aesthetically speaking, I find the
> >>>idea of eating dead body parts to
> >>>be gross, no matter how nice it
> >>>smells.
> >>
> >>Then why do you shun healthy products like fish oil, which isn't a dead
> >>body part (at least not after its been processed into something
> >>palatable and enjoyable)? Do you search for micrograms of dead animal
> >>parts like those found in the following lists?
> >>http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/faqingredients.htm
> >>http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/animal-ingredients.htm
>
> Answer my questions, Skanky.

Ask nicely. Why did you snip the
part where I reminded you that fish
oil IS made from a dead body part?

> >>>I like the smell of decaying
> >>>leaves in the forest too, but you
> >>>won't see me eating them.
> >>
> >>They're not as nutritious as meat is; I also doubt you'd be able to
> >>digest them as well as you would meat.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anyway, how can you say that you don't like
> >>>the taste or texture when there are
> >>>so many different ones?
> >>
> >>There are some kinds of meat I find more off-putting than others. I
> >>admit I really enjoy seafood. I'm not quite as big on poultry as I am on
> >>fish, but I prefer chicken or turkey to pork or beef. I also prefer goat
> >>and game (venison) to pork and beef.
> >
> > Yet for many years you've not
> > eaten chicken or turkey or 'game'
> > or goat.
>
> I had some turkey this afternoon. Also had some bacon in at least one of
> the vegetable dishes.

Better you than me.

> >>>I have a reason why I don't eat any meat,
> >>>but you don't.
> >>
> >>Bullshit. I've explained that I don't care for most kinds of meat and
> >>that I would probably add fish back to my diet. Why are you so concerned
> >>with what anyone else eats?
> >
> > When you
>
> Answer my question. Why are you so concerned with what I eat?

Because you've been hypocritical.
Until recently you were a 'strict
vegetarian' which is the same thing
as a dietary vegan. Yet you pick
on vegans.

> >>>I think that you really just don't like
> >>>the idea of eating body parts
> >>
> >>You're wrong. I've said I would add fish back into my diet, and I have.
> >>I've also admitted that I don't turn down dishes just because they have
> >>small pieces of bacon in them. I told you that I would rather eat a
> >>steak thrown in front of me -- remember the context of your stupid
> >>hypothetical -- than offend a host with a diatribe against meat (like
> >>you gave your poor "friends"). I don't have the same objections you do,
> >>nor do I act objectionably like you do with lectures to strangers,
> >>bringing my own dishes to dinners, etc.:
> >
> > But since fish and some (probably fake)
> > bacon bits
>
> No, it was real bacon. From a real pig.
>
> > have been your only fall from
> > vegetarianism, I must assume then that
> > you have not been invited anywhere for
> > dinner.
>
> Non sequitur. If you're referring back to your ridiculous hypothetical,
> remember your goofy context for it -- you asked what I would do if my
> host loaded my plate with a huge steak and small potato. Nobody's put me
> in THAT particular situation.

But I'll bet there have been similar
situations where you didn't eat the
meat/eggs/milk. How long were you
a strict vegetarian?

> >> 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.
> >> -- Skanky
> >>
> >> I have no trouble
> >> saying to people "You might want
> >> to think twice about inviting me.
> >> I'm hard to feed being vegetarian.".
> >> -- Skanky
> >>
> >> 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.
> >> -- Skanky
> >>
> >> Other times they
> >> don't get offended if you bring your
> >> own, like veg patties to a bbq.
> >> -- Skanky
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with the above
>
> They prove you're a whiny ingrate who puts a dubious ideal like
> "veganism" above good manners.

I've never had to be phony and
pretend to like a food that I really
don't like. Why would true friends
be offended by my honesty?

> >>BTW, there are two things I turn down even faster than I turn down meat,
> >>softdrinks and candy. Stir some shit over that sometime.

How do you avoid the dessert
dish at dinners? Do you lie and
say you're full, or do you tell them
that you don't eat sweets?

> >
> > Not surprising. No one would ever
> > accuse you of being 'sweet'.
>
> You'd be very surprised.
>
> >>>but don't want to admit it.
> >>
> >>Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot
> >>about that already, dummy?
> >>
> >>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.
> >>-- 29 Dec 2004: http://tinyurl.com/a2m5u
> >>
> >>Also: I don't stress out over little bits of bacon hidden in
> >>vegetable dishes and count them when considering my standing
> >>among moral-lessers like you.
> >>-- 13 Nov 2005
> >>
> >>You're irrational, Skanky, because not only do you obsess over what you
> >>eat, you obsess over what *other* people choose to eat.
> >
> > Whoa,
>
> Your lies that I either don't like "body parts" or won't admit to having
> eaten them have been debunked. I have admitted to eating certain kinds
> (sashimi, turkey) or amounts (small bacon pieces in vegetable dishes) of
> meat.

This is only a rather recent change
in you. How long were you a strict
vegetarian?

> You've expressed a fondness for the smell of real meat. Despite your
> childish objections to eating "body parts," you've admitted you like it
> when people turn soy and wheat into pieces that taste, smell, and feel
> *just like* "body parts." I think maybe you need to reconsider your
> little attempt at shit-stirring and do some serious introspection. You
> don't have any real objections to real meat because there's no
> qualitative difference between it and the fake meat you willfully gobble.

There's a huge difference. Real meat
is animal body parts and I don't want
to eat that. Fake meats are made from
plants. I do want to eat plant foods.


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

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should at
>>>least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem consuming
>>>Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy or meaty
>>>taste.
>>
>> I received my Nordic Nutritionals omega-3 supplements the other day. I
>> ordered soft gels containing 1280 mg total omega-3 and their single
>> serving travel packs containing 1750 mg total omega-3.
>
> What's the breakdown for EPA/DHA?

The soft gels a 650mg EPA, 450mg DHA, and 180mg other. The single serving
packs a 900mg EPA, 600mg DHA, and 250mg other. Do you know what comprises
"other"?

>> The travel pack things are *very* thinly disguised with lemon flavor -
>
> Heh. I was afraid of that.

I just tried another of the single serving packs this morning with granola,
blueberries, and soy milk and it wasn't nearly as bad. Helps not getting any
of that stuff on your fingers...

>> they taste fishy going down, fishy coming back up, and fishy *all day* if
>> you happen to get some on your fingers.
>
> Do your cats seem a little clingy now?

Only when they want something from me, as usual. One of them did seem
particularly interested in a scent on my pant leg but hopefully that was
unrelated.

>> It's texture is oily, not pasty (NN doesn't use any emulsifier). The soft
>> gels, on the other hand, have no fishy after tastes at all.
>
> That's good. The most common complaint I've heard about fish oil
> supplements is that they give people fishy burps.
>
>> I ordered the free samples of the Coromega things - similar to the NN
>> travel packs but are flavored with orange. I can't imagine that anything
>> can mask the flavor of fish oil but I will try the Coromega things when I
>> receive them and will compare with the NN travel packs.
>
> No fishy taste at all.

We'll see...

>> BTW, I was on my cross-trainer this morning and happened to see an
>> infomercial on TV about yet another producer of omega-3 supplements:
>> Iceland Health (www.icelandhealth.com). Their super-strength soft gels
>> have less than half the mg of total omega-3 than NN does.
>
> Don't buy supplements from infomercials. Or multi-level marketers.

Their ad was targeted for the uninitiated who simply want to take a pill to
make whatever is wrong with them right again. Their web site also has a very
annoying video that *thankfully* you can pause. You really have to look
around their web site for any substantial content. I wouldn't buy from them
just because of hte way they market their products.

>>>Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot
>>>about that already, dummy?
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> There's nothing civil about these discussions.
>
> Skanky started it. 0:-)

You sound like a first grader, "she started it". You can certainly do
something not to propagate or escalate the insults. Maybe try to be nice to
people during the holiday season and see how it makes you feel...

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Skanky wrote:
>>
>>>>>Your fake email says a lot about
>>>>>who you are trying to be.
>>>>
>>>>Your concern about it says a lot more about what you *are*.
>>>
>>>No concern,
>>
>>You were concerned enough to make a statement about it. Thanks for
>>emoting for my amusement.
>
>
> Just pointing it out to you how
> transparent you are.
>
>
>>>>>A dietary vegan.
>>>>
>>>>Oxymoron. I will address various points of the definition contextually
>>>>to disabuse this chronic misunderstanding of yours.
>>>
>>>The AR definition is not the only one.
>>
>>It is the ONLY definition.
>
>
> No it's not.
> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> Check out their main definition. They
> put the AR one as a specialty definition.
>
>
>>>> Vegans use as their *primary* motivation the concept of
>
> reducing
>
>>>> animal suffering.
>>>>
>>>>My emphasis. "Animal suffering" is not, nor has it ever been, one of my
>>>>primary motivations.
>>>>
>>>>Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed
>>>> by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical
>>>> veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to
>>>> avoid causing suffering to any other living creature.
>>>>
>>>>While I concur that animals should be treated well and not subjected to
>>>>deplorable conditions or abused, I disagree that raising animals for
>>>>food, for clothing, or for research constitutes abuse, suffering, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Animals are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to
>>>>a life as free from suffering as possible....
>>>>
>>>>This is a peculiar view which I do not share.
>>>>
>>>> *There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan."*
>>>>
>>>>This is the part you do not comprehend. I'm not sure what your
>>>>stumblingblock is, but perhaps it has something to do with your desire
>>>>that the whole world go vegan (even though you, personally, are not).
>>>>Veganism is NOT about food. It's about the pseudo-philosophy of animal
>>>>rights.
>>>>
>>>>A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
>>>>health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
>>>>compassion for animals.
>>>>
>>>>I've noted over the past couple years that I would probably add at least
>>>>fish back to my diet. As it is now, I don't scan labels looking for
>>>>minute traces of POSSIBLY animal-derived ingredients; I'm not a purist
>>>>or zealot. I've admitted that sometimes I consume dairy ingredients as
>>>>well as "egg parts" (whites in some products, and my omega-3 supplement
>>>>has a little bit of egg yolk as an emulsifier). I'm not a "total
>>>>vegetarian" by anything but the loosest definition.
>>>>
>>>>However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
>>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
>>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals,
>>>>
>>>>I'm not opposed to helping animals, but I'm unconvinced veganism does
>>>>that. "Dietary vegan" is inappropriate because veganism is based on
>>>>animal rights, not on health or diet or food. Veganism isn't about what
>>>>goes into your mouth, but rather on what comes out of it -- pompous
>>>>sanctimony about saving animals even though veganism doesn't save
>
> animals.
>
>>>>and a term such
>>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid
>
> eating
>
>>>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
>
> leather
>
>>>> shoes.
>>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>>>>
>>>>There are other suitable names for those people lacking a diet-based
>>>>agenda, whether their diets contain meat or not. "Health-oriented
>>>>vegetarian" certainly would distinguish between views associated with
>>>>improving or increasing health and the doctrinaire bullshit of veganism.
>>>>"Flexitarian" is also a health-oriented category but it doesn't apply to
>>>>those who are strictly vegetarian.
>>
>>"Confused vegan-wannabe passivist pothead" is that category that applies
>>to you.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>Now you are
>>>>>>>a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
>>>>>>>once at a sushi place and your omega
>>>>>>>suppliments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Learn to spell. It's an omega-3 supplement.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even your fish oil is flavoured for
>>>>>camoflage of taste.
>>>>
>>>>Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should
>>>>at least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem
>>>>consuming Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy
>>>>or meaty taste.
>
>>>The U is not a redundant vowel.
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>
Just depends on the country. This is an international community.
>
>>
>>>>>>>Above you disclaim
>>>>>>>your health reasons, leaving the
>>>>>>>aesthetic ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Strawman. I disagree with your loony position that vegetarianism is
>>>>>>inherently healthier than diets that include meat. As I noted above,
>>>>>>there is significant variation within vegetarian and meat-included
>>>>>>diets. Meat CAN be part of a healthful diet. Vegetarianism CAN be part
>>>>>>of a healthful diet. When comparing the healthful versions of both
>
> kinds
>
>>>>>>of diet, there are no differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's the aesthetic reasons I'm curious
>>>>>about here.
>>>>
>>>>You still engaged in building a strawman.
>>>
>>>No strawman.
>>
>>It's a strawman -- you suggested my position is something that isn't my
>>position.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>What is it that you
>>>>>>>find disgusting about eating meat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care much for the taste or
>
> texture
>
>>>>>>of meat. I'm not like you -- you've admitted you enjoy the smell of
>>>>>>sizzling steaks, and you regularly consume fake-meat products. Since
>
> you
>
>>>>>>enjoy it so much, why do you avoid it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Aesthetically speaking, I find the
>>>>>idea of eating dead body parts to
>>>>>be gross, no matter how nice it
>>>>>smells.
>>>>
>>>>Then why do you shun healthy products like fish oil, which isn't a dead
>>>>body part (at least not after its been processed into something
>>>>palatable and enjoyable)? Do you search for micrograms of dead animal
>>>>parts like those found in the following lists?
>>>>http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/faqingredients.htm
>>>>http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/animal-ingredients.htm
>>
>>Answer my questions, Skanky.
>
>
> Ask nicely. Why did you snip the
> part where I reminded you that fish
> oil IS made from a dead body part?
>
>
>>>>>I like the smell of decaying
>>>>>leaves in the forest too, but you
>>>>>won't see me eating them.
>>>>
>>>>They're not as nutritious as meat is; I also doubt you'd be able to
>>>>digest them as well as you would meat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, how can you say that you don't like
>>>>>the taste or texture when there are
>>>>>so many different ones?
>>>>
>>>>There are some kinds of meat I find more off-putting than others. I
>>>>admit I really enjoy seafood. I'm not quite as big on poultry as I am on
>>>>fish, but I prefer chicken or turkey to pork or beef. I also prefer goat
>>>>and game (venison) to pork and beef.
>>>
>>>Yet for many years you've not
>>>eaten chicken or turkey or 'game'
>>>or goat.
>>
>>I had some turkey this afternoon. Also had some bacon in at least one of
>>the vegetable dishes.
>
>
> Better you than me.
>
>
>>>>>I have a reason why I don't eat any meat,
>>>>>but you don't.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. I've explained that I don't care for most kinds of meat and
>>>>that I would probably add fish back to my diet. Why are you so concerned
>>>>with what anyone else eats?
>>>
>>>When you
>>
>>Answer my question. Why are you so concerned with what I eat?
>
>
> Because you've been hypocritical.
> Until recently you were a 'strict
> vegetarian' which is the same thing
> as a dietary vegan. Yet you pick
> on vegans.
>
>
>>>>>I think that you really just don't like
>>>>>the idea of eating body parts
>>>>
>>>>You're wrong. I've said I would add fish back into my diet, and I have.
>>>>I've also admitted that I don't turn down dishes just because they have
>>>>small pieces of bacon in them. I told you that I would rather eat a
>>>>steak thrown in front of me -- remember the context of your stupid
>>>>hypothetical -- than offend a host with a diatribe against meat (like
>>>>you gave your poor "friends"). I don't have the same objections you do,
>>>>nor do I act objectionably like you do with lectures to strangers,
>>>>bringing my own dishes to dinners, etc.:
>>>

You say you would avoid insulting someone, but you are by far the most
insulting person here. If you wanted to influence other people you would
simply make a case without insults. The continued insults show a desire
to cause people pain.

So insult me some more.

>>>But since fish and some (probably fake)
>>>bacon bits
>>
>>No, it was real bacon. From a real pig.
>>
>>
>>>have been your only fall from
>>>vegetarianism, I must assume then that
>>>you have not been invited anywhere for
>>>dinner.
>>
>>Non sequitur. If you're referring back to your ridiculous hypothetical,
>>remember your goofy context for it -- you asked what I would do if my
>>host loaded my plate with a huge steak and small potato. Nobody's put me
>>in THAT particular situation.
>
>
> But I'll bet there have been similar
> situations where you didn't eat the
> meat/eggs/milk. How long were you
> a strict vegetarian?
>
>
>>>> 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.
>>>> -- Skanky
>>>>
>>>> I have no trouble
>>>> saying to people "You might want
>>>> to think twice about inviting me.
>>>> I'm hard to feed being vegetarian.".
>>>> -- Skanky
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> -- Skanky
>>>>
>>>> Other times they
>>>> don't get offended if you bring your
>>>> own, like veg patties to a bbq.
>>>> -- Skanky
>>>
>>>There's nothing wrong with the above
>>
>>They prove you're a whiny ingrate who puts a dubious ideal like
>>"veganism" above good manners.
>
>
> I've never had to be phony and
> pretend to like a food that I really
> don't like. Why would true friends
> be offended by my honesty?
>
>
>>>>BTW, there are two things I turn down even faster than I turn down meat,
>>>>softdrinks and candy. Stir some shit over that sometime.
>
>
> How do you avoid the dessert
> dish at dinners? Do you lie and
> say you're full, or do you tell them
> that you don't eat sweets?
>
>
>>>Not surprising. No one would ever
>>>accuse you of being 'sweet'.
>>
>>You'd be very surprised.
>>
>>
>>>>>but don't want to admit it.
>>>>
>>>>Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot
>>>>about that already, dummy?
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>-- 29 Dec 2004: http://tinyurl.com/a2m5u
>>>>
>>>>Also: I don't stress out over little bits of bacon hidden in
>>>>vegetable dishes and count them when considering my standing
>>>>among moral-lessers like you.
>>>>-- 13 Nov 2005
>>>>
>>>>You're irrational, Skanky, because not only do you obsess over what you
>>>>eat, you obsess over what *other* people choose to eat.
>>>
>>>Whoa,
>>
>>Your lies that I either don't like "body parts" or won't admit to having
>>eaten them have been debunked. I have admitted to eating certain kinds
>>(sashimi, turkey) or amounts (small bacon pieces in vegetable dishes) of
>>meat.
>
>
> This is only a rather recent change
> in you. How long were you a strict
> vegetarian?
>
>
>>You've expressed a fondness for the smell of real meat. Despite your
>>childish objections to eating "body parts," you've admitted you like it
>>when people turn soy and wheat into pieces that taste, smell, and feel
>>*just like* "body parts." I think maybe you need to reconsider your
>>little attempt at shit-stirring and do some serious introspection. You
>>don't have any real objections to real meat because there's no
>>qualitative difference between it and the fake meat you willfully gobble.
>
>
> There's a huge difference. Real meat
> is animal body parts and I don't want
> to eat that. Fake meats are made from
> plants. I do want to eat plant foods.
>
>

B-cup Bob wrote:
> So insult me some more.

You insult yourself in the most degrading ways possible with each and
every post, halfwit. Wait, I take that back. *Eighth*-wit.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> B-cup Bob wrote:
>> So insult me some more.
>
> You insult yourself in the most degrading ways possible with
> each and every post, halfwit. Wait, I take that back.
> *Eighth*-wit.
=========================
He invites insults. To not oblige him would be rude of us, eh?

Skanky wrote:

>>>Yet for many years you've not
>>>eaten chicken or turkey or 'game'
>>>or goat.
>>
>>I had some turkey this afternoon. Also had some bacon in at least one of
>>the vegetable dishes.
>
> Better you than me.

There was nothing deleterious, injurious, unethical, immoral, or
otherwise untoward about it. It's just food.

>>>>>I have a reason why I don't eat any meat,
>>>>>but you don't.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. I've explained that I don't care for most kinds of meat and
>>>>that I would probably add fish back to my diet. Why are you so concerned
>>>>with what anyone else eats?
>>>
>>>When you
>>
>>Answer my question. Why are you so concerned with what I eat?
>
> Because you've been hypocritical.

No, I haven't.

> Until recently you were a 'strict
> vegetarian'

That's not hypocritical.

> which is the same thing
> as a dietary vegan.

Wrong, but your lack of comprehension is firmly established.

> Yet you pick on vegans.

I don't "pick on" them, whiny crybaby.

>>>>>I think that you really just don't like
>>>>>the idea of eating body parts
>>>>
>>>>You're wrong. I've said I would add fish back into my diet, and I have.
>>>>I've also admitted that I don't turn down dishes just because they have
>>>>small pieces of bacon in them. I told you that I would rather eat a
>>>>steak thrown in front of me -- remember the context of your stupid
>>>>hypothetical -- than offend a host with a diatribe against meat (like
>>>>you gave your poor "friends"). I don't have the same objections you do,
>>>>nor do I act objectionably like you do with lectures to strangers,
>>>>bringing my own dishes to dinners, etc.:
>>>
>>>But since fish and some (probably fake)
>>>bacon bits
>>
>>No, it was real bacon. From a real pig.
>>
>>
>>>have been your only fall from
>>>vegetarianism, I must assume then that
>>>you have not been invited anywhere for
>>>dinner.
>>
>>Non sequitur. If you're referring back to your ridiculous hypothetical,
>>remember your goofy context for it -- you asked what I would do if my
>>host loaded my plate with a huge steak and small potato. Nobody's put me
>>in THAT particular situation.
>
> But I'll bet there have been similar
> situations where you didn't eat the
> meat/eggs/milk.

Stop spinning -- your hypothetical was to the point, and I addressed it.
I didn't inquire about every dish I ate. I've been upfront in telling
you that I would rather put aside my personal preferences for one meal
than to offend someone else. "Health reasons" needn't be strict. You
won't have a heart attack if you just eat one hamburger, or even a
hamburger a month. Heart attacks are seldom acute reactions from eating
a particular meal (barring some extreme underlying condition), but
rather tend to come about from poor health decisions and a variety of
underlying health issues over a long period of time. Your smoking pot is
far more likely to injure your health than OCCASIONAL consumption of
meat, particularly if you distinguish between lean meats and fatty
meats. You just can't seem to get over your poor generalizations.

> How long were you
> a strict vegetarian?

Far too long because it lumped me in a group with nitwits like you,
Dreck, Lesley, Karen Winter, Larry Fruity, Zakhar, Racist Ray, et al --
not good company, I assure you.

>>>> 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.
>>>> -- Skanky
>>>>
>>>> I have no trouble
>>>> saying to people "You might want
>>>> to think twice about inviting me.
>>>> I'm hard to feed being vegetarian.".
>>>> -- Skanky
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> -- Skanky
>>>>
>>>> Other times they
>>>> don't get offended if you bring your
>>>> own, like veg patties to a bbq.
>>>> -- Skanky
>>>
>>>There's nothing wrong with the above
>>
>>They prove you're a whiny ingrate who puts a dubious ideal like
>>"veganism" above good manners.
>
> I've never had to be phony

You're a phony.

>>>>BTW, there are two things I turn down even faster than I turn down meat,
>>>>softdrinks and candy. Stir some shit over that sometime.
>
> How do you avoid the dessert
> dish at dinners?

I'm not into sweets, and our family seldom had desserts. Maybe the
latter caused the former. As for meals with friends, we usually do it
like a buffet.

> Do you lie

No. My friends and I are usually too busy having a nice time to discuss
who's eaten what.

>>>Not surprising. No one would ever
>>>accuse you of being 'sweet'.
>>
>>You'd be very surprised.
>>
>>>>>but don't want to admit it.
>>>>
>>>>Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot
>>>>about that already, dummy?
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>-- 29 Dec 2004: http://tinyurl.com/a2m5u
>>>>
>>>>Also: I don't stress out over little bits of bacon hidden in
>>>>vegetable dishes and count them when considering my standing
>>>>among moral-lessers like you.
>>>>-- 13 Nov 2005
>>>>
>>>>You're irrational, Skanky, because not only do you obsess over what you
>>>>eat, you obsess over what *other* people choose to eat.
>>>
>>>Whoa,
>>
>>Your lies that I either don't like "body parts" or won't admit to having
>>eaten them have been debunked. I have admitted to eating certain kinds
>>(sashimi, turkey) or amounts (small bacon pieces in vegetable dishes) of
>>meat.
>
> This is only a rather recent change
> in you.

No, it isn't. I said I didn't count a few tiny bacon pieces a couple
times a year as making me a "meat-eater."

>>You've expressed a fondness for the smell of real meat. Despite your
>>childish objections to eating "body parts," you've admitted you like it
>>when people turn soy and wheat into pieces that taste, smell, and feel
>>*just like* "body parts." I think maybe you need to reconsider your
>>little attempt at shit-stirring and do some serious introspection. You
>>don't have any real objections to real meat because there's no
>>qualitative difference between it and the fake meat you willfully gobble.
>
> There's a huge difference.

In terms of the number of animals killed per meal -- fractions of a
steer versus volumes of birds, amphibians, reptiles, and cute furry mammals.

> Real meat
> is animal body parts and I don't want
> to eat that. Fake meats are made from
> plants.

They're made to look and smell and TASTE and feel just like "animal body
parts."

> I do want to eat plant foods.

Because you still crave "animal body parts," poseur.