Hi, gang,

I have a problem. I need to know what kind of veg* I am.

First, let me tell you what I am not.

I am NOT a vegan. However, my diet is very similar to a vegan's. From
what I have read about vegans and from the vegans I've met, they are a
bunch of people whose only reason to be any kind of veg* is out of a
zealous animal rights fanaticism. I've been told that if you are not inot
animal rights you are not a vegan. Furthermore, it seems that, to be a
vegan, you must have the conviction that you must coerce the rest of the
world into accepting your position. Count me out on both of those points!
-- And, please, do not call me a vegan. By the way, one look at my old
(and rather beat up) leather belt will tell you I am not a vegan.

I am not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian because I do not do either eggs or dairy.
Of course, that means that I am lacto-vegetarian or an ovo-vegetarian,
either.

If you are not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus eggs
and milk) or an ovo-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus eggs) or a
lacto-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus dairy), then you would think
that you would be a vegetarian (meaning vegetables plus nothing). Not so,
apparently, for it would seem that the ovo-lacto-vegetarians have coopted
the name "vegetarian" for themselves. A while back, I was in a restaurant
that had "vegetarian black beans" on the menu. To my horror, it was
smothered with cheese. I won't make that mistake again, though it still
gets my goat that the ovo-lacto-vegetarians have coopted the name
vegetarian when they have a name of their own (ovo-lacto-vegetarian).

Well, what about "strict vegetarian"? It seems, though, that vegans (who
already use the name vegan) want to coopt the name "strict vegetarian" as
well.

Now, all I eat are products of vegetation. However, since I am not any
kind of animal rights fanatic, I am not a vegan (or, apparently, even a
"strict vegetarian") and since I do not eat either unborn poultry or dairy
products I am not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian (or even, it would seem, a
"vegetarian"). So what am I?

Sometimes I just feel like calling myself a herbivore, but someone has
probably coopted that name as well.

--
Your friendly, neighborhood Monkkey's Unkle

"Monkkey's Unkle" > wrote in message
news
> Hi, gang,
>

Why do you want to be labeled?








> I have a problem. I need to know what kind of veg* I am.
>
> First, let me tell you what I am not.
>
> I am NOT a vegan. However, my diet is very similar to a
> vegan's. From
> what I have read about vegans and from the vegans I've met,
> they are a
> bunch of people whose only reason to be any kind of veg* is out
> of a
> zealous animal rights fanaticism. I've been told that if you
> are not inot
> animal rights you are not a vegan. Furthermore, it seems that,
> to be a
> vegan, you must have the conviction that you must coerce the
> rest of the
> world into accepting your position. Count me out on both of
> those points!
> -- And, please, do not call me a vegan. By the way, one look
> at my old
> (and rather beat up) leather belt will tell you I am not a
> vegan.
>
> I am not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian because I do not do either
> eggs or dairy.
> Of course, that means that I am lacto-vegetarian or an
> ovo-vegetarian,
> either.
>
> If you are not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian (which means vegetables
> plus eggs
> and milk) or an ovo-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus
> eggs) or a
> lacto-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus dairy), then you
> would think
> that you would be a vegetarian (meaning vegetables plus
> nothing). Not so,
> apparently, for it would seem that the ovo-lacto-vegetarians
> have coopted
> the name "vegetarian" for themselves. A while back, I was in a
> restaurant
> that had "vegetarian black beans" on the menu. To my horror,
> it was
> smothered with cheese. I won't make that mistake again, though
> it still
> gets my goat that the ovo-lacto-vegetarians have coopted the
> name
> vegetarian when they have a name of their own
> (ovo-lacto-vegetarian).
>
> Well, what about "strict vegetarian"? It seems, though, that
> vegans (who
> already use the name vegan) want to coopt the name "strict
> vegetarian" as
> well.
>
> Now, all I eat are products of vegetation. However, since I am
> not any
> kind of animal rights fanatic, I am not a vegan (or,
> apparently, even a
> "strict vegetarian") and since I do not eat either unborn
> poultry or dairy
> products I am not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian (or even, it would
> seem, a
> "vegetarian"). So what am I?
>
> Sometimes I just feel like calling myself a herbivore, but
> someone has
> probably coopted that name as well.
>
> --
> Your friendly, neighborhood Monkkey's Unkle

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:

> Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
>
> You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.

I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
vegan it makes it harder to explain.

It is a matter of communication not of justification.

--
The Monkkey's Unkle strikes again!

Monkkey's Unkle wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
>
> > Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
> >
> > You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
>
> I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
> have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
> hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
> all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
> ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
> However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
> vegan it makes it harder to explain.
>
> It is a matter of communication not of justification.

How about someone who follows a vegan diet?
>
> --
> The Monkkey's Unkle strikes again!

Just call yourself a vegan. Most people don;t know about the
animal rights stuff. If they're curious, you can always explain more.

"Dave" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Monkkey's Unkle wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
>>
>> > Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
>> >
>> > You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
>>
>> I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
>> have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
>> hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an
>> ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
>> all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
>> ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
>> However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
>> vegan it makes it harder to explain.
>>
>> It is a matter of communication not of justification.
>
> How about someone who follows a vegan diet?

Amen, Dave! There's a rational, sensible answer we can all agree with. :-)

As to whether someone who wears an old leather belt can call themselves a
vegan.. I guess it depends on who you ask. When veganism was first named,
it was only about being non-dairy vegetarians. Some people (silly people)
think that eggs are a dairy item, so there can even be arguments about that
first definition of vegan, but who really cares? Dave has it right. You
don't have to have a noun, Mr. Unkle. Verbs are swell words too.

Justin

Monkkey's Unkle wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
>
> > Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
> >
> > You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
>
> I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
> have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
> hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
> all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
> ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
> However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
> vegan it makes it harder to explain.
>
> It is a matter of communication not of justification.

Sad, but true, hospitals are one of the worst places to have your
dietary needs met. You can explain what your diet is, until you're
blue in the face, but the bottom line is; your needs probably won't get
met. Bring in foods that you can eat instead and hopefully your stay
will be short. In Feb, I had surgery and not only asked that NO MEAT,
DAIRY or FISH be brought into my room at any time, I was greeted in the
morning with a tray of red jello, tea, sugar, a cheese omelet with
white toast and butter. The smell almost made my iv fall out :-) My
husband the human garbage disposal was as pleased as punch to get my
whole tray. I sucked on some ginger candies to fight the nausea and
drank my soda water that I brought.

You can try, but set your expectations low; that's my advice for the
day. And good luck for whatever you're going into the hospital for.
It is kind of pathetic to see what foods are prepared and brought to
sick people. Jello? That's not even a food. I learned years ago, to
bring my own food wherever I go from friend's homes, to airports to
restaurants (when I was a practicing vegan). Now I just make sure
that I have snacks that I can eat if nothing decent is available
wherever I am. Including hospitals.
>
> --
> The Monkkey's Unkle strikes again!

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:20:14 -0700, beachpeach wrote:

> You can try, but set your expectations low; that's my advice for the
> day. And good luck for whatever you're going into the hospital for. It
> is kind of pathetic to see what foods are prepared and brought to sick
> people. Jello? That's not even a food. I learned years ago, to bring
> my own food wherever I go from friend's homes, to airports to
> restaurants (when I was a practicing vegan). Now I just make sure that
> I have snacks that I can eat if nothing decent is available wherever I
> am. Including hospitals.

Thanks for the advise. I have been kind of thinking along those lines
somewhat. The last time I was hospitalized was two years ago at a
hospital that tried to honor my dietary needs. In the six days I was
there (eighteen meals) I found only three mistakes: butter being served
with rolls, one side dish of Jello, and a cream sauce with the peas. My
next stay will probably be about as long but it will not, unfortunately,
be at the same hospital -- because it is, sad to say, no more. Sigh!

--
The One and Only Monkkey's Unkle

Monkkey's Unkle > wrote:

> Hi, gang,
>
> I have a problem.

I have your solution:
www.orthorexia.com

> I need to know what kind of veg* I am.

A silly hair-splitting one. Just like the rest. FU and whichever label you finally settle on. Get over it.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:35:20 +0000, Mr. Know-Ii-All wrote:

> I have your solution:
> www.orthorexia.com

It must be nice to know it all. Some people become vegan after consulting
with their primary care physician, their cardiologist and their
gastroenterologist for valid medical reasons. Take that in your silly
little pipe and smoke it -- as long as it does not give you lung cancer,
that is.

--
Monkkey's Unkle Power (better than Flower Power)

some Monkkey's Bitch wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:35:20 +0000, Mr. Know-Ii-All wrote:
>
>> I have your solution:
>> www.orthorexia.com
>
> It must be nice to know it all. Some people become vegan after consulting
> with their primary care physician, their cardiologist and their
> gastroenterologist for valid medical reasons.

False. Medical professionals generally don't recommend veganism, which is an
austere and extreme brand of vegetarianism that's predicated purely on a
political -- NOT MEDICAL, NOT SCIENTIFIC, NOT NUTRITIONAL -- premise, to
their patients. Few doctors will even recommend vegetarianism, you pathetic
little pansy. There are very few "valid medical reasons" for vegetarianism
(certainly not enough to justify the number of people who are presently
vegetarian), and zero "valid medical reasons" for veganism, which is
politically-, not medically-, oriented.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:12:09 +0000, chico chupacabra wrote:

> False. Medical professionals generally don't recommend veganism, which is
> an austere and extreme brand of vegetarianism that's predicated purely on
> a political -- NOT MEDICAL, NOT SCIENTIFIC, NOT NUTRITIONAL -- premise, to
> their patients. Few doctors will even recommend vegetarianism

Idiot. I ought to know what my doctors said to me. Of course, since you
already know what my doctors said to me, since you are a know it all, I
don't have to bother to tell you.

Get a life.

--
Monkkey's Unkle Power (better than Flower Power)

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:12:09 +0000, chico chupacabra wrote:

> some Monkkey's Bitch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:35:20 +0000, Mr. Know-Ii-All wrote:
>>
>>> I have your solution:
>>> www.orthorexia.com
>>
>> It must be nice to know it all. Some people become vegan after
>> consulting with their primary care physician, their cardiologist and
>> their gastroenterologist for valid medical reasons.
>
> False. Medical professionals generally don't recommend veganism, which is
> an austere and extreme brand of vegetarianism that's predicated purely on
> a political -- NOT MEDICAL, NOT SCIENTIFIC, NOT NUTRITIONAL -- premise, to
> their patients. Few doctors will even recommend vegetarianism, you
> pathetic little pansy. There are very few "valid medical reasons" for
> vegetarianism (certainly not enough to justify the number of people who
> are presently vegetarian), and zero "valid medical reasons" for veganism,
> which is politically-, not medically-, oriented.

Your the one who is false. Since I went on my "vegan" diet for non
political reasons (this is why I don't want to be associated with vegan
weirdos) my blood pressure has gone down by 25%, my cholosterol levels
have gone down by 50% and my GERD symptoms have gone down by over 90%.
You see, I do have valid medical reasons. Of course, you don't care about
the facts, just about your self-important opinion. Before popping off at
the mouth, check out the facts of the case.

--
Monkkey's Unkle Power (better than Flower Power)

Monkkey's screeching retarded bitch wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:12:09 +0000, chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> some Monkkey's Bitch wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:35:20 +0000, Mr. Know-Ii-All wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have your solution:
>>>> www.orthorexia.com
>>>
>>> It mus 1277 messageb 9 0 904 904 796 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00
dbus-daemon-1
t be nice to know it all. Some people become vegan after
>>> consulting with their primary care physician, their cardiologist and
>>> their gastroenterologist for valid medical reasons.
>>
>> False. Medical professionals generally don't recommend veganism, which is
>> an austere and extreme brand of vegetarianism that's predicated purely on
>> a political -- NOT MEDICAL, NOT SCIENTIFIC, NOT NUTRITIONAL -- premise,
>> to their patients. Few doctors will even recommend vegetarianism, you
>> pathetic little pansy. There are very few "valid medical reasons" for
>> vegetarianism (certainly not enough to justify the number of people who
>> are presently vegetarian), and zero "valid medical reasons" for veganism,
>> which is politically-, not medically-, oriented.
>
> Your the one who is false.

No, what I wrote in my reply is true. What you've written isn't.

> Since I went on my "vegan" diet for non
> political reasons (this is why I don't want to be associated with vegan
> weirdos) my blood pressure has gone down by 25%,

Anecdotal. Research shows that diets which include certain meats can
significantly reduce blood pressure.

> my cholosterol levels
> have gone down by 50%

Anecdotal. Research shows that diets which include certain meats can
significantly reduce serum cholesterol. It isn't meat or even dietary
cholesterol which impacts serum cholesterol anyway, it's the balance of
fats in one's diet: saturated fats elevate both HDL and LDL,
monounsaturated fats elevate HDL and reduce LDL, and transfats elevate LDL
while suppressing HDL. Generally speaking, dietary cholesterol reduction
translates to serum cholesterol reduction only when the ratio of fats shift
to favor an increase in HDL, a reduction in LDL, or both.

If serum cholesterol were directly related to dietary cholesterol, doctors
wouldn't recommend oily cold-water fish because they're high in
cholesterol. But consuming those high-cholesterol fish (and wild game,
grass-fed beef and lamb, etc.) helps reduce serum cholesterol. How? Fat
profile. The fat in the fish elevates HDL, which in turn helps reduce LDL.

Search google groups for "author:usual serum cholesterol fats" for links to
relevant medical (Mayo, etc.) sites in support of my claims. I've already
addressed the issue plenty of times, and google has done a fine job of
saving my work for posterity. You should be grateful, even though I suspect
you'll continue being an ingrate who won't even bother learning about the
subject instead of your own anecdotes.

> and my GERD symptoms have gone down by over 90%.

GERD can be alleviated with diets which include meat, too.

> You see, I do have valid medical reasons.

No, veganism isn't medically indicated for the reasons you've provided.

> Of course, you don't care about
> the facts,

Actually, I do, which is why I bothered replying. Asshole.

> just about your self-important opinion.

Find me one study or medical text book that advises veganism as a solution
to the problems you listed. You won't because you can't. Veganism is
peddled as solutions for those problems and every other ill under the sun,
but only through advocacy, not science. You're too ****ing stupid to
understand the difference.

> Before popping off at
> the mouth, check out the facts of the case.

I did. Now go find some scientific evidence to support your claim that
veganism is medically relevant to the issues you raised. Not your worthless
anecdotes (because I can find plenty of people who've reversed the same
conditions you claim to have via diets that still include meat, eggs, and
dairy), but the fruit of real scientific, medical research.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:55:08 +0000, chico chupacabra wrote:

> Anecdotal. Research shows that diets which include certain meats can
> significantly reduce blood pressure.

Maybe so. That does not prove anything because the key word here is
"can." The research does not say it always will, but that it can. Other
diets may work for other people. One regimen may be good for you and
another for me. Research may show that something can happen, but if
something else works for someone, what harm is there as long as it works.
I once had a blood pressure of 160 over 85, since I went vegetarian (I do
not like the word vegan because of its association with animal-rights
extremists) my blood pressure has gone down to 120 over 55. Would you
like for me to go back to a diet that gave me a higher blood pressure just
to satisfy your worship of research? Medical research may often be right,
but it is not necessarily always right for exactly 100% of people. Any
physician will tell you that.

Would you like for me to go back to having serious GERD with the increased
risk it gives of esophageal cancer just to satisfy your dietary beliefs?
Would you like for me to go back to sky high cholesterol levels? I would
hope not. What works for me may or may not work for someone else, but if
it works for me, then it works for me. What can I say? Yes, that is
anedoctal and the question still remains how many anedotes does it take to
make a statistic, but it works for one person then it works for that one
person.

Research, for instance, says that to avoid skin cancer, one should stay
out of the sun. I have been doing that for almost half a century, yet my
skin manufactures skin cancers like crazy. So much for that particular
piece of research. I need to find another way to avoid being a charter
member of the Skin Cancer Surgery of the Month Club because the advice
from the research is not always right one hundred percent of the time.

--
Superhero Monkkey's Unkle

Monkkey's Unkle wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:55:08 +0000, chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> Anecdotal. Research shows that diets which include certain meats can
>> significantly reduce blood pressure.
>
> Maybe so.

Definitely so.

> That does not prove anything

It means most people don't have to make the extreme, austere changes you
did. "Most people" would include you.

<snip pedantic lectures about "can," etc.>

> I once had a blood pressure of 160 over 85,

That isn't outrageously high. It's only borderline. You didn't need a
radical dietary change to lower it the little bit it needed to be lowered.

> since I went vegetarian (I do
> not like the word vegan because of its association with animal-rights
> extremists)

Well I don't like vegans because they're political extremists.

> my blood pressure has gone down to 120 over 55. Would you
> like for me to go back to a diet that gave me a higher blood pressure just
> to satisfy your worship of research?

False choice: you don't have to resume whatever your diet was, you only
needed to make a few tweaks. You didn't have to give up meat, dairy, or
eggs. Hell, with your BP at 160/85 you could probably manage it through
other changes like exercise, stress reduction, etc.

> Medical research may often be right,

May often, lol? What a doofus.

> but it is not necessarily always right for exactly 100% of people. Any
> physician will tell you that.

Research and physicians will also tell you that severe, austere, radical
changes are less desirable over long terms because they're impractical for
fallible human beings who have certain desires and needs. You went off the
deep end when you only needed baby steps.

> Would you like for me to go back to having serious GERD with the increased
> risk it gives of esophageal cancer just to satisfy your dietary beliefs?

Another false choice. You had, and still have, other choices than an austere
diet that abstains from all meat, eggs, and dairy and derivatives of the
same.

> Would you like for me to go back to sky high cholesterol levels?

Another false choice. You had, and still have, other choices than an austere
diet that abstains from all meat, eggs, and dairy and derivatives of the
same.florida orange juice advertising budget

<...>
> What can I say?

You can admit you've done the classical thing humans do by thinking "if a
little is good, then a lot is better." It often isn't, and it's too often
worse than the status quo ante.

> Yes, that is anedoctal

Established.

> Research, for instance, says that to avoid skin cancer, one should stay
> out of the sun.

That isn't the only thing research shows, silly.

> I have been doing that for almost half a century, yet my
> skin manufactures skin cancers like crazy. So much for that particular
> piece of research.

I see you don't understand science. It's not what you've done the last 10
years or last 50 years, it's what you did before that. It, like some of
those other issues you raised (BP, cholesterol, GERD), also has a lot to do
with your genetics. Some people inherit traits completely unsuitable for
certain climates.

> I need to find another way to avoid being a charter
> member of the Skin Cancer Surgery of the Month Club because the advice
> from the research is not always right one hundred percent of the time.

You should also try to learn a thing or two about science instead of making
such a fool of yourself. Skin cancer research isn't limited to sun
exposure. It encompasses a wide variety of factors, including genetics,
environmental exposure to various things, etc.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:41:43 +0000, chico chupacabra wrote:

> You should also try to learn a thing or two about science instead of
> making such a fool of yourself. Skin cancer research isn't limited to
> sun exposure. It encompasses a wide variety of factors, including
> genetics, environmental exposure to various things, etc.

I know that. I wasn't born yesterday. However, none of that has helped
me, either. All my dermatologists (who probably know more about medicine
than even you) can tell me is to stay out of the sun. I am tired of
hearing that, since it does not work. Do you have any other bright ideas?

--
Monkkey's Unkle power strikes again

Monkkey's Unkle wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:41:43 +0000, chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> You should also try to learn a thing or two about science instead of
>> making such a fool of yourself. Skin cancer research isn't limited to
>> sun exposure. It encompasses a wide variety of factors, including
>> genetics, environmental exposure to various things, etc.
>
> I know that. I wasn't born yesterday. However, none of that has helped
> me, either. All my dermatologists (who probably know more about medicine
> than even you) can tell me is to stay out of the sun. I am tired of
> hearing that, since it does not work. Do you have any other bright ideas?
>

vITAMIN d

iT'S IRONIC THAT PEOPLE HIDE THEMSELVES FROM THE SUN TO 'BEAT' SKIN
CANCER; WHEN 20 MINUTES A DAY IN THE SUNLIGHT ON YOUR HANDS AND FACE CAN
HELP PREVENT IT.

oNE EXAMPLE:

http://www.saga.co.uk/health_news/ar...3B7.asp?bhcp=1

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:03:35 -0700, wrote:

>Just call yourself a vegan. Most people don;t know about the
>animal rights stuff.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>If they're curious, you can always explain more.
>
>

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:17:51 -0700, Monkkey's Unkle > wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:55:08 +0000, chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> Anecdotal. Research shows that diets which include certain meats can
>> significantly reduce blood pressure.
>
>Maybe so. That does not prove anything because the key word here is
>"can."

You should thank him for explaining it to you.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:53:42 -0700, Monkkey's Unkle > wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
>
>> Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
>>
>> You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
>
>I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
>have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
>hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
>all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
>ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
>However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
>vegan it makes it harder to explain.
>
>It is a matter of communication not of justification.

Just say you're a vegetarian, meaning no eggs, dairy or fish.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:53:42 -0700, Monkkey's Unkle
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
>>>
>>> You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
>>
>>I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
>>have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
>>hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
>>all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
>>ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
>>However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
>>vegan it makes it harder to explain.
>>
>>It is a matter of communication not of justification.
>
> Just say you're a vegetarian, meaning no eggs, dairy or fish.

That is not universally understood to be the meaning of vegetarian.

dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:53:42 -0700, Monkkey's Unkle > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
> >>
> >> You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
> >
> >I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
> >have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
> >hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
> >all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
> >ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
> >However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
> >vegan it makes it harder to explain.
> >
> >It is a matter of communication not of justification.
>
> Just say you're a vegetarian, meaning no eggs, dairy or fish.

Normal usage of the term "vegetarian" does not exclude eggs
or dairy.

Dave wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:53:42 -0700, Monkkey's Unkle > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
> > >>
> > >> You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
> > >
> > >I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
> > >have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
> > >hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
> > >all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
> > >ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
> > >However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
> > >vegan it makes it harder to explain.
> > >
> > >It is a matter of communication not of justification.
> >
> > Just say you're a vegetarian, meaning no eggs, dairy or fish.
>
> Normal usage of the term "vegetarian" does not exclude eggs
> or dairy.



It used to.

On 27 Jun 2006 10:12:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:53:42 -0700, Monkkey's Unkle > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
>> >>
>> >> You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
>> >
>> >I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
>> >have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
>> >hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
>> >all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
>> >ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
>> >However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
>> >vegan it makes it harder to explain.
>> >
>> >It is a matter of communication not of justification.
>>
>> Just say you're a vegetarian, meaning no eggs, dairy or fish.
>
>Normal usage of the term "vegetarian" does not exclude eggs
>or dairy.

Agreed, and we know that's a mistake. I meant to say it as I wrote it though,
hoping that a person should be able to understand it if you presented it that way.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:03:35 -0700, wrote:
>
> >Just call yourself a vegan. Most people don;t know about the
> >animal rights stuff.
>
> · Vegans

Are just a caricature, in your warped superstitious belief system.
They're a bogeyman; nothing more.

don't worry... i'm a vegetarian who wears animal skins.

but that's the indian in me.



my beliefs came from my great grandparents.. never eat the meat.. but
if you find the skins tribute to the animal and wear it as if your
own..

something about spirit blah blah animal sacrafise warmth winter blah
blah.

?


i drive the vegans up the wall.

especially when i catch them "vegans" eating candies and drinking
alcohol.

haw haw.







Monkkey's Unkle wrote:
> Hi, gang,
>
> I have a problem. I need to know what kind of veg* I am.
>
> First, let me tell you what I am not.
>
> I am NOT a vegan. However, my diet is very similar to a vegan's. From
> what I have read about vegans and from the vegans I've met, they are a
> bunch of people whose only reason to be any kind of veg* is out of a
> zealous animal rights fanaticism. I've been told that if you are not inot
> animal rights you are not a vegan. Furthermore, it seems that, to be a
> vegan, you must have the conviction that you must coerce the rest of the
> world into accepting your position. Count me out on both of those points!
> -- And, please, do not call me a vegan. By the way, one look at my old
> (and rather beat up) leather belt will tell you I am not a vegan.
>
> I am not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian because I do not do either eggs or dairy.
> Of course, that means that I am lacto-vegetarian or an ovo-vegetarian,
> either.
>
> If you are not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus eggs
> and milk) or an ovo-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus eggs) or a
> lacto-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus dairy), then you would think
> that you would be a vegetarian (meaning vegetables plus nothing). Not so,
> apparently, for it would seem that the ovo-lacto-vegetarians have coopted
> the name "vegetarian" for themselves. A while back, I was in a restaurant
> that had "vegetarian black beans" on the menu. To my horror, it was
> smothered with cheese. I won't make that mistake again, though it still
> gets my goat that the ovo-lacto-vegetarians have coopted the name
> vegetarian when they have a name of their own (ovo-lacto-vegetarian).
>
> Well, what about "strict vegetarian"? It seems, though, that vegans (who
> already use the name vegan) want to coopt the name "strict vegetarian" as
> well.
>
> Now, all I eat are products of vegetation. However, since I am not any
> kind of animal rights fanatic, I am not a vegan (or, apparently, even a
> "strict vegetarian") and since I do not eat either unborn poultry or dairy
> products I am not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian (or even, it would seem, a
> "vegetarian"). So what am I?
>
> Sometimes I just feel like calling myself a herbivore, but someone has
> probably coopted that name as well.
>
> --
> Your friendly, neighborhood Monkkey's Unkle

lables are sticky and don't come off easy even in boiling water.



rick wrote:
> "Monkkey's Unkle" > wrote in message
> news
> > Hi, gang,
> >
>
> Why do you want to be labeled?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have a problem. I need to know what kind of veg* I am.
> >
> > First, let me tell you what I am not.
> >
> > I am NOT a vegan. However, my diet is very similar to a
> > vegan's. From
> > what I have read about vegans and from the vegans I've met,
> > they are a
> > bunch of people whose only reason to be any kind of veg* is out
> > of a
> > zealous animal rights fanaticism. I've been told that if you
> > are not inot
> > animal rights you are not a vegan. Furthermore, it seems that,
> > to be a
> > vegan, you must have the conviction that you must coerce the
> > rest of the
> > world into accepting your position. Count me out on both of
> > those points!
> > -- And, please, do not call me a vegan. By the way, one look
> > at my old
> > (and rather beat up) leather belt will tell you I am not a
> > vegan.
> >
> > I am not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian because I do not do either
> > eggs or dairy.
> > Of course, that means that I am lacto-vegetarian or an
> > ovo-vegetarian,
> > either.
> >
> > If you are not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian (which means vegetables
> > plus eggs
> > and milk) or an ovo-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus
> > eggs) or a
> > lacto-vegetarian (which means vegetables plus dairy), then you
> > would think
> > that you would be a vegetarian (meaning vegetables plus
> > nothing). Not so,
> > apparently, for it would seem that the ovo-lacto-vegetarians
> > have coopted
> > the name "vegetarian" for themselves. A while back, I was in a
> > restaurant
> > that had "vegetarian black beans" on the menu. To my horror,
> > it was
> > smothered with cheese. I won't make that mistake again, though
> > it still
> > gets my goat that the ovo-lacto-vegetarians have coopted the
> > name
> > vegetarian when they have a name of their own
> > (ovo-lacto-vegetarian).
> >
> > Well, what about "strict vegetarian"? It seems, though, that
> > vegans (who
> > already use the name vegan) want to coopt the name "strict
> > vegetarian" as
> > well.
> >
> > Now, all I eat are products of vegetation. However, since I am
> > not any
> > kind of animal rights fanatic, I am not a vegan (or,
> > apparently, even a
> > "strict vegetarian") and since I do not eat either unborn
> > poultry or dairy
> > products I am not an ovo-lacto-vegetarian (or even, it would
> > seem, a
> > "vegetarian"). So what am I?
> >
> > Sometimes I just feel like calling myself a herbivore, but
> > someone has
> > probably coopted that name as well.
> >
> > --
> > Your friendly, neighborhood Monkkey's Unkle

yeh you're right.

now there's all kinds of classifications for veggie heads.


then there's the vegan which i'm not... but i'm finding it hard to
not eat more and more anything that even has traces of meat in it...
due to this vegan element.

hell even wine has chemistry in it that is animal product...

all this and more... who knows anymore.


wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > dh@. wrote:
> > > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:53:42 -0700, Monkkey's Unkle > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:04 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Why don't you just be a person who eats what they want?
> > > >>
> > > >> You don't have to justify your dietary choices to anyone.
> > > >
> > > >I don't need to justify myself to anyone, but there are times it helps to
> > > >have a handle to explain myself. I will probably have to go into the
> > > >hospital in the not too distant future. If I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian,
> > > >all I would have to say to the hospital's nutitionist is that I was an
> > > >ovo-lacto-vegetarian and she would probably understand perfectly.
> > > >However, since I am not a lacto-vegetarian, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian or a
> > > >vegan it makes it harder to explain.
> > > >
> > > >It is a matter of communication not of justification.
> > >
> > > Just say you're a vegetarian, meaning no eggs, dairy or fish.
> >
> > Normal usage of the term "vegetarian" does not exclude eggs
> > or dairy.
>
>
>
> It used to.