My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with me,
hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...

Usual Suspect wrote:

> You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
> disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.

Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
answering in your circle of writings.

> What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?

First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture. You
can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant. Most
vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
flesh. They feel that animals shouldn't suffer or die as sources of their
food, particularly when they feel there are other more "compassionate"
choices available. Many of them avoid "microparts", or whatever the term is,
as a statement NOT to directly or indirectly support the mistreatment of
animals AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT. You know all of this.

Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to as
"you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you put
people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe in
so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).

Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths that
we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the "numbers
game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of collateral
deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game", you
claim to win it anyway! :^)

Forth, not all vegans are animal rights activists. But you deny this since
you like to generalize people to make judgements about them.

Lastly, we are left with the group of AR vegans who DO understand and
realize that collateral deaths result from the vegetable products they eat.
Sorry, I can't speak for them. It sounds like they are in transition
somehow, or are in denial, etc.

>>> Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty.

>> Yeah, yeah...

> You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?

Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
anyway, right?) wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
me?

> Because you don't like someone else's (i.e., other than mine)
> attitude, lol? I don't get what you're bitching about.

You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context. Put it
back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
your self from having a bad attitude....

> I asked that question about BK. He repeated it when you
> deliberately didn't answer it. Stop blaming him, stop blaming
> me, and just answer the question.

I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out your
circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at BK,
McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is healthy
or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten fries
or milkshakes in years.