"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chickenshit James Strutz wrote:
>
> More childish name-calling. Grow up already.
>
>>>>LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you
>>>>still lose, killer.
>>>
>>> You know everything about losing...
>>
>> Imagine that coming from the pantywaist who keeps lecturing others about
>> being crude and mean to others.
>
> On the scale of "crude and mean", my comment about losing ranks far below
> most of the trash that comes out of your keyboard.
>
>>> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
>>> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
>>> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for
>>> silage, the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
>>
>> The difference, though, is those who eat beef or other meat don't make
>> claims of moral superiority.
>
> That's BS. I suppose you never came across old-school folks who give you a
> weird look when you tell them you don't eat meat. They're the first to
> tell you you should eat meat because it's "good for you". They're usually
> the same people who think that overweight looks normal or even healthy.
> Yeah, pass the biscuits and gravy...
======================
Comprehension impaired as always, eh killer? Where is any 'moral
superiority' in those statements?


>
>> The vegans do.
>
> You hijacked the thread to spew more of your anti-vegan hatred.
==================
Nope. All the hate comes from brainwashed, religion driven vegans...

>
>> Any plot growing corn will produce CDs whether the food is for human or
>> livestock consumption.
>
> Didn't I just say that?
>
>> Vegans are hypocrites for objecting only to the 1001st death, and the
>> counting game you're entering into is nothing but moral relativism --
>> NOT moral or ethical superiority. You've already lost the moment you
>> start playing the counting game because your diet causes CDs, too.
>
> Who's talking about "moral or ethical superiority"? Nobody else but YOU.
> The point was, assuming that the number of collateral deaths are constant
> for all corn production, then more corn produced for silage means more
> collateral deaths. It says nothing about "moral or ethical superiority"
> and does NOT admit to causing no collateral deaths. IIRC, Scented Nectar's
> original point was that that amount of corn produced for silage is MANY
> TIMES that which is produced for grain at a calorie-calorie equivalence of
> the end products, and that causes a proportionally greater number of
> collateral deaths. She is right.
==================
No, because she, like you, has never seemed to understand that there is *NO*
need to feed corn, or its by-products to cows. That little fact just too
much for your 2 remaining braincells to comprehend?



>
>>> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants
>>> to. Any little bit helps.
>>
>> She clearly knows a thing about compost and manure, what with all the
>> bullshit she's been throwing around this group.
>
> And your point is???
>
>>> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this
>>> newsgroup, which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the
>>> contestants.
>>
>> Guess which prize you win, pussy boy.
>
> Tell me, redneck.
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chickenshit James Strutz wrote:
>
> More childish name-calling. Grow up already.
>
>>>>LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you
>>>>still lose, killer.
>>>
>>> You know everything about losing...
>>
>> Imagine that coming from the pantywaist who keeps lecturing others about
>> being crude and mean to others.
>
> On the scale of "crude and mean", my comment about losing ranks far below
> most of the trash that comes out of your keyboard.
>
>>> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
>>> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
>>> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for
>>> silage, the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
>>
>> The difference, though, is those who eat beef or other meat don't make
>> claims of moral superiority.
>
> That's BS. I suppose you never came across old-school folks who give you a
> weird look when you tell them you don't eat meat. They're the first to
> tell you you should eat meat because it's "good for you". They're usually
> the same people who think that overweight looks normal or even healthy.
> Yeah, pass the biscuits and gravy...
======================
Comprehension impaired as always, eh killer? Where is any 'moral
superiority' in those statements?


>
>> The vegans do.
>
> You hijacked the thread to spew more of your anti-vegan hatred.
==================
Nope. All the hate comes from brainwashed, religion driven vegans...

>
>> Any plot growing corn will produce CDs whether the food is for human or
>> livestock consumption.
>
> Didn't I just say that?
>
>> Vegans are hypocrites for objecting only to the 1001st death, and the
>> counting game you're entering into is nothing but moral relativism --
>> NOT moral or ethical superiority. You've already lost the moment you
>> start playing the counting game because your diet causes CDs, too.
>
> Who's talking about "moral or ethical superiority"? Nobody else but YOU.
> The point was, assuming that the number of collateral deaths are constant
> for all corn production, then more corn produced for silage means more
> collateral deaths. It says nothing about "moral or ethical superiority"
> and does NOT admit to causing no collateral deaths. IIRC, Scented Nectar's
> original point was that that amount of corn produced for silage is MANY
> TIMES that which is produced for grain at a calorie-calorie equivalence of
> the end products, and that causes a proportionally greater number of
> collateral deaths. She is right.
==================
No, because she, like you, has never seemed to understand that there is *NO*
need to feed corn, or its by-products to cows. That little fact just too
much for your 2 remaining braincells to comprehend?



>
>>> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants
>>> to. Any little bit helps.
>>
>> She clearly knows a thing about compost and manure, what with all the
>> bullshit she's been throwing around this group.
>
> And your point is???
>
>>> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this
>>> newsgroup, which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the
>>> contestants.
>>
>> Guess which prize you win, pussy boy.
>
> Tell me, redneck.
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
>> So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
>> even less cds than I realized.
>
> Not at all, Skanky. You're the primary consumer of the corn. The silage is
> a byproduct of your consumption. You're still morally culpable --
> 100% -- for every CD occurring during the production of the corn.
>
>> Whatever cds the crop causes
>> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>
> As long as you eat the corn, and as long as you suggest it could be used
> to feed humans rather than animals, you're fully culpable for the CDs
> resulting from the corn production.
>
>> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>> for future years.
>
> Those "extra plant parts" are put to use in a variety of ways. Composting
> is but one way it's used. It's also put into cattle and turned into tasty,
> nutritious protein in the form of meat and dairy (which you still
> consume). It's not wasted, contrary to all your attempts to avoid moral
> culpability for the collateral deaths and casualties your consumption
> causes.
==================
She's totally clueless. She has no understanding of farming at all. She
hasn't figured out yet that organic also mean animal farming...



>
> <...>

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
>>>must be compared to veganic (I like that new
>>>word!) farming,
>>
>>It's not a word. And the irony is you're the one who invoked "peaceful
>>harvests" and wanted to compare it to feedlot-based grain-fed beef.
>
> Ok, how about your 'scrub beef'. Veganic still wins hands down.

Ipse dixit. Prove it.

>>>and when compared, the
>>>veganic wins as far as cds go.
>>
>>No, it doesn't. You and Rick live reasonably near each other, and make
>>for a good real-world contrast in different diets and philosophies.
>>
>>Your "vegan" diet relies on commercially-grown foods, all of which
>>result in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes machine-harvested rice which
>>results in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes tropical foods shipped in
>>from far away, which also results in CDs.
>>
>>Rick's diet is locally-produced and much less dependent on machine
>>harvesting. As a result, his food results in fewer CDs than yours. If
>>the counting game determines who's more ethical, Rick beats you easily
>>because you've already lost the moment you start counting.
>
> As I understand it,

You misunderstand it.

> veganic uses compassionate harvesting

How widespread are such agricultural practices outside of third-world
countries, dopey?

> An ideal diet is from such practices.

Then your diet isn't ideal, hypocrite.

> 0 cds.

Wrong. Greater than zero CDs.

>>>I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
>>>grow it myself,
>>
>>AHA. We finally get to your reality rather than your rhetoric. I
>>suppose it's pretty easy to talk of "peaceful harvests" when you don't
>>actually have one.
>
> The organic farms that supply my area are pretty good.

That's a cop out. How do you even know? You go to the store, you make
purchases, you go home, you cook. You've no clue about agricultural
practices, particularly given the fact that the fresh produce you're
buying this time of year is grown far, far away from you. Chances are
also pretty good that you're also buying commercially-grown organics the
rest of the year, too.

>>>but idealy I think it would be great to have
>>>a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.
>>
>>ALL your little food fantasies are Utopian delusions. You don't live
>>in an ideal world, you live in THIS one. Lay off the dope for a while so
>>you can afford to buy or lease land and see if you can live up to all
>>the sanctimonious, self-righteous bullshit you peddle. Until then,
>>Skanky, practice what you preach.
>
> Not delusions.

You're operating completely under delusions.

> More and more people are turning back to
> non-harmful, small scale farming.

I should play the Twilight Zone theme when I read your posts.

There's a little growth in such NICHE marketing, but the masses continue
to purchase their food as a matter of convenience. They tend to shop
according to price, not according to "non-harmful" (you clueless prat!)
farming. There's no such thing as "non-harmful" farming. Lay off the
dope for a few weeks and see if your cognitive functions return, jellyhead.

Vegan Zealot Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
>>>I think being vegan is best,
>>
>>Why?
>
> because it is

That's not a substantive answer. It's a vapid evasion.

>>>vegetarian in between,
>>
>>Why?
>
> because it is

That's not a substantive answer. It's a vapid evasion.

>>>and meat eating the worse.
>>
>>You mean worsT. Why?
>
> because it is

That's not a substantive answer. It's a vapid evasion.

> As a vegan yourself

Wrong assumption. I'm not a vegan.

> do you really question all this?

I question every single one of your false assumptions about veganism,
which you regurgitate straight from activists' propaganda.

>>>I see no hypocrasy.
>>
>>You can't spell it, either.
>
> Who cares.

That's not a substantive response. It's an evasion.

> Still none.

It's entirely hypocritical. You make absolute claims of morality and
ethics and then engage in a game of moral relativism (weighing CDs).
That's rank hypocrisy.

>>>>>Most of those recipes are older ones, except the chili and
>>>>>broth.
>>>>
>>>>What does their age have to do with anything?
>>>
>>>The more dairy based, the older it is, is
>>>what I'm saying. And don't ignore that some of
>>>my recipes are vegan.
>>
>>Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
>
> I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
> sites listed that would beg to differ.

Vegetarian recipe sites.

>>>>>Since I'm not 100% vegan yet, I guess I'm a
>>>>>vegan wannabe.
>>>>
>>>>No, you're vegetarian.
>>>
>>>No shit. What do call what you are by the way?
>>
>>Human.
>
> Foodwise, obviously.

I'm human, not food. I won't be food until I die.

>>>And what do you do when invited to a meat meal?
>>
>>If I'm free, I graciously accept invitations and then I find stuff I
>>can eat.
>
> And when they try to give you meat, what do you do?

I politely decline.

>>>Do you say, "I don't eat animal products but I'm
>>>not one of those ****ing vegans!!"?
>>
>>I don't identify myself according to food, and I'd never use my
>>personal tastes as a segue to preach to others about what they should or
>>shouldn't eat.
>
> I don't care if you preach. I just wonder what they think
> of you and your rather extreme diet.

I'm a very likablel person. I'm judged on my character and merits, not
on my diet. I'd be very disappointed in whomever judged me by what I put
in my mouth.

<...>
>>>>You're defending the vegan religion, but it's a futile endeavor.
>>>
>>>Enough with your phony religion crap. It's getting a
>>>bit tiring.
>>
>>You're the one who believes in and pushes the phony vegan religion.
>>
>> In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
>> totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
>> honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
>> encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
>> commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
>> the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
>> order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
>> ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
>> OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
>> TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
>> AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
>> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/veganliving.htm
>>
>>My emphasis above. It is a "philosophy" and "way of living." The
>>dictionary defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of
>>beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
>
> I thought you didn't believe facts posted on vegan sites.

There's a vast difference between a CLAIM (e.g., "veganism is healthier
than diets containing meat") and a FACT (e.g., who founded veganism and
why).

> Websters lists vegan as "Someone who eats no animal
> products at all.".

By your definition, then, *food* isn't vegan; people are. Note that it's
a noun. It's NOT used as an adjective.

m-w.com (Webster's online):
vegan
Pronunciation: 'vE-g&n also 'vA- also 've-j&n or -"jan
Function: *noun*
Etymology: by contraction from vegetarian
: a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products;
also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather)

> That's the definition I go by.

I helped provide you an historical context. I've also now provided you
with the complete definition from Webster's. Stop misusing words you
don't understand.

> Others can of course choose their own fave. You've got yours.

It's not about picking or choosing favorites, it's about what is the
historical meaning of what veganism is and what it includes; it's also
about what veganism is. It's a lifestyle, a system of beliefs -- just
like Catholicism or Wicca. It's not a *form of diet* -- that could be
settled by using the word vegetarian, which can be used as a noun or
adjective.

>>The tenets of veganism are held by ardor
>>and faith -- sanctimonious faith that NO animal suffered or died as a
>>result of one's activities, even though animals do suffer and die for
>>your food. Veganism actively seeks out converts (you yourself wished
>>everyone were vegan), and is intolerant of those who do not convert.
>>Veganism *is* a religion.
>
> Really?

Yes.

> Who's their leader?

Who's the leader of Islam?

> Who's their deity?

Who's the deity of Buddhism? Or do you not consider Buddhism a religion?

> Do they tithe 10% of their food to the church?

Ask vegans, not me.

> Where are these churches located?

It's a religion. Who said anything about churches?

> If they are religions then surely they have all got
> tax-free status?

Not all religions or religious organizations in the US receive
tax-exempt status.

> As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
> being vegan a religion.

Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.

Are you offended?

> It may be to some,

It is to all who follow it. That includes wannabes like you. You want to
follow it for all the same reasons the most zealous vegans do. Indeed,
your own zealotry comes through loud and clear.

> and that's their right,

I wouldn't infringe on any of their rights. One of my rights is the
right to tell them that they're misleading others and misled themselves.

> but it's not to all.

It is to you, zealot.

> Face it.

You need to face the fact that veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.
Veganism is religion.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
> You hijacked the thread

No, I started it.

rick etter wrote:
>>>So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
>>>even less cds than I realized.
>>
>>Not at all, Skanky. You're the primary consumer of the corn. The silage is
>>a byproduct of your consumption. You're still morally culpable --
>>100% -- for every CD occurring during the production of the corn.
>>
>>
>>>Whatever cds the crop causes
>>>it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>>
>>As long as you eat the corn, and as long as you suggest it could be used
>>to feed humans rather than animals, you're fully culpable for the CDs
>>resulting from the corn production.
>>
>>
>>>In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>>>extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>>>for future years.
>>
>>Those "extra plant parts" are put to use in a variety of ways. Composting
>>is but one way it's used. It's also put into cattle and turned into tasty,
>>nutritious protein in the form of meat and dairy (which you still
>>consume). It's not wasted, contrary to all your attempts to avoid moral
>>culpability for the collateral deaths and casualties your consumption
>>causes.
>
> ==================
> She's totally clueless. She has no understanding of farming at all. She
> hasn't figured out yet that organic also mean animal farming...

I know, and I crack up laughing every time she posts and shares a little
more about her licentious consuming habits. The funniest part is all the
mythical "peacefully harvested" stuff she doesn't grow herself, doesn't
buy herself, and has only *read about* on Utopian activist sites.
Meanwhile, she's running to the grocery store for tropical fruits like
plantains and buying rice from commercial growers like Lundberg. I've
nothing against the Lundbergs -- they grow great rice in California,
half a continent away from Skanky's digs in Toronto -- but they don't
engage in "peaceful harvesting" like Skanky Nectar, in her twisted
delusions, thinks is a "reasonable" option. Check out the nifty combine
on Lundberg's site. It's a CD-machine if there ever was one.
http://www.lundberg.com/farming/farming_home.html

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> rick etter wrote:
>>>>So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
>>>>even less cds than I realized.
>>>
>>>Not at all, Skanky. You're the primary consumer of the corn. The silage
>>>is a byproduct of your consumption. You're still morally culpable --
>>>100% -- for every CD occurring during the production of the corn.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Whatever cds the crop causes
>>>>it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>>>
>>>As long as you eat the corn, and as long as you suggest it could be used
>>>to feed humans rather than animals, you're fully culpable for the CDs
>>>resulting from the corn production.
>>>
>>>
>>>>In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>>>>extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>>>>for future years.
>>>
>>>Those "extra plant parts" are put to use in a variety of ways. Composting
>>>is but one way it's used. It's also put into cattle and turned into
>>>tasty, nutritious protein in the form of meat and dairy (which you still
>>>consume). It's not wasted, contrary to all your attempts to avoid moral
>>>culpability for the collateral deaths and casualties your consumption
>>>causes.
>>
>> ==================
>> She's totally clueless. She has no understanding of farming at all. She
>> hasn't figured out yet that organic also mean animal farming...
>
> I know, and I crack up laughing every time she posts and shares a little
> more about her licentious consuming habits. The funniest part is all the
> mythical "peacefully harvested" stuff she doesn't grow herself, doesn't
> buy herself, and has only *read about* on Utopian activist sites.
> Meanwhile, she's running to the grocery store for tropical fruits like
> plantains and buying rice from commercial growers like Lundberg. I've
> nothing against the Lundbergs -- they grow great rice in California, half
> a continent away from Skanky's digs in Toronto -- but they don't engage in
> "peaceful harvesting" like Skanky Nectar, in her twisted delusions, thinks
> is a "reasonable" option. Check out the nifty combine on Lundberg's site.
> It's a CD-machine if there ever was one.
> http://www.lundberg.com/farming/farming_home.html

From the way the loons used to brag about them, I'd have thought there would
be people acting as "beaters" out in front of the machine swishing away all
the fuzzy-wuzzies and carrying them to safety!

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
> > You hijacked the thread
>
> No, I started it.

You're the master of taking things out of context - "moving goalposts" as
you say. Yeah, you started it but you also conveniently hijacked your own
thread to serve your own vegan-Nazi purposes. I am assuming that, by
omission, you agree to everything I wrote in the last post. Good, you're
much more agreeable in submission.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:51:26 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Scented Nectar wrote:
[..]
>> As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>> being vegan a religion.
>
>Veganism is religion.

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

>Veganism is religion.

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

>Veganism is religion.

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

>Veganism is religion.

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

>Veganism is religion.

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

[..]

>Are you offended?

Yes. Your lies are offensive.

>> Face it.
>
>You need to face the fact that veganism is religion.

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

You're full of shit.

Retard wrote:

Stop shifting nyms, Cuckold Nash. You're *RETARD*. R-E-T-A-R-D.

>>>As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>>>being vegan a religion.
>>
>>Veganism is religion.
>
> "Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction.

I later admitted that *I* was the one off in the wrong direction on that
point, fat ****. I made the very same error Scented Nectar is now
making. Veganism is entirely religious. It has articles of faith (e.g.,
don't eat micrograms of animal parts), it's axiomatic (e.g., denying the
antecedent in "if I don't eat animals, animals don't die"), and it
zealously seeks out converts (e.g., Scented Nectar admits she wishes the
whole world were vegan). What's more, it shares the horrible,
misanthropic trait found in fundamentalist sects of major world
religions of an extreme intolerance for others who believe differently;
as documented last week, that intolerance includes wishing harm upon others:
We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
http://tinyurl.com/5m5ew

I hope you die slowly, and in excruciating pain from cancer or in a
house fire you worthless tramp for what you have just said. Just one
animals life is worth 10 of yours. Your wife is better off where
she is,
at least she doesn't have to live with YOU. I bet she would have
committed suicide anyway rather than put up with you. Please do
like her
and choke to death.
http://tinyurl.com/5lndg

I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
http://tinyurl.com/3jalp

Keep on eating that red meat, Dick Etter!
http://tinyurl.com/3vkss

So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal
right to run an office the way WE want. Well, then, that is good --
because I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters and
non-vegetarians.
http://tinyurl.com/4j4tm

<...>
>>Are you offended?
>
> Yes.

Good. It serves you right, fatso.

Candy-ass James Strutz wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>You hijacked the thread
>>
>>No, I started it.
>
> You're the master of taking things out of context - "moving goalposts" as
> you say.

There's been no goalpost move here. And I don't engage in logical
fallacies like that.

> Yeah, you started it

End of story. You're the one moving goalposts:

> but you also conveniently hijacked your own
> thread to serve your own vegan-Nazi purposes.

Perhaps you should pay closer attention. The thread was started to
discuss your wild-assed claims about ME. You and Scented Nectar took it
in another direction. You two are the hijackers. I'm still willing to
discuss your candy-assed attempts of impugning me and your refusal to
substantiate your claims.

> I am assuming

Remember Coach Buttermaker. You're the one refusing to let things drop
while calling me immature for doing the very thing you do. Your
hypocrisy is limitless, James.

> It's entirely hypocritical. You make absolute claims of morality and
> ethics and then engage in a game of moral relativism (weighing CDs).
> That's rank hypocrisy.

Whoa boy. You started the talk of cds. I merely proved that
the meat industry caused more of them than crops grown
for humans.

> Veganism is religion.
> Veganism is religion.
> Veganism is religion.
> Are you offended?

Did you miss taking one of your medications?




SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

rick etter wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>rick etter wrote:
>>
>>>>>So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
>>>>>even less cds than I realized.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all, Skanky. You're the primary consumer of the corn. The silage
>>>>is a byproduct of your consumption. You're still morally culpable --
>>>>100% -- for every CD occurring during the production of the corn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whatever cds the crop causes
>>>>>it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>>>>
>>>>As long as you eat the corn, and as long as you suggest it could be used
>>>>to feed humans rather than animals, you're fully culpable for the CDs
>>>>resulting from the corn production.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>>>>>extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>>>>>for future years.
>>>>
>>>>Those "extra plant parts" are put to use in a variety of ways. Composting
>>>>is but one way it's used. It's also put into cattle and turned into
>>>>tasty, nutritious protein in the form of meat and dairy (which you still
>>>>consume). It's not wasted, contrary to all your attempts to avoid moral
>>>>culpability for the collateral deaths and casualties your consumption
>>>>causes.
>>>
>>>==================
>>>She's totally clueless. She has no understanding of farming at all. She
>>>hasn't figured out yet that organic also mean animal farming...
>>
>>I know, and I crack up laughing every time she posts and shares a little
>>more about her licentious consuming habits. The funniest part is all the
>>mythical "peacefully harvested" stuff she doesn't grow herself, doesn't
>>buy herself, and has only *read about* on Utopian activist sites.
>>Meanwhile, she's running to the grocery store for tropical fruits like
>>plantains and buying rice from commercial growers like Lundberg. I've
>>nothing against the Lundbergs -- they grow great rice in California, half
>>a continent away from Skanky's digs in Toronto -- but they don't engage in
>>"peaceful harvesting" like Skanky Nectar, in her twisted delusions, thinks
>>is a "reasonable" option. Check out the nifty combine on Lundberg's site.
>>It's a CD-machine if there ever was one.
>>http://www.lundberg.com/farming/farming_home.html
>
> From the way the loons used to brag about them, I'd have thought there would
> be people acting as "beaters" out in front of the machine swishing away all
> the fuzzy-wuzzies and carrying them to safety!

I can see a bunch of vegan twits wearing PeTA saftey vests (synthetic
material, of course) out in a rice field clubbing the shit out of rats,
mice, snakes, and frogs and shouting "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" It would make
baby seal hunts look pretty tame by comparison.

rick etter wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>rick etter wrote:
>>
>>>>>So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
>>>>>even less cds than I realized.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all, Skanky. You're the primary consumer of the corn. The silage
>>>>is a byproduct of your consumption. You're still morally culpable --
>>>>100% -- for every CD occurring during the production of the corn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whatever cds the crop causes
>>>>>it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>>>>
>>>>As long as you eat the corn, and as long as you suggest it could be used
>>>>to feed humans rather than animals, you're fully culpable for the CDs
>>>>resulting from the corn production.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>>>>>extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>>>>>for future years.
>>>>
>>>>Those "extra plant parts" are put to use in a variety of ways. Composting
>>>>is but one way it's used. It's also put into cattle and turned into
>>>>tasty, nutritious protein in the form of meat and dairy (which you still
>>>>consume). It's not wasted, contrary to all your attempts to avoid moral
>>>>culpability for the collateral deaths and casualties your consumption
>>>>causes.
>>>
>>>==================
>>>She's totally clueless. She has no understanding of farming at all. She
>>>hasn't figured out yet that organic also mean animal farming...
>>
>>I know, and I crack up laughing every time she posts and shares a little
>>more about her licentious consuming habits. The funniest part is all the
>>mythical "peacefully harvested" stuff she doesn't grow herself, doesn't
>>buy herself, and has only *read about* on Utopian activist sites.
>>Meanwhile, she's running to the grocery store for tropical fruits like
>>plantains and buying rice from commercial growers like Lundberg. I've
>>nothing against the Lundbergs -- they grow great rice in California, half
>>a continent away from Skanky's digs in Toronto -- but they don't engage in
>>"peaceful harvesting" like Skanky Nectar, in her twisted delusions, thinks
>>is a "reasonable" option. Check out the nifty combine on Lundberg's site.
>>It's a CD-machine if there ever was one.
>>http://www.lundberg.com/farming/farming_home.html
>
> From the way the loons used to brag about them, I'd have thought there would
> be people acting as "beaters" out in front of the machine swishing away all
> the fuzzy-wuzzies and carrying them to safety!

I can see a bunch of vegan twits wearing PeTA saftey vests (synthetic
material, of course) out in a rice field clubbing the shit out of rats,
mice, snakes, and frogs and shouting "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" It would make
baby seal hunts look pretty tame by comparison.

> >> > I think being vegan is best,
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > because it is
> =================
> Then it should be easy for you to prove, eh killer? Why hasn't that
proof
> ever shown up?

I'm guessing that your braincell is missing
a doorbell.

> >> Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
> >
> > I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
> > sites listed that would beg to differ.
> ================
> No, fool, again, the diet is vegetarian.

A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
it?


> > I thought you didn't believe facts posted on vegan sites.
> > Websters lists vegan as "Someone who eats no animal
> > products at all.". That's the definition I go by. Others
> > can of course choose their own fave. You've got yours.
> ====================
> I posted the real webster's site for you, fool. Try reading where you
> posted from.

I posted the definition from Websters:
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/

I don't care if you disagree.

> > As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
> > being vegan a religion. It may be to some, and
> > that's their right, but it's not to all. Face it.
> =====================
> It's all based on faith fool. And you have proven that by not being
able to
> prove any of your ignorant claims. All you have is faith in a simple
rule
> for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' It's a religion, period.

Face it, not all vegans consider it a religion. Some consider
it a lifestyle, some a diet, and mayyybbeee some a religion.
But show me where a dictionary defines vegan as a
religion.



SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:11:06 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>
>>>>As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>>>>being vegan a religion.
>>>
>>>Veganism is religion.
>>
>> "Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction.
>
>I later admitted that *I* was the one off in the wrong direction on that
>point

You did nothing of the kind. You told Bart he was off in
the wrong direction when he tried to compare veganism
to a religion, and then went on to state that "Veganism is
not a religion.."

[start - Bart to you]
> If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
[you]
Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is
not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people...
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

But now you're trying to assert that it is a religion. When
are you going to stop lying?

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:43:17 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> It's entirely hypocritical. You make absolute claims of morality and
>> ethics and then engage in a game of moral relativism (weighing CDs).
>> That's rank hypocrisy.
>
>Whoa boy. You started the talk of cds. I merely proved that
>the meat industry caused more of them than crops grown
>for humans.
>
>> Veganism is religion.
>> Veganism is religion.
>> Veganism is religion.
>> Are you offended?
>
>Did you miss taking one of your medications?

He's lying to you, as usual. He never stays put on any
issue raised here, and then lies to get himself out of
trouble. He categorically insisted that a poster going by
the name Bart was off in the wrong direction when he
tried to compare veganism to a religion, and then went
on to state that "Veganism is not a religion.."

[start - Bart to usual suspect]
> If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
[usual suspect]
Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is
not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people...
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

usual suspect will always lie when he thinks he can get
away with it.

> He's lying to you, as usual.

Pun intended? )

> He never stays put on any
> issue raised here, and then lies to get himself out of
> trouble. He categorically insisted that a poster going by
> the name Bart was off in the wrong direction when he
> tried to compare veganism to a religion, and then went
> on to state that "Veganism is not a religion.."

His contradictory ways have convinced me
he has more than one brain cell. There's
two of them and they fight with each other!

> [start - Bart to usual suspect]
> > If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> > it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
> [usual suspect]
> Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is
> not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people...
> [end]
> usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8
>
> usual suspect will always lie when he thinks he can get
> away with it.

I'm seeing that more and more. I wonder if
he hates himself or something.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> > I think being vegan is best,
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > because it is
>> =================
>> Then it should be easy for you to prove, eh killer? Why hasn't that
> proof
>> ever shown up?
>
> I'm guessing that your braincell is missing
> a doorbell.
=======================
Nice dodge, killer. That's the place where you should have posted your
proof. Oh, wait, you don't have any! Nevermind....


>
>> >> Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
>> >
>> > I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
>> > sites listed that would beg to differ.
>> ================
>> No, fool, again, the diet is vegetarian.
>
> A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
> vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
> it?
===========================
Very good! You're almost there fool! But, as stated, the diet is
vegetarian, the person is vegan. Do try to learn what you're spewing about
before making yourself look stupid. Oops, too late....


>
>
>> > I thought you didn't believe facts posted on vegan sites.
>> > Websters lists vegan as "Someone who eats no animal
>> > products at all.". That's the definition I go by. Others
>> > can of course choose their own fave. You've got yours.
>> ====================
>> I posted the real webster's site for you, fool. Try reading where you
>> posted from.
>
> I posted the definition from Websters:
> http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/
====================
You will never learn, will you? Again, try checking out your sources before
you spew your ignorance, killer.

from your website...
"...In no way (other than a common lexicographical heritage) is this project
related to dictionaries bearing the trademark or name "Merriam-Webster"
(Merriam-Webster, Inc.). According to Merriam-Webster, Inc.
"Merriam-Webster products are backed by over 150 years of accumulated
knowledge and experience. The Merriam-Webster name is your assurance that a
reference work carries the quality and authority of a company that has been
publishing since 1831." For more information of Merriam-Webster dictionaries
click here...."


Plus, the word 'vegan' in your site isn't a "websters" definition, since the
edition they are using was 1913... Their definition comes from a project
called wordnet 1.7.1


Also from your page, fool, which you apparently didn't read, is this little
gem...

"...There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular vegan
author Joanne Stepaniak writes that the term "dietary vegan" is
inappropriate because veganism is by definition about helping 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..."



You really are just too stupid for this, aren't you. Or, is the mission in
your life just to give everybody else a great belly-laugh everytime you post
something?





> I don't care if you disagree
=======================
Of course you don't. That's what makes you so terminally ignorant. Afraid
to learn the truth behind the religious curtain of veganism....


>
>> > As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>> > being vegan a religion. It may be to some, and
>> > that's their right, but it's not to all. Face it.
>> =====================
>> It's all based on faith fool. And you have proven that by not being
> able to
>> prove any of your ignorant claims. All you have is faith in a simple
> rule
>> for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' It's a religion, period.
>
> Face it, not all vegans consider it a religion. Some consider
> it a lifestyle, some a diet, and mayyybbeee some a religion.
> But show me where a dictionary defines vegan as a
> religion.
>
>
>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy rum amok...
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> > I think being vegan is best,
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > because it is
>> =================
>> Then it should be easy for you to prove, eh killer? Why hasn't that
> proof
>> ever shown up?
>
> I'm guessing that your braincell is missing
> a doorbell.
=======================
Nice dodge, killer. That's the place where you should have posted your
proof. Oh, wait, you don't have any! Nevermind....


>
>> >> Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
>> >
>> > I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
>> > sites listed that would beg to differ.
>> ================
>> No, fool, again, the diet is vegetarian.
>
> A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
> vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
> it?
===========================
Very good! You're almost there fool! But, as stated, the diet is
vegetarian, the person is vegan. Do try to learn what you're spewing about
before making yourself look stupid. Oops, too late....


>
>
>> > I thought you didn't believe facts posted on vegan sites.
>> > Websters lists vegan as "Someone who eats no animal
>> > products at all.". That's the definition I go by. Others
>> > can of course choose their own fave. You've got yours.
>> ====================
>> I posted the real webster's site for you, fool. Try reading where you
>> posted from.
>
> I posted the definition from Websters:
> http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/
====================
You will never learn, will you? Again, try checking out your sources before
you spew your ignorance, killer.

from your website...
"...In no way (other than a common lexicographical heritage) is this project
related to dictionaries bearing the trademark or name "Merriam-Webster"
(Merriam-Webster, Inc.). According to Merriam-Webster, Inc.
"Merriam-Webster products are backed by over 150 years of accumulated
knowledge and experience. The Merriam-Webster name is your assurance that a
reference work carries the quality and authority of a company that has been
publishing since 1831." For more information of Merriam-Webster dictionaries
click here...."


Plus, the word 'vegan' in your site isn't a "websters" definition, since the
edition they are using was 1913... Their definition comes from a project
called wordnet 1.7.1


Also from your page, fool, which you apparently didn't read, is this little
gem...

"...There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular vegan
author Joanne Stepaniak writes that the term "dietary vegan" is
inappropriate because veganism is by definition about helping 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..."



You really are just too stupid for this, aren't you. Or, is the mission in
your life just to give everybody else a great belly-laugh everytime you post
something?





> I don't care if you disagree
=======================
Of course you don't. That's what makes you so terminally ignorant. Afraid
to learn the truth behind the religious curtain of veganism....


>
>> > As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>> > being vegan a religion. It may be to some, and
>> > that's their right, but it's not to all. Face it.
>> =====================
>> It's all based on faith fool. And you have proven that by not being
> able to
>> prove any of your ignorant claims. All you have is faith in a simple
> rule
>> for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' It's a religion, period.
>
> Face it, not all vegans consider it a religion. Some consider
> it a lifestyle, some a diet, and mayyybbeee some a religion.
> But show me where a dictionary defines vegan as a
> religion.
>
>
>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy rum amok...
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> It's entirely hypocritical. You make absolute claims of morality and
>> ethics and then engage in a game of moral relativism (weighing CDs).
>> That's rank hypocrisy.
>
> Whoa boy. You started the talk of cds. I merely proved that
> the meat industry caused more of them than crops grown
> for humans.
======================
No, you haven't fool. In fact, just the opposite has been shown, especially
since you eat a supermart diet of processed, imported crops.


>
>> Veganism is religion.
>> Veganism is religion.
>> Veganism is religion.
>> Are you offended?
>
> Did you miss taking one of your medications?
>
>
>
>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy rum amok...
>

> >> >> Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
> >> >
> >> > I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
> >> > sites listed that would beg to differ.
> >> ================
> >> No, fool, again, the diet is vegetarian.
> >
> > A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
> > vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
> > it?
> ===========================
> Very good! You're almost there fool! But, as stated, the diet is
> vegetarian, the person is vegan. Do try to learn what you're spewing
about
> before making yourself look stupid. Oops, too late....

I'm basing my definition on 3 things. 1.The link
to the dictionary I provided. 2.The many, many
recipe sites that use the word vegan as an
adjective for their recipe collections. 3. People
I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
no animal products whatsoever in the food.

> "...There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular
vegan
> author Joanne Stepaniak writes that the term "dietary vegan" is
> inappropriate because veganism is by definition about helping 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..."

Still no mention of religion, I notice.
Hmmm, they are giving an example of one definition
that being one from a current person who happens to
be vegan. You say my online dictionary used a 1913
definition. Has the definition changed? Seemingly
to read stuff here. Do I really care much? No.

> You really are just too stupid for this, aren't you. Or, is the
mission in
> your life just to give everybody else a great belly-laugh everytime
you post
> something?

I'm glad you liked my doorbell joke.

> > I don't care if you disagree
> =======================
> Of course you don't. That's what makes you so terminally ignorant.
Afraid
> to learn the truth behind the religious curtain of veganism....

So far no one has tried talking me into joining
any religion here. Are you sure it's not all in your mind?



SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> > Whoa boy. You started the talk of cds. I merely proved that
> > the meat industry caused more of them than crops grown
> > for humans.
> ======================
> No, you haven't fool. In fact, just the opposite has been shown,
especially
> since you eat a supermart diet of processed, imported crops.

The meat industry as a whole causes more cds
than food grown for humans as a whole. The
proof's been explained to you too many times to count.


SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:06:10 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> He's lying to you, as usual.
>
>Pun intended? )

More than that, actually. 'usual suspect' is a method writer,
similar to a method actor who makes the part he's given
his own, so when I write, 'He's lying to you, as usual', I
really do mean that he's lying to you in the role he's been
given to play by Jonathan Ball: the current 'usual suspect'.
You'll even see him use the exact same insults Jon uses
as well, since becoming his water boy.

>> He never stays put on any
>> issue raised here, and then lies to get himself out of
>> trouble. He categorically insisted that a poster going by
>> the name Bart was off in the wrong direction when he
>> tried to compare veganism to a religion, and then went
>> on to state that "Veganism is not a religion.."
>
>His contradictory ways have convinced me
>he has more than one brain cell. There's
>two of them and they fight with each other!

Flop about one another, more like. The problem for him
now, is that because he realises you're aware of his ever-
changing stance on all these issues raised here, he also
knows that his current opinion must mean as little to his
opponents as his older one did.

>> [start - Bart to usual suspect]
>> > If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
>> > it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
>> [usual suspect]
>> Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is
>> not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people...
>> [end]
>> usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8
>>
>> usual suspect will always lie when he thinks he can get
>> away with it.
>
>I'm seeing that more and more. I wonder if
>he hates himself or something.

Both.

Skanky Nectar wrote:
>>It's entirely hypocritical. You make absolute claims of morality and
>>ethics and then engage in a game of moral relativism (weighing CDs).
>>That's rank hypocrisy.
>
> Whoa boy.

Don't you EVER call me boy.

> You started the talk of cds. I merely proved

No, you merely SAID. You *didn't* prove one thing.

> that the meat industry caused more of them than crops grown
> for humans.

Ipse dixit. You've not met the threshold for proving any of your claims.

>>Veganism is religion.

And you're a "holy roller" in it.

Skanky Nectar wrote:
>>It's entirely hypocritical. You make absolute claims of morality and
>>ethics and then engage in a game of moral relativism (weighing CDs).
>>That's rank hypocrisy.
>
> Whoa boy.

Don't you EVER call me boy.

> You started the talk of cds. I merely proved

No, you merely SAID. You *didn't* prove one thing.

> that the meat industry caused more of them than crops grown
> for humans.

Ipse dixit. You've not met the threshold for proving any of your claims.

>>Veganism is religion.

And you're a "holy roller" in it.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > Whoa boy. You started the talk of cds. I merely proved that
>> > the meat industry caused more of them than crops grown
>> > for humans.
>> ======================
>> No, you haven't fool. In fact, just the opposite has been shown,
> especially
>> since you eat a supermart diet of processed, imported crops.
>
> The meat industry as a whole causes more cds
> than food grown for humans as a whole. The
> proof's been explained to you too many times to count.
> ========================
You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we are
discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you seem to be able
to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so I don't have
to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial to *your*
stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you can't prove
that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims about
everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are doing and
what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't do that,
thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd of others,
and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your concern, you'd
do what *you* can first.


>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.
>
>

Again, dishonest loser, why do you continue to snip posts up without
indicating those snips? Don'yt like the rtuth, and trying to weasel out of
it?



"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> >> Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
>> >> > sites listed that would beg to differ.
>> >> ================
>> >> No, fool, again, the diet is vegetarian.
>> >
>> > A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
>> > vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
>> > it?
>> ===========================
>> Very good! You're almost there fool! But, as stated, the diet is
>> vegetarian, the person is vegan. Do try to learn what you're spewing
> about
>> before making yourself look stupid. Oops, too late....
>
> I'm basing my definition on 3 things. 1.The link
> to the dictionary I provided.
=================
Which was written 40 years before the word was invented. It's not a
websters definition, dolt. Can't you read? They give a cite from wordnet
1.7.1.
Try the real websters site for a change. The site you posted even says they
are *NOT* associated with the real websters people. Man, you are just too,
too stupid...


2.The many, many
> recipe sites that use the word vegan as an
> adjective for their recipe collections.
=================
Lazy people that want a 'word' that makes them 'feel' good without having to
live up to the real meaning.

3. People
> I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
> as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
> no animal products whatsoever in the food.
================
Again, you can pretend anything you want, but no matter how many adjectives
you put in front of vegetarian, whenever you add an animal product, you are
no longer vegetarian.


>
>> "...There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular
> vegan
>> author Joanne Stepaniak writes that the term "dietary vegan" is
>> inappropriate because veganism is by definition about helping 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..."
>
> Still no mention of religion, I notice.
====================
Then you are blind, or do I have to read the whole page to you? When the
meaning starts adding philosophy and ethics, rights for 'all beings', you're
getting into religion. And then, when you start comparing it to other
religions, then your goose is cooked. (pun intended)


> Hmmm, they are giving an example of one definition
> that being one from a current person who happens to
> be vegan. You say my online dictionary used a 1913
> definition. Has the definition changed?
======================
No, fool. There was no word 'vegan' in 1913! That's why using a 1913
version is as stupid as the rest of your posts. It wasn't a word until
1944, and the guy who made up the wrod gave it a specific meaning. That you
and a bunch of lazy animal killers want to co-opt the meaning because you
can't be bothered with living up to the real meaning just proves how
hypocritical you are.



Seemingly
> to read stuff here. Do I really care much? No.
>
>> You really are just too stupid for this, aren't you. Or, is the
> mission in
>> your life just to give everybody else a great belly-laugh everytime
> you post
>> something?
>
> I'm glad you liked my doorbell joke.
>
>> > I don't care if you disagree
>> =======================
>> Of course you don't. That's what makes you so terminally ignorant.
> Afraid
>> to learn the truth behind the religious curtain of veganism....
>
> So far no one has tried talking me into joining
> any religion here. Are you sure it's not all in your mind?
=================
LOL You're spewing the religion you ignorant loon! Every ignorant word
you post is right out the the religion.


>
>
>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy rum amok...
>
>

Again, dishonest loser, why do you continue to snip posts up without
indicating those snips? Don'yt like the rtuth, and trying to weasel out of
it?



"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> >> Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
>> >> > sites listed that would beg to differ.
>> >> ================
>> >> No, fool, again, the diet is vegetarian.
>> >
>> > A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
>> > vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
>> > it?
>> ===========================
>> Very good! You're almost there fool! But, as stated, the diet is
>> vegetarian, the person is vegan. Do try to learn what you're spewing
> about
>> before making yourself look stupid. Oops, too late....
>
> I'm basing my definition on 3 things. 1.The link
> to the dictionary I provided.
=================
Which was written 40 years before the word was invented. It's not a
websters definition, dolt. Can't you read? They give a cite from wordnet
1.7.1.
Try the real websters site for a change. The site you posted even says they
are *NOT* associated with the real websters people. Man, you are just too,
too stupid...


2.The many, many
> recipe sites that use the word vegan as an
> adjective for their recipe collections.
=================
Lazy people that want a 'word' that makes them 'feel' good without having to
live up to the real meaning.

3. People
> I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
> as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
> no animal products whatsoever in the food.
================
Again, you can pretend anything you want, but no matter how many adjectives
you put in front of vegetarian, whenever you add an animal product, you are
no longer vegetarian.


>
>> "...There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular
> vegan
>> author Joanne Stepaniak writes that the term "dietary vegan" is
>> inappropriate because veganism is by definition about helping 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..."
>
> Still no mention of religion, I notice.
====================
Then you are blind, or do I have to read the whole page to you? When the
meaning starts adding philosophy and ethics, rights for 'all beings', you're
getting into religion. And then, when you start comparing it to other
religions, then your goose is cooked. (pun intended)


> Hmmm, they are giving an example of one definition
> that being one from a current person who happens to
> be vegan. You say my online dictionary used a 1913
> definition. Has the definition changed?
======================
No, fool. There was no word 'vegan' in 1913! That's why using a 1913
version is as stupid as the rest of your posts. It wasn't a word until
1944, and the guy who made up the wrod gave it a specific meaning. That you
and a bunch of lazy animal killers want to co-opt the meaning because you
can't be bothered with living up to the real meaning just proves how
hypocritical you are.



Seemingly
> to read stuff here. Do I really care much? No.
>
>> You really are just too stupid for this, aren't you. Or, is the
> mission in
>> your life just to give everybody else a great belly-laugh everytime
> you post
>> something?
>
> I'm glad you liked my doorbell joke.
>
>> > I don't care if you disagree
>> =======================
>> Of course you don't. That's what makes you so terminally ignorant.
> Afraid
>> to learn the truth behind the religious curtain of veganism....
>
> So far no one has tried talking me into joining
> any religion here. Are you sure it's not all in your mind?
=================
LOL You're spewing the religion you ignorant loon! Every ignorant word
you post is right out the the religion.


>
>
>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy rum amok...
>
>

Skanky Nectar wrote:
<...>
> I'm guessing that your braincell is missing
> a doorbell.

Pretty rich coming from such a jellyhead.

<...>
> A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
> vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
> it?

Did you bother reading the page for "vegan" in your own source?

<...>
> I posted

PART OF

> the definition from Websters:
> http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/

Read further down the page, dummy:
There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping 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

As a lawyer might say when the other side's witness assists his own
case, YOUR WITNESS.

> I don't care if you disagree.

IOW, you don't care that you're wrong.

<...>
> Face it, not all vegans consider it a religion.

Irrelevant. Not all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains,
or Wiccans consider themselves part of a religion, either. The issue is
whether or not it fits the definition. A religion is an organized belief
system based on certain tenets of faith; a personal set or
institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices;
scrupulous conformity; or a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held
to with ardor and faith. Veganism fits every single aspect of those
definitions.

Veganism is an organized system based on certain tenets of faith, it
makes ethical judgments about various activities, its adherents
stubbornly refuse to question vegan dogma, its adherents seek out
converts, etc. Vegans even fall into a similar kind of group think/group
speak (code words, e.g., speaking of meat eaters in certain ways) as
Christians do.

> Some consider it a lifestyle, some a diet, and mayyybbeee some a religion.

They don't get to define it as something it isn't. Veganism fits into
the category of religion regardless of what its true believer want to
call it. Call it a philosophy instead -- I know many Buddhists who
resent being called "religious" and prefer "philosophical." Either way,
veganism is a very rigid and doctrinaire belief system.

> But show me where a dictionary defines vegan as a
> religion.

Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
call it a religion.

the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
and other "New Age" phenomena
http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm

I can also show you vegans who debate the issue:
http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

Skanky Nectar wrote:
<...>
> I'm guessing that your braincell is missing
> a doorbell.

Pretty rich coming from such a jellyhead.

<...>
> A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
> vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
> it?

Did you bother reading the page for "vegan" in your own source?

<...>
> I posted

PART OF

> the definition from Websters:
> http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/

Read further down the page, dummy:
There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping 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

As a lawyer might say when the other side's witness assists his own
case, YOUR WITNESS.

> I don't care if you disagree.

IOW, you don't care that you're wrong.

<...>
> Face it, not all vegans consider it a religion.

Irrelevant. Not all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains,
or Wiccans consider themselves part of a religion, either. The issue is
whether or not it fits the definition. A religion is an organized belief
system based on certain tenets of faith; a personal set or
institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices;
scrupulous conformity; or a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held
to with ardor and faith. Veganism fits every single aspect of those
definitions.

Veganism is an organized system based on certain tenets of faith, it
makes ethical judgments about various activities, its adherents
stubbornly refuse to question vegan dogma, its adherents seek out
converts, etc. Vegans even fall into a similar kind of group think/group
speak (code words, e.g., speaking of meat eaters in certain ways) as
Christians do.

> Some consider it a lifestyle, some a diet, and mayyybbeee some a religion.

They don't get to define it as something it isn't. Veganism fits into
the category of religion regardless of what its true believer want to
call it. Call it a philosophy instead -- I know many Buddhists who
resent being called "religious" and prefer "philosophical." Either way,
veganism is a very rigid and doctrinaire belief system.

> But show me where a dictionary defines vegan as a
> religion.

Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
call it a religion.

the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
and other "New Age" phenomena
http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm

I can also show you vegans who debate the issue:
http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

Retard wrote:

Stop shifting nyms. It's RETARD. R-E-T-A-R-D.

>>>>>As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>>>>>being vegan a religion.
>>>>
>>>>Veganism is religion.
>>>
>>>"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction.
>>
>>I later admitted that *I* was the one off in the wrong direction on that
>>point
>
> You did nothing of the kind.

I did so when I stopped carrying water for vegans, fatso.

Skanky Cankles wrote:
<...>
> His contradictory ways

Have you started counting your own contradictory ways yet, hypocrite?
Shall I make a list?

1. Favors "peaceful harvests" in theory, but purchases machine-harvested
foods like rice despite rampant CDs.
2. Makes broad generalizations so she can compare apples to oranges.
3. Writes glowingly of eating hempseeds for their omega-6 FAs, even
though those are the FAs she already gets enough of from the rest of her
diet; avoids foods rich in omega-3 FAs, which she needs to balance out
her abundant intake of omega-6s, because those food include parts of
dead animals.
4. Consumes organics despite the fact that organic crops often receive
2-7x the amount of the same pesticides (natural versions, though)
conventional crops receive.
5. Writes about local farms, yet purchases foods shipped in from other
continents despite the fact that those crops, and transporting them by
ship and plane, cause ecological damage, CDs, etc.

Shall I continue, nitwit?

<...>

Skanky Cankles wrote:
<...>
> His contradictory ways

Have you started counting your own contradictory ways yet, hypocrite?
Shall I make a list?

1. Favors "peaceful harvests" in theory, but purchases machine-harvested
foods like rice despite rampant CDs.
2. Makes broad generalizations so she can compare apples to oranges.
3. Writes glowingly of eating hempseeds for their omega-6 FAs, even
though those are the FAs she already gets enough of from the rest of her
diet; avoids foods rich in omega-3 FAs, which she needs to balance out
her abundant intake of omega-6s, because those food include parts of
dead animals.
4. Consumes organics despite the fact that organic crops often receive
2-7x the amount of the same pesticides (natural versions, though)
conventional crops receive.
5. Writes about local farms, yet purchases foods shipped in from other
continents despite the fact that those crops, and transporting them by
ship and plane, cause ecological damage, CDs, etc.

Shall I continue, nitwit?

<...>

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Again, dishonest loser, why do you continue to snip posts up without
> indicating those snips? Don'yt like the rtuth, and trying to weasel
out of
> it?

I'll snip however I like. Don't expect me to
respond to EVERY silly thing you write. It
get tiring trying to explain simple facts to you.

> Try the real websters site for a change. The site you posted even
says they
> are *NOT* associated with the real websters people. Man, you are just
too,
> too stupid...

No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
and you'll just have to live with that.

> 2.The many, many
> > recipe sites that use the word vegan as an
> > adjective for their recipe collections.
> =================
> Lazy people that want a 'word' that makes them 'feel' good without
having to
> live up to the real meaning.

Oh really? You know all of these hundreds of people
personally and find them lazy? Your talk of 'real
meaning' and words that make them feel good
sounds kind of nuts.

> 3. People
> > I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
> > as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
> > no animal products whatsoever in the food.
> ================
> Again, you can pretend anything you want, but no matter how many
adjectives
> you put in front of vegetarian, whenever you add an animal product,
you are
> no longer vegetarian.

I have lacto friends who would disagree with you
and you know what? WHO THE **** CARES.

> > Still no mention of religion, I notice.
> ====================
> Then you are blind, or do I have to read the whole page to you? When
the
> meaning starts adding philosophy and ethics, rights for 'all beings',
you're
> getting into religion. And then, when you start comparing it to other
> religions, then your goose is cooked. (pun intended)

Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.

> It wasn't a word until
> 1944, and the guy who made up the wrod gave it a specific meaning.
That you
> and a bunch of lazy animal killers want to co-opt the meaning because
you
> can't be bothered with living up to the real meaning just proves how
> hypocritical you are.

Quote the 1944 meaning. Does it say that veganism
is a religion?

> > So far no one has tried talking me into joining
> > any religion here. Are you sure it's not all in your mind?
> =================
> LOL You're spewing the religion you ignorant loon! Every ignorant
word
> you post is right out the the religion.


Who's the deity/deities?

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we are
> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you seem to
be able
> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so I
don't have
> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial to
*your*
> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you can't
prove
> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims about
> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are doing
and
> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't do
that,
> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd of
others,
> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your concern,
you'd
> do what *you* can first.

You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
me and what I'm doing.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> > Whoa boy.
>
> Don't you EVER call me boy.

Boy oh boy, did I hit a sensitive spot? Boy, I'll have
to watch out for that.

> >>Veganism is religion.
>
> And you're a "holy roller" in it.

Uh huh, shall I calleth myself Sacred Nectar?




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

Skanky Cankles wrote:
>>>>>>Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
>>>>>sites listed that would beg to differ.
>>>>
>>>>================
>>>>No, fool, again, the diet is vegetarian.
>>>
>>>A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
>>>vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
>>>it?
>>
>>===========================
>>Very good! You're almost there fool! But, as stated, the diet is
>>vegetarian, the person is vegan. Do try to learn what you're spewing
>>about before making yourself look stupid. Oops, too late....
>
> I'm basing my definition on 3 things. 1.The link
> to the dictionary I provided.

That link says:
There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping 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

Your own source debunks you. Hahahaha!

> 2.The many, many recipe sites that use the word vegan as an
> adjective for their recipe collections.

The same way people from other religions name their recipe collections?
http://tinyurl.com/4w622

> 3. People I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
> as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
> no animal products whatsoever in the food.

That's irrelevant. "Vegetarian" has broad (encompassing all non-meat
foods) and narrow definitions (lacto-ovo, etc.). If the standard is
people we know IRL, then "vegetarian" will usually include diets
containing poultry and seafood since MOST people think of abstinence
from red meat only. Fortunately, the standard isn't colloquial misuse of
words, whether we're discussing vegetarianism or veganism.

<...>
> Still no mention of religion, I notice.

Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
call it a religion.

the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
and other "New Age" phenomena
http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm

I can also show you vegans who debate the issue:
http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

<...>
> So far no one has tried talking me into joining
> any religion here. Are you sure it's not all in your mind?

Better question: how many people have you tried to convert to veganism?

Skanky Cankles wrote:
>>>>>>Recipes aren't vegan. People are.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have dozens and dozens of vegan recipe
>>>>>sites listed that would beg to differ.
>>>>
>>>>================
>>>>No, fool, again, the diet is vegetarian.
>>>
>>>A vegan is always a vegetarian, but a
>>>vegetarian is not always a vegan. Get
>>>it?
>>
>>===========================
>>Very good! You're almost there fool! But, as stated, the diet is
>>vegetarian, the person is vegan. Do try to learn what you're spewing
>>about before making yourself look stupid. Oops, too late....
>
> I'm basing my definition on 3 things. 1.The link
> to the dictionary I provided.

That link says:
There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." 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. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping 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

Your own source debunks you. Hahahaha!

> 2.The many, many recipe sites that use the word vegan as an
> adjective for their recipe collections.

The same way people from other religions name their recipe collections?
http://tinyurl.com/4w622

> 3. People I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
> as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
> no animal products whatsoever in the food.

That's irrelevant. "Vegetarian" has broad (encompassing all non-meat
foods) and narrow definitions (lacto-ovo, etc.). If the standard is
people we know IRL, then "vegetarian" will usually include diets
containing poultry and seafood since MOST people think of abstinence
from red meat only. Fortunately, the standard isn't colloquial misuse of
words, whether we're discussing vegetarianism or veganism.

<...>
> Still no mention of religion, I notice.

Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
call it a religion.

the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
and other "New Age" phenomena
http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm

I can also show you vegans who debate the issue:
http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

<...>
> So far no one has tried talking me into joining
> any religion here. Are you sure it's not all in your mind?

Better question: how many people have you tried to convert to veganism?