::::Actually, anyone reading this will see clearly that it is you who is getting "huffy" and needs to chill out.  Relax.  Anyway, I'm not gonna go all the way to the right side of the page with you on this, but I am gonna correct you point by point one more time, as you happen to wrong on every single count.  Not EVERYTHING fits into "neat little categories" (again you're choosing your words so as to make things sound like some elitist conspiracy againt you when in fact they are not), but SOME things do (a fact of life I thought everyone was aware of.  Evidently I was mistaken.)  "Oh my god, someone just denied that Conor is an astronaut, they must be anal-retentive and think that everything in life fits into neat little categories!  Fuckin' elistist bicthes."  See how useful that analogy is?  It works not only as a counter to your denial of simple facts but also to your tendency toward fallacious arguments.  For your next point you accuse me of presuming that you're a fish eater who would like to be known as a vegetarian.  What a crazy presumption for me to make when just a few sentences later you admit it yourself, referring to "the apparently un-vegetarian like behaviors of people such as myself and Mr. Oberst."  I didn't make a presumption, I made a completely reasonable deductionone that you then confirmed to be true.  As for my analogy which is in no way flawed, I like the way you evaded explaining what you would like to pretend is flawed about it.  People reading this are totally gonna fall for that!  Nice work.  As for a new term for people who only eat certain animals (I was unaware that fish were the niggers of the animal kingdom.  What are they, three fifths animal?), how about "picky carnivore."  Or you can think of your own, as you're the one who seems to think that as a fish eater you deserve your own little fantasy cateogry in which fish apparently aren't animals.  Until then, and forever after then, you are NOT a vegetarian.