From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Vegan dilemma concerning pancreatic enzymes.
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:38:16 GMT

 
Ted Altar wrote to George Clark:
>>But neither Anne Nield, nor myself, nor Michael Traub deserve to be
>>derisively insulted for our efforts.
 
Steve Dyer interjects:
>Disagreement is insult, I see.
 
Apparently, Steve, you don't see or are not willing to discern
some facts.  For instance, Anne in reponse to YOUR question politely 
listed some benefits she personally experienced with her fasting/
cleansing program and you then responded with the rude sarcasm, 
"This is either a description of an expensive cosmetic or a 
religious conversion".  Later, you plagerize a line from Thomas 
Grey imputing that Anne is "ignorant".  This is what I mean by 
insults.  This goes far beyond civil and rational disagreement.
 
 
 
>>In any case, Anne Nield has here been shabbily treated for her
>>honest posting, and I would hope that you might consider
>>apologizing to her.  I don't expect this from Steve Dyer
 
>Insult, insult, insult! :-\
 
You protest to much!
 
Note, in the above I don't call any names, nor was I derisive or
sarcastic, nor did I imput any invidious attribution about 
your intelligence, motivation or person.  Instead, I simply reported 
MY expectation, my PREDICTION, which I sincerely hope you would
disconfirm.
 
Sincerely, I welcome you to here prove my prediction wrong.  
I really don't care to be right about such things.
 
 
 
>>Did you know that Anne Nield on another
>>occasion had to once suffer from the repeated and continuous e-
>>mail assult of the message, "YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE" for 2 hours one
>>day?  Probably not.
 
>I didn't do it, I swear.  Really.
 
I point out a serious verbal assault upon a female and you here
make lightly of it!  I would have hoped that you could show a
little more sensitivity to the feelings of others and be more
sympathetic to the serious aggression that has here occurred.
 
 
 
>. . .
>Will you please
>can this sanctimoniousness (as well as your selective blind eye to your
>own abrasiveness?)
 
Evidently, YOU are experiencing my postings to be "abrasive".
What can I say?  How about if I repeat to you some of your own
words made to Judy Frawley when she gently confided to you that
she "was somewhat hurt by your flamage".  Do you remember what
you said?  You callously said, "If you're hurt that is your
problem".  Not a very sympathetic or kind remark, and now you beg 
that I stop being "abrasive" to you?  Tough darts, I didn't ask 
you to make sarcastic and rude remarks on this conference.  I and 
others have politely asked you to stop.  Is that so very difficult
for you?
 
 
 
> It's nauseating.  If you're going to be a prick,
                                            ^^^^^
 
Well, here we go, scurrilous and unseemly NAME-CALLING.   And
you protest that you have not made rude and personal insults?
Remarkable!
 
 
 
>you might as well admit it to yourself.  It's the first step towards
>healing.
 
And is this meant as a helpful, generous remark?  Of course not.
Now you can see why I think SOME omnivore "guests" to this
conference, like yourself, seem compelled to make rude, mean-spirited 
and destructive remarks.  The only intent of the above assertion is
simply to wound and demean my person.
 
Thank, you make my point.
 
 
 
 
>>If you would care to review the thread, you will see that Michael
>>Traub NEVER explicitly endorsed this kind of program.
 
>Who said he did?
 
Please try to follow the thread more carefully.  I was addressing
this comment to George Clark and you might recall that George
earlier exclaimed to Michael Traub:
 
     "Yet when some layperson, who doesn't have any idea of what
     they are talking about makes a sensational claim, you are
     quick to believe."
 
I presume that George meant something like `believe in the merits
of colon cleansing'.  I was simply trying to set the record
straight that this is NOT Michael's position.
 
 
 
>>This sounds to me like stuff relevant to being a vegetarian.  I
>>can't always say the same about SOME of our omnivorous kibitzers
>>who are too intent on making derisively rude remarks than to
>>seriously contribute good information relevant to vegetarianism
>>and useful to the vegetarians here who are attempting to
>>advance their understanding and practice of this dietary choice.
 
>Pttttht.  Ted, I see you're working double time with the insults
>now that M. Traub is off-net and in recovery.
 
What insult on my part?  I do, however, read an evident sacrcasm
in your pronouncement.
 
Can you not distinguish between a descriptive observation and a
rude remark?  If I properly observe that you are calling me
abusive names (as you did above by calling me "a prick"), that is
being DESCRIPTIVE.  I've afraid that the rudeness is solely on
your part and you are having difficulty discerning a rude insult
from a casual, non-insulting observation about your rudeness.
 
                                                 ted
 
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg