From: Kamchatka Charlie
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Subject: Re: A suggestion for rec.food.recepies
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:19:45 GMT
Organization: (name change underway)

Michael Traub writes:
>>Kamchatka Charlie writes:

>Sorry, email bounces to Kamchatka Charlie, please hit "n" now if this
>is not of interest.
email also bounces to Michael Traub.  Am trying again, through a combined
post/email session.
     hit "n" if not of interest.  Traub please email to KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu;
others please post.

(fish & eskimo discussion removed)
>>    And also thanks to the other vegetarians on the net who didn't flame >>me
to high heaven for my faux pas.
>But Charlie I didn't flame you either!
Did I say you flamed me?  I spent most of the article answering you; I would
have answered you directly had I though you flamed me in this instance.

>-As a devout practising atheist I know there will be no next life to worry
>-about, and eskimos have shorter than average lifespans due to their high
>-meat intake so it wouldn't be much of a life anyway.
>Do you consider that a flame? Was it necessary to go completely into
>the details of osteoporosis due to meat eating to not qualify as a flame?
     Considering some of your OTHER COMMENTS beforehand in which you gleefully
declared you intolerance and willingness to bully others off the net, what else
was I supposed to think?
>
>This is what I call a flame:
>
>>Traub -- spout off if you wish, but you know absolutely nothing
>>about the life span of eskimos, let alone WHY it would be shorter.
>>I don't suppose living in a hostile environment where nature rules
>>rather than humankind has anything to do with it?
>
>Which  is  a  rather  ignorant  posting  from Carol (the lurking >omnivore),
whom you seem so ready to support.
     Environment has something to do with it.  I had meant that if you can be a
vegetarian/vegan in an environment as tough and unforgiving as the arctic, THEN
you have the right to be as intolerant and bullying as you wish.  Until then,
give some slack.
>
...
(commentary on posters' past performance)
>This is silly counting supporters, but did you not consider email support?
>How many people have emailed you with nodding agreement? I got one anti: [name
deleted] and four pro: [names deleted]
     So send me their names and email addresses.  As I had posted before, if
you had come along with more than yourself (and, for that matter, with more
than inflammitory retorts to my commentary), maybe I wouldn't have been so
ready OR stubborn in my replying.

>>>>  I have never seen anyone try to convert any of you to anything.
>>>You can't be reading all the articles then can you?
>>     I have been reading this newsgroup for a year; and have yet to
>>see any "Eat Meat, It's good for You" postings in r.f.v.  What net
>>are you reading?
>rec.food.veg, and I have been reading it for over two years now.
>Two of your "supporters" (have said the above quote, although not 
>exactly in those words)
     So post the evidence.  If these people have indeed been posting pro-flesh
material, then maybe (with your aforementioned 5+meg archives) you can shame
them off r.f.v.  Until then, I will defend them.

>Have you ever considered that these recipes are subject to copyright
>and in many cases it is illegal to post them to the net?
     So's Anarchy in the United States; yet I hold anarchist beliefs.
     So's Home Taping; yet anyone with more than a passing interest in music
has a collection of home recorded tapes.
     Would you believe that the Objectivists (Ayn Rand's philosophy)  believe
that calling yourself an Objectivist is theft of property rights?  Why do you
think the groups call themselves "Students of Objectivism?"  Yet I'll bet
thousands call themselves "Objectivists" dispite this ban.
     Just because something's "Illegal" doesn't mean it's a rotten idea.  I'll
bet many people have bought recipe books after seeing the book name listed on a
few recipes listed in r.f.recipes.

>Also you have conveniently forgotten that I have posted *more* recipes
>to rec.food.veg than any other reader in the last two months, and all
>the recipes I posted were my *own*.
A) Don't assume that I choose to forget something when I choose to.  I didn't
know you existed until your stupid reply to my first posting.
B) So email them to me.  Please limit them to 75K chunks; as I've got a very
limited emailbox.

>>     But Traub; I never said that eating meat was Okay, I just said
>>to be more tolerant and kind to those who happened to eat meat.  It
>>was to THAT that your inflammatory commentary was aimed at.
>I see no need to be more tolerant to meat eaters in rec.food.veg. If
>they don't like what is written there they don't have to read it do they?
Nor, evidently, do the milkdrinkers.  You forget, my original posting was
peeved at the vegans who flamed people for drinking milk.

...(my origianl posting said)
>>     And another idea:  try being more tolerant of other people's >>habits. 
Not everyone wants or is able to quit eating meat; a simple >>allowance for
that fact might just make this group more tolerable for >>the nonvegans and
nonfruitarians amongst you.
>
>And all I ever said is that I see no need to be tolerant to meat eaters
>in rec.food.veg. And this you call inflammatory????
     Yes, in fact I do.
     When someone suggests the eating of meat on r.f.v I have no problem with
flaming people for that.  That you consider someone WHO JUST HAPPENS TO EAT
MEAT as unclean and unworthy for r.f.v is something I consider inflammatory in
intolerable.
     I won't bore you with the list of the four types of posters in r.f.v. I
will say that meateaters who wish to cut down their flesh consumption are as
welcome on r.f.v as the vegans and fruitarian wannabes as long as they don't
tell you meat is good food.

>>>: So when anyone asks for help on the net when confronted by a
>>>majority of meat eaters or an unhelpful spouse you think we
>>>should just lay down our arms and die?
>>     No.  I also wouldn't suggest castration phantasies (I prefer
>>this spelling, OK?), demanding the person get away from that SO NOR
>>cults which practice a full(, strict) vegan/fruitarian regimen.
>As for the content of the above sentence of yours I do not understand
>what you are trying to say. Can you answer the question please, do you
>think people that come to rec.food.veg asking for help due to unhelpful
>friends or spouses should be turned away with a "try and be more
>tolerant" answer?
     I would assume such people wish to stick with their "vicious carnivoire;"
otherwise it would not have been a problem with them in the first place--they
would have said "goodbye."
     Besides, the "castration phantasies" comment above was inspired by one
person who had trouble responding when her SO said "vegetarians kill
vegetables."  That posting brought out so much hatred out of the r.f.v regulars
that HE came on; which brought out MORE viciousness from the posters.  You
honestly believe that she would have left her SO thanks to your suggestions? 
She was asking for arguement support, NOT dictation as to how she should live
her life (which r.f.v seemed so ready to do).

>I'll tell you about tolerant, Carol Muller-Tutzauer's concept of
>tolerant is that vegans/vegetarians/fruitarians/whatever should eat
>meat if it is placed in front of them so as not to upset the host.
     So what's wrong with that?  On occasion I have to deal with dedicated
"carnivoires" (people who believe that vegetables are a satanic plot) AS THEIR
GUEST.  My mom happens to be the SO of one of these people.  I'm not about to
mess up THEIR relationship because I wish to be "Holier-Than-Thou." (on my own,
I avoid meat like the plague)
     Besides; in your homeland of Great Britain, 10-30 percent of the
population is vegetarian or quasi-vegetarian and there are many places that
cater to these tastes.  Here in the United States we're lucky if 1% of the
people who live in our town are vegetarian.  We USA vegetarians don't have the
same luxeries as you Brits.

>She also insists on posting recipes with animal ingredients to
>this newsgroup. That is what I call inflammatory!
     Give proof.  Post two or three of her recipes, if you're so sure.

...
>...those of my friends who insist on telling me how lovely the meat
>was in their meal are no longer my friends...its *my* life and I can
>do with it as I see fit. 
     And rec.food.veg is a public forum for discussion.  We don't care by what
basis you choose your friends (which is why I removed your "Intolerant? 
Sure..." part--after all, choice of friends is a right in my book) but on a
public forum we're supposed to respect other's viewpoints.

>Which takes us back to your original call for tolerance. Why should I be
>tolerant, because *you* say so? Because *you* insist that tolerance will
>convert more people to vegetarianism?
     Again, check out some of the recent posts.  Many people have meateating
SO's or friends who have cut down on their meat intake (if not cut off fully) 
Why?  Because the SO didn't make converting the SO to vegetarianism their
life's goal; but allowed for it and kept up their vegetariah ways.  Again, not
through intolerance but quiet prsuasion.

>>     Think about it, Traub.  You may have trouble working your brain
>>that hard, but I advise you to think about it.
>>
>This *is* inflammatory! Can you show me where I have been inflammatory
>towards you?
     I'll dig up one of the early reaction articles.
     Besides, this is your best article in this debate so far.  Evidently this
infalmmatory quote started your juices flowing.  B+) B+) B+)

>James Hoskins wrote:
>
>>1) M.T. never learned the lesson about the importance of quality over
>>quantity.
>>2) He doesn't have a well-developed sense of humor
>>3) He is intellectually dishonest in his editing of other folks' articles
>>4) He brings out the worst in people, including me right now.
>>5) Grandmother taught ME: Never argue with a fool.
>>6) Repeat number 1 above.
>Now that also is inflammatory!
     What if it's also true?

>It does you no good to quote two people (James Hoskins and Carol
>Muller-Tutzauer) who have been deliberately inflammatory when you
>are trying to preach tolerance.
     Let me guess:  People who openly disagree with you are being inflammatory;
whereas people who march lock-step with your beliefs are nice people.
     As I was told via email:  Not everyone will like you; so don't worry about
it.  I have noticed some more of your posts elsewhere in r.f.v; So I'll check
them out to see what you're like when you're not inflamed.

kamchatka charlie
KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu