From: spratt@src.honeywell.com (Steve Pratt)
Subject: Re: Version 2 of who is who on rec.food.veg (still not serious)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:49:38 GMT

I don't know if your first attempt at this list was intended to be
tongue-in-cheek or not (allusions to the fact that it was not "serious"
notwithstanding), but the second seemed to be considerably less ambiguous.
It still reeks of a strong pro-Traub/Altar/et al. bias; if it were done by
someone who hadn't actively endorsed this bias, I might have considered it
to be satirical of their position.  If it is in fact satirical of this
position, then I applaud this gesture to cast the whole farce in a humorous
light (and, presumably, move on ...).

I have been reading this newsgroup for two or three months now, and the
only thing that is clear to me is that Rich, Michael, Ted, and Steve
(together with others less consistently, and to a lesser extent) have much
more in common with each other than they do with the average participant in
this forum.  I initially believed that there were equal measures of good
with the bad from each of them, but this is what I seem to see more of
lately (or in the case of Traub, just prior to his self imposed exile).

They all:

- are self-righteous.

- like to hear themselves talk.

- adopt an adversarial, debating posture in discussion:
   a) quote only references which support their point of view.
   b) ridicule the value of references which challenge their point of view.
   c) proffer (dis)credit by association

- escalate virtually any disagreement over anything into a "pissing"
  contest.

- insist on having the last word in any dispute.

- see themselves as the "good guys" or "guardians of truth".

As an aside, the three (of the four) who responded to direct correspondence
in this regard (which even the "math anxious" among you can see includes
representatives of both "sides"), couldn't understand how any
discriminating reader could fail to appreciate the superiority of his
position/tactics/objective/etc. and appeared to be insulted by the
association with those on the "opposing side".  Does anyone other than me
find this to be hysterical? (I trust that I was ambiguous and vague enough
in my reference to private mail that nobody feels violated.  If you do,
please let me know, including the person who didn't respond :-)

I am all in favor of having a health warning (he said rhetorically), but it
would have to be composed in some manner which made it symmetric to
opposing points of view (although the outright advocacy of meat eating
seems inappropriate to the charter of this group, but nobody has done that
since I started reading).  Since no objective bystander exists, this would
have to be done in one of two ways:

1) Let anyone who wants to do so, compose something which summarizes
   her/his own position (this has been suggested by others by others)
   without referring in even an oblique way to "opponents" (my
   qualification).

More interesting, but arguably adding further to the divisiveness, in the
best tradition of mudslinging:

2) Let anyone write the resume of someone whose position he/she opposes.

Ultimately, the only kind of "health warning" that makes any sense is
something so generic as to be useless, because it is so much common sense
that it approaches a tautology:

"Don't act on any information that you read here without first consulting
someone (and/or references) whose judgement you trust"

That person might be (in alphabetical order, but with no inference by
inclusion or exclusion :-): chiropractor, homeopath, medical doctor,
medicine man, midwife, naturopath, osteopath, witch doctor.

Finally, if we really want to take a step forward to reduce the confusion
of new readers, we should change the definition of "omnivore" in the FAQ to
reflect how its meaning has become perverted in this newsgroup:

omnivore (n) : anyone who disagrees with the self-appointed priesthood of
veg*ism.

How does any "mispronunciation" of the word "vegan" compare to this?

The inconvenient thing is that, IMHO, *everyone* who has been involved says
something useful just often enough to avoid being filtered.  I just wish
you guys (yes, all men, this is probably not a coincidence :-(), could use
some discretion and sense when the dialogue ceases to say anything new.  If
you want to waste your time thrashing away at each other in private mail,
take it there and keep it there, but please don't dilute your own prior
contributions.

Steve Pratt                                spratt@src.honeywell.com
Honeywell Systems & Research Center        (612) 782-7267

Yet another "omnivore" who never eats meat, advocates the rights of
animals, and has enough intelligence to treat *any* healthcare giver or
opinion peddler with a "healthy" amount of skepticism.
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg