From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: an idea
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:34:12 GMT

young@serum.kodak.com writes:

i>
>	Just a small point: if the "side of the fence" can't be determined
>	after a period of weeks, perhaps the highly touted animus isn't as
>	clear as some of the more pretentious posters would like to believe,
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe you are revealing some of your animus right here with this
designation about pretentious posters?  Just a thought.

Now, permit me to make an equally small point.  Sometimes the
underlying animus is well hidden and only comes out when
the ominvore who is not at all interested in advancing vegetarianism
for vegetarians is brought to task.
>

>	and perhaps there isn't really any good reason to assign "sides of
>	the fence".  It should be assumed that everyone is looking for truth,
>	not simply "truth which pleases", and in that context, there are
>	no "bad guys" based on whether one agrees or disagrees with the
>	content of a posting.

Oh, there is a very good reason.  Truth might indeed be one, but
people are many and all have quite different slants on the truth.
I want to know YOUR slant, indeed I think it is my RIGHT not to
be played with by an omnivore who is not really interested in 
advancing the proclaimed interest of this conference, namely
vegetarianism.  Vegetarians like myself, or people with a 
sincere and honest interest in this topic want to learn from
people who are qualified by their PRACTICE and COMMITTMENT to
vegetarianism.  You have proven yourself in the past to
NOT be qualifed either in terms of knowledge (e.g., you
refused to read an important study that you nevertheless
had the cheek to trash and claim was "egregiously flawed",
as if you could know without having read the study)
and certainly not in terms of your practice or your
interests.  Have you yet looked at any of the many
primary references I have referred you to?

>	The true idiots are easily distinguished, since they usually resort
             ^^^^^^^^^^
Here we go again with the disingenuous insults.

	to such statements as "all omnivores are hostile to vegetarians" or,
>	on the other side, provide graphic descriptions of the consumption
>	of raw meat.  These people can safely be ignored...the rest are
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How very credible for an rude omnivore to now presume to inform
vegetarians about which other vegetarians they can safely ignore".
What cheek!

>	simply expressing honest opinion or offering facts, and the "side
>	of the fence" shouldn't matter.

What they honestly believe, yes, but that doesn't make it correct
or relevant to this special interest group focused on
providing helpful information about vegetarianism to fellow
vegetarians or people sincerely interested in exploring the
merits and possibility of vegetarianism.  This conference
is not for begruding omnivores who have nothing better to
do then quibble, be arugmentative, make rude remarks and
in the end resort to outright vilification and insults
towards individual vegetarians.  You are simply a GUEST here,
so please try to show the due civility and respect of a
guest towards their kind and generous hosts.  ;-)

                                       ted