From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: an idea
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:03:10 GMT

In article <altar.714857652@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>
>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.

   Why do this, "ted"?  Are you trying to start something?  If I had meant it
   to apply to anyone in particular, I'd have mentioned names.

>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.

   Why are you assuming that there IS an animus among omnivores who read this
   group toward the vegetarians who also read the group?

>>	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...

   "Played with?"  How can anyone "play with" someone who refuses to be
   "played with?"  And how can you believe that omnivores have nothing better
   to do than to "play with" vegetarians?  What a sad existence it would be
   to always assume that one is being "played with" when disagreements
   occur.  Indeed, what a sad existence it would be to spend one's life trying
   to "play with" those with whom one disagrees.

>... 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.

   And if there is no real scientific basis to some of the claims, then no
   attempt should be made to set the record straight?

>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)...

   Would it have mattered had I read it and THEN trashed it?  That was WEEKS
   ago, "ted", why dredge it up now?  I thought it was less definitive than
   you; so be it.

>...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?

   Have you looked in any of the ones I've given YOU?  I've read a couple of
   yours, and as I recall, you read a couple of mine, so what does THAT prove?

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

   Insults to whom?

>	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!

   And here you term me a "rude omnivore".  Did you not just castigate another
   poster for a similar personal reference?  I suggest that the only
   difference between this and the other example is the level of vulgarity;
   at least the other poster had courage enough to speak his mind.  I respect
   both his lack of guile and his obvious erudition.

>>	...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.

   Nor, I suspect, does the original charter provide for vilification and
   assumption of pejorative intent for every omnivore who posts information
   which is at odds with that which vegetarians might post.

>You are simply a GUEST here,

   No, "ted", I'm another poster with access to Internet and a news reader.
   I don't own this forum, and neither do you.  Please do not presume
   authority you do not and cannot have.

   Now, if you feel the need to respond, take pity upon those who have
   complained (with some justification) about the signal to noise ratio
   herein, and send e-mail.  Further postings in this vein would serve only
   to subjugate the wishes of other readers to your own.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)