From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: A suggestion for rec.food.recepies
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:04:28 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr15.100754.2948@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.020333.13682@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Kamchatka Charlie writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>
>I  have  taken  this  rant  to  e-mail  to  save  everybody else. If anyone
>*really*  thinks  there  was actually any content in this discussion I will
>post the "information" if they require it.
>

Sorry, email bounces to Kamchatka Charlie, please hit "n" now if this
is not of interest.


In article <1992Apr15.020333.13682@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> you write:
>>...And the excess protein in the fish gives them one of the HIGHEST rates
>>of osteoporosis in the world, despite the fact that they consume more
>>calcium than anyone else.
>>
>>Even if fish actually does lower heart attack and cholesterol levels, it
>>causes other adverse side effects and is completely unnecessary.
>     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! This is what I said:

-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?

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.

>Now on to Micheal Traub.
>
>     Since my last posting on the 10th of April, I have counted the commentors
>in this arguement.  This is the list so far:
>
>Your supporters:  Arun Sannute; Tim Miley
>Critic of yours:  SECBU@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
>My supporter:  Rich Young
>Would be supporting me but would seem to prefer dropping out of the newsgroup
>because flamers like you:  Carol Miller-Tutzauer; James M. Hoskins
	-----------------

I have addresses this faux-pas later in the message.

>     So far, it's 2-2, with two abstaining--good for you; otherwise it'd be 4-2
>in my favor.
>     Now, onto your comments:
>     First, to SECBU@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
>
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:

[names deleted]

and four pro:

[names deleted]


>>>  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" (Rich Young and Carol Miller-Tutzauer) have
intimated this a number of times. There has also been a number of
ridiculous articles like "should vegans breast feed".

>>>I was just talking to a friend of mine about just that, last
>>>night.  It is just a shame.  I read to get recipes and information
>>>not be lamblasted at the slightest provocation.
>>Try rec.food.recipes, I think Charlie might forward some from here
>>for those of you that just wish to snarf recipes all day long. I
>>don't suppose you've ever though of buying a recipe book have you?
>     He said recipes AND information.  Besides, you ever think someone might
>not have enough money to buy a recipe book?  Also, there's a certain romance to
>finding recipes on the net and trying them out that night.

Have you ever considered that these recipes are subject to copyright
and in many cases it is illegal to post them to the net?

My mother in law is rather poor, and I know the troubles she had
getting her Goan Cookery book published. She added a vegetarian/vegan
section in her second edition because of her daughter and myself.
I would never repost her recipes, even though she is so kind she wouldn't
mind. Many of these authors are battling to make a living, reposting
their recipes undermines that existence.

With regards to information I supply a lot of information in rec.food.veg.
I keep back copies of all articles I have posted. Do you want me to send
you all five megabytes so you can see how much is inflammatory and how
much is informatory. 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*.

>     Which leads us to the discussion (flamewar?  maybe...) between Me and
>Micheal:
>
It wil be a flamewar if you continue to mispell my name!

>KC: Kamchatka Charlie writes:
>MT: Michael Traub writes:
>
>KC: What I DON'T like is the "You don't fit the rec.food.veg mode; therefore
>KC: you are not welcome." atmosphere you wish to shove onto r.f.v.
>
>MT: I'm not pushing that at all! I am merely saying if someone wants to tell
>MT: us that eating meat is ok, then I (and I am certain many others) are not
>MT: in the least bit interested. This is rec.food.veg isn't it?
>     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
>inflammitory (sp?) commentary was aimed at.
>
Inflammatory.  Anyway  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?

>     (The whole paragraph is included here as I found the paragraph was
>incomplete as originally posted.)
>KC:     I have been reading this newsgroup for a year now.  When I first
>KC: logged on, the vegans were dictating the discussion on the net.  Then
>KC: came the reaction to the dictatorship of the vegans.  Then someone
>KC: said her SO was giving counterarguements to her arguements for being a
>KC: vegetarian WHICH BROUGHT ON SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT SHE CASTRATE HER SO
>KC: (this was before HE came on the net, mind you.  Then it REALLY got
>KC: vicious)  In recent history there was a person bemoaning his/her fate
>KC: in having to deal with meateaters, and now discussion on dividing the
>KC: newsgroup to separate the discussion (which I like; after all I'm not
>KC: under the illusion that vegetarianism is merely a dietary choice) from
>KC: the recipies.  I've yet to hear anyone suggest that people here actually
>KC: eat meat for once (and I'm not suggesting it here) NOR have I heard eggs
>KC: considered acceptable vegetarian food (and I'd hate to see the flamewars
>KC: that would arise should this come up as a topic).
>
This is what I call misrepresentation, you haven't even quoted the part
of the article I originally replied to:

>     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????

>MT: So when anyone asks for help on the net when confronted by a majority of
>MT: meat eaters or an unhelpful spouse you think we should just lay down
>MT: our arms and die?
>     No.  I also wouldn't suggest castration phantasies, demands for the person
>to get away from that SO NOR cults which practice a full vegen/fruitarian
>regimen.
>
While we're on the spelling bit, its "fantasies" and "recipes" and "vegan".
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'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. Is that what you
would like, that form of tolerance? She also insists on posting recipes
with animal ingredients to this newsgroup. That is what I call inflammatory!

>KC:     No; I said I would like more vegetarians.  That you consider the
>KC: status quo as acceptable is okay, but I would like to be able to go into
>KC: any town in the United States (or the world for that matter) and find the
>KC: local McD's closed down from lack of business, two or three vegetarian chain
>KC: resturaunts taking its place, and a group of local resturaunts with the local
>KC: variety of vegetarian cuisine.
>
>MT: And you think by preaching tolerance of meat eaters you will succeed in
>MT: this quest?
>     It would get them more into the mood to accept you, and since it is easier
>for meateaters to go without meat than it is for vegetarians to eat meat;
>you'll find meateaters going more without than with.  How many times have we
>read in this newsgroup that "So-and-so's SO is a diehard meateater but will eat
>my all-veg cooking and make it a point to meet with my diet when it is their
>turn to cook." or "Yesterday this diehard Beef Lover swore off all forms of
>meat."?  This was only possible because the vegetarian tolerated the
>meateater's habits; and as a result the meateater changed habits.

But  two  of the people that you claim support from are meat eaters!! (Rich
Young and Carol Muller-Tutzauer).

I still go out to dinner with people who refuse to eat vegetarian in my
presence, so I'm obviously not as intolerant as you think. However those
of my friends who insist on telling me how lovely the meat was in their
meal are no longer my friends. Intolerant? Maybe, but its *my* life and I
can do with it as I see fit. 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?

>     Think about it, Traub.  You may have lots of 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?

>Carol and James, don't leave.  Things are just getting interesting.
>
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.
>JH

Now that also is inflammatory!

Please  show  me where I have been inflammatory to either you or Mr Hoskins
or indeed where I have been any of the points that James quotes above.

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.

You can copy this to rec.food.veg if you wish. I would ask that you remove
the names of the people who sent me mail messages as they would have
posted if they had wished their thoughts to have been made public.


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk