HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Mon, 31 Aug 92 12:54:49 GMT

In article <altar.715140223@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>Rich Young writes:
> 
>>      I am answering in e-mail...which,
>>        based on "ted's" last posting, will end up here anyway...an incredibly
>>        rude, but totally predictable, behavior.  I have asked "ted" to go
>>        to e-mail twice and he inexplicably continues to refuse to do it.
>[. . .]
> 
>The rudeness, Rich, is on your part since after all it was you and
>not me who resorted to insulting a fellow vegetarian as "just another
>raving zealot".
> 
>Now, I've already explained that e-mail is a waste of time when you 
>so freely abuse it by your name-calling and insults.  Indeed, when 
>e-mail is abused by the sending of such destructive insults, you simply
>forfeit the usual courtesies that readers like myself would afford 
>towards a responsible and civil sender.  

	I was under the distinct impression that the majority of r.f.v.
	readers wanted flame wars off the net and tranferred to e-mail.
	I have asked you to do this three times now, with the result that
	you are extremely reluctant to give up your public soapbox, and
	stubbornly continue to ignore the wishes of those who objected to
	just such tactics.  After all, unsubstantiated allegations wouldn't
	be effective if no one saw them, would they?

	Once again, my answer to this will be in e-mail...and once again,
	"ted" will, no doubt, choose to answer in public.  If anyone wishes
	to see both sides aired in public, feel free to advise me of that fact
	and the majority opinion will rule.  On the other hand, if e-mail
	is the method of choice, perhaps some gentle urging will convince
	"ted" that the posters who objected to these conversations really
	meant what they said.

[...remainder of message deleted...]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: krissie@locus.com (Krissie Griffiths)
Subject: black forest cake request
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 21:27:52 GMT

about a month ago someone posted a VEGAN black forest cake recipe.  i believe
it was a gentleman.

i have inadvertently misplaced this recipe and would like to have it.  could
someone please repost it or bounce a copy to krissie@locus.com

thanks in advance.

also, not to be a total recipe sponge, is anyone ready for me to repost my
VEGAN brownies that are winning raves from the world?

kg

-- 
so what if i am a vegan?  so what if i try to live a cruelty free lifestyle?
i'll tell you what, i sleep better at night knowing that nothing suffers for
anything i eat or wear and i try to use products that have not involved 
animal testing.
From: garyt@cup.portal.com (Gary F Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Query - what were the original 12 food groups?
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 92 02:21:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

drew@csu.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan) writes:
>My wife and I were discussing some past r.f.v postings and she noted that
>someone had mentioned the "12 Food Groups" promoted by the USDA in the 
>1930's.  Does anyone know what these were?

The booklet "Our Food Our World" (March 1992) published by EarthSave
gives the following history of USDA-recommended food groups:

  1930 - 12 groups: dairy products, potatoes, leafy green & yellow
         vegetables, butter, other vegetables & fruits, dry peas,
         eggs, meat & poultry & fish, flour & cereals, sugars,
         tomatoes & citrus fruits, other fats.

  1940 - 7 groups: fruits, eggs, potatoes, dairy products, bread &
         cereals, meats & poultry & fish, vegetables.

  1956 - 4 groups: dairy products, meat & poultry & fish, grains,
         fruits & vegetables.

For contrast, the booklet also describes the new basic 4 food groups
recommended by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in
1991: whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruit (with meat, poultry,
fish, and dairy products recommended for use as condiments only).

In the spring & summer 1992 issue of the EarthSave newsletter, an 
article titled "USDA Food Pyramid Released ... Permanently" states:

  On April 28, 1992, after spending $855,000 on "revision," the
  Food Pyramid was officially unveiled with little change from
  the original which was released and retracted a year ago.

The 1992 USDA Food Pyramid contains the following groups/layers:

  1. fats, oils, & sweets (use sparingly)
  2. milk, yogurt & cheese (2-3 servings)
     meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs & nuts (2-3 servings)
  3. vegetables (3-5 servings)
     fruits (2-4 servings)
  4. bread, cereal, rice & pasta (6-11 servings)

[EarthSave Foundation, 706 Frederick St., Santa Cruz, CA 95062-2205,
 phone (408) 423-4069]
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark)
Subject: Re: Public Statement.
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 17:45:28 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <1992Sep1.114121.6411@iscsvax.uni.edu> howard@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>I also am very angry at the tone of Steve Dyer's posts and his nearly
>total domination of this group over the past month. For your information, 
>David McWade was an extremely thoughtful vegan poster who posted a 
>great deal during the last academic year. I believe Steve Dyer has only
>been posting during the last 2 months. I would appreciate from Steve Dyer
>more consideration for other posters than this. It takes a lot to get
>me angry, but having gone away for 3 weeks and coming back to find
>Michael Traub no longer feels even able to post certainly does make
>me most concerned. 

Mary, I have to disagree with your interpretation of who is causing
the problems.

The problem is that instead of discussing vegetarian issues,
some people are posting inflammatory messages that ridicule western
medical doctors and the scientific method. They are recommending
"alternative medicine" as being the only way to go, and they are
advocating things like colon cleansing and colon irrigation,
which are quackery, and in some states in the USA these procedures
are even illegal.

These individuals must be challenged because there are innocent
bystanders reading the forum who may begin to believe their
propaganda.

It's that simple.
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Vegan dilemma concerning pancreatic enzymes.
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:13:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


This is a bit late for a follow-up but I just joined this newsgroup.

Steve Dyer says the colon cleans itself out daily, and that colon
cleansing is an expensive placebo. That seems to fly in the face of
the comments of a colleague who says he had his colon cleansed via
the enema route, and that the person doing the job pointed out decayed
animal matter in the residue, though he'd been a vegetarian for 3 years.

I'm confused.
From: ajt1@ukc.ac.uk (A.J.Telford)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Famous Vegetarians
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:55:34 GMT
Reply-To: ajt1@ukc.ac.uk (A.J.Telford)
Distribution: rec.food.veg
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

In article <BADER.92Aug30182529@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> bader@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Joel Bader) writes:
>Isn't track star Carl Lewis vegetarian?

I don't know about Carl Lewis, but I believe that Liz McColgan, the
world 10k champion is veggie.

Alastair Telford
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Vegan dilemma concerning pancreatic enzymes.
Date: 25 Aug 92 11:49:13 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <altar.714644966@sfu.ca>, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca 
(Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
> Ted Feurbach writes:
> 
>>Aw c'mon Steve, why get technical on him.  How about any grammar
>>school biology book or childrens encyclopedia!     ;-)
> 
> And maybe you should consider a book on debating etiquette and
> civility.  Again you have interjected only to contribute a
> mean-spirit remark and insult.  Is it so difficult to
> make a postive contribution on this conference, or at least
> show due restaint from making such rude remarks?

And asking for references for what should be common knowledge is
an effective tool?  Sheesh, it is nothing more that a cheap
debating ploy.  My post *IS* a positive contribution 
as the requested info *CAN* be found in these places.  Look it
up.  A serious library search is unnecessary.  Your post
does nothing except keep a stupid flame war going with flowery
but still insulting innuendo.  Pretty but nasty.  But is cleaning
ones' intestine really a topic for rec.*FOOD*.veg?  Please people,
don't take medical advice from the net, it's dangerous.

Also Ted (oops,sorry... ted), please note the smiley in my 
origional post.   

  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
  Lake St. Louis, MO        (314) 537-6603       tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
  Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed herein are MY OWN and obviously not
  the opinions of Trilogy, Monsanto or either of my two ex-wives.           
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark)
Subject: Re: Vegan dilemma concerning pancreatic enzymes.
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 01:07:33 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <altar.715386084@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
> 
>>Since Jane Heimlich is obviously one of your mentors,
> 
>Wrong!  I just heard the name for the first time last week.
> 

I'm sorry, Ted.

Here was the confusion. You were talking about "What Doctors Don't
Tell You" by Lynne McTaggert. I thought you were talking about
"What Your Doctor Won't Tell You" by Jane Heimlich. Since the
titles are similar, and since Jane Heimlich was the author being
discussed earlier, you can see the source of confusion.

Had I known this at the time, I still would have disagreed with
some of what you said, but my posting would have had a much
softer tone.

Sorry.
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: drew@cs.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan)
Subject: Re: an idea
Organization: Computer Science Department, ANU, Australia
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:47:00 GMT

altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>[...] Michael Traub, for 
>example, suggested a weekly posting of some our more unsympathic 
>and rude omnivore guests so that new readers can be forwarned
>about where people are coming from on this issue.  I think
>both new and old readers have a RIGHT to know who they might be
>speaking to, where such people stand with respect to their
>own practice.  Maybe a more comprehensive listing of all
>the main contributors, their qualification in terms of
>whether or not they are vegetarians and for how long 
>(such info being voluntarily provided, of course).
>Along with this listing could be instructions for people
>on how to skip what might be a flame by way of a Kill
>file of certain posters or by simply observing who is 
>posting what to whom.

I would welcome this idea. I am new to rec.food.veg. I am reading it
primarily because I want more factual information about various aspects
of vegetarianism, including matters of health and nutrition as well as
things like ethics and care for the environment. The recipes are a
bonus.

What has frustrated me over the past few weeks is trying to work out
"who was who" and "what side of the fence" contributors come from.
A brief guide such as you have described would have helped enormously.
(In fact, it still would be a help!)

Just some comments,

Drew.

PS  To those who have been contributing researched, factual information,
    *thanks*!!! It has been greatly appreciated.
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: jerpseth@sd.cadence.com (James Jerpseth)
Subject: RE: Posting Cookbook recipes on Net
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, San Diego Center
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:06:07 GMT

I've been following this group for about two months (Vegetarian for
about 4 1/2 years) and am suprised at the narrow mindedness
at those who are arguing over the net about posting recipes
from published books.

I personally like the practice of posting recipes from books on
the net because it gives me an idea of wether I want to buy the
cookbook or not. I would bet that everyone who reads this group
has bought a cookbook only to have it rot on the shelf for one
of several reasons: didn't like the book, too hard to follow
directions, recipes too complex for busy schedule, etc.

So what I do is "rip off" a couple of recipes from the net and 
then if I like the recipe and its instructions (were they accurate,
concise, use available ingrediants, produce the desired result,etc)
then I put that cookbook on my list of books to buy. This has resulted
in my buying acouple of really good books that I probably would have
passed over if I hadn't "kitchen tested" a couple of the recipes.

By using this method, everyone benefits ---
-- I get good recipes, and test the cookbooks.
-- "Poor Students" likewise know what books to buy later
-- GOOD cookbook authors get more book sales and prosper.

I cannot see how anyone really gets hurt in this process.


James aka jerpseth@sd.cadence.com


P.S. In order to make the zelaots happy, I promise to post an
     original recipe later today or tomorrow.

-- 
!  SIN BOLDLY (that God's grace may be bolder still) -- Martin Luther
!
! "The views expressed are neither those of Cadence or its Managment
!   (probably since I'm not certain they know I exist).
From: abulsari@abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Some people you may have heard of are/were vegetarians
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:03:10 GMT
Organization: Abo Akademi University

My previous post contains some extraneous references, and this
stupid software won't let me cancel my article - It thinks it is
someone else's.


-- 
A. Bulsari                                       Tel.  358 (21) 654 721
V{rmeteknik, ]bo Akademi                         Fax   358 (21) 654 792
Va"rmeteknik, A'bo Akademi   (for the non-Scandinavian screen impaired)
SF 20500 Turku, Finland                          Tlx  57 62301 AABIB SF
From: dm3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (David F. McWade)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Public Statement
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:39:12 GMT
Organization: Fifth yr. senior, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


>It's probably a bad idea for David McWade to complain about others
>calling names and in the same breath calling the Republican Party "the
>party of rich and greedy special interests." Some believe that labor
>leaders and the heads of the educational bureaucracy are rich and
>greedy special interests, and the Kennedy family is hardly
>poverty-stricken.

>I don't want to enter into an argument about the parties, just to
>point out that such remarks tend to polarize just as much as
>the remarks McWade complained of do.

You are right.  We are, of course, dealing with my personal perception
of the Republican Party, which I think given enough time and the
appropriate newsgroup I could provide sufficient evidence for, but
that's peripheral.

The Democratic Party is also the party of greedy special interests, but
at least when the campaign finance reform bill was about to be passed it
was mostly Democrats who voted for it, mostly Republicans who voted
against it, and Bush who vetoed it.  This should say *something* about
who is more special-interest oriented.

The heads of all bureaucracys (educational, labor, etc.) are rich. 
Labor unions should be collectively/democratically organized.

Dave
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Vegan dilemma concerning pancreatic enzymes.
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:59:00 GMT

young@serum.kodak.com writes:

>In article <altar.714818472@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

>>dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>[...]

>>>I think this comment of yours (which you repeat over and over and over)
>>>is simply out of line.  There has been no name calling of vegetarians
>>>here.  Period. 
>>
>>Remarkable!  You just called me a "prick" in your previous posting to 
>>this one.  That prettly well belies what you are here trying to
>>claim.  Period.

>	I believe he meant vegetarians _as_a_class_, not necessarily as
>	individuals.


Can't we let Steve Dyer speak for himself?  You might be right, but
then so what?  Don't I and Michael Traub constitute a sub-class of v
vegetarians your mind?  It does in Steve's mind as when he said that
my remarks are the same as Michael Traub's (which I take as a
compliment although it certainly was not meant as such).

Now, you're a fine one to defend Steve's outrageous claim, after all,
I recall you posting some pretty mean-spirited remarks 
remarks about SOME vegetarians (pointedly myself) being akin to
"religious fanatics".  And you yourself have lapsed into personal
insults at my person both publically and with some very insulting
e-mail not to long ago.
                                     ted
.
From: howard@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: American Slaughterhouse Practices - Help Please!
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:11:33 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Aug24.001925.4827@dircon.co.uk>, uad1214@dircon.co.uk (Peter Cox) writes:
> 
> One or two people may know that I'm currently writing the
> new edition of "Why You Don't Need Meat".
> 
> I would very much like to hear from anyone who might be
> able to provide me with some help concerning slaughterhouse
> practices in the U.S. - not really from the hygienic point
> of view, but from the humanitarian/ ethical.

You might see if you can get a hold of a tape of the Jesse Jackson 
Speech at the Democratic National Convention in New York City (I 
believe he spoke July 22). Part of his speech was a quite moving 
account of an interview with a woman at a chicken processing plant
that burned down in North Carolina. It was as much a commentary on 
the poverty of the woman as the conditions she worked in. 

The major networks in the US (or maybe also the BBC) could probably
provide you with a tape or text of the speech. 


-Mary Howard
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: abulsari@abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT)
Subject: Re: Who is who of rec.food.veg - Version 1
Organization: Abo Akademi University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:21:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.171424.17788@eng.umd.edu> georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.121939.1249@abo.fi> abulsari@abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT) writes:
>>A directory of this newsgroup's posters/participants is
>>a good idea. To start with, here is one. It is not very
>>serious, but we can improve on this one. Please correct
>>me if you are in the wrong category, and don't expect n
>>answer till 13 September. More people need to be listed
>>as well.
>>
>>Category 0 : Lurking omnivores (Dangerous to your health)
>>
>>Rich Young	Poor Old Fellow speaks for Kodak and why gelatin is good stuff
>>Steve Dyer	Just arguments, sometimes quoting from wrong sources
>>Mary Shafer	not so dangerous
>>Ted Feuerbach	lot of fire and arguments, avoidable
>>George Clark
>>
>
>Your wrong, Abhay. I've been a vegetarian for several years. I say
>that as I sit here eating my dried beans and corn, during my
>lunch break. People who've read my posts in sci.med and rec.food.diet
>know this is true.

Thanks for correcting me. I too would like to be wrong once in while.

>
>You infer that since I dislike Jane Heimlich, alternative medicine,
>and other such quackery and fraud that there is no way I can also
>be a vegetarian.

I APOLOGISE PUBLICLY. I WAS WRONG. 

>
>Don't equate being a vegetarian with being an alternative medicine
>advocate. The two have nothing in common.

THEY ARE CORRELATED TO SOME EXTENT, BUT I AM WRONG TO HAVE ASSUMED
A FULL CORRELATION.

>
>
>George Clark

Thanks again for correcting me.

With regards,


-- 
A. Bulsari                                       Tel.  358 (21) 654 721
V{rmeteknik, ]bo Akademi                         Fax   358 (21) 654 792
Va"rmeteknik, A'bo Akademi   (for the non-Scandinavian screen impaired)
SF 20500 Turku, Finland                          Tlx  57 62301 AABIB SF
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Vegan dilemma concerning pancreatic enzymes.
Date: 26 Aug 92 07:29:11 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <altar.714807622@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>One might
>playfully speculate, if we were to adopt such a Freudian "inlook",
>that some of this surrilious and derisive name-calling of
>vegetarians as we have all witness as occurring on this 
>conference from certain omnivores, might well stem from
>an symbolic anal evacuation of the constipated.   :-)

No, I think it's more a sense of paranoia on your part and on Traub's.
I think this comment of yours (which you repeat over and over and over)
is simply out of line.  There has been no name calling of vegetarians
here.  Period.  There have been disagreements with individuals on
technical medico-scientific points, and sometimes this has escalated
in sharpness when said individuals haven't enjoyed being corrected.
It is a distortion to claim that these constitute either "name calling"
or "attacks" on anyone, and they are most certain not "attacks on
vegetarians" as a group.  A good number of us ARE vegetarians, not
that that should matter, though it seems to matter to you.

You bellyache about name calling and rudeness yet in remarks like
these you're one of the worst (in the Traub tradition).  If you
wish to persist in this, don't bother wrapping yourself in any
cloak of righteousness--it doesn't wash.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: coleman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michele Coleman)
Subject: Re: an idea
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 19:07:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.162033.6180@athena.mit.edu> karen@athena.mit.edu (Karen E. Walrath) writes:
>I also agree that the group should be split.  I'm not really interested
>in colon clensing/nutrasweet/sheep/etc.  But I do like to see the recipes.  I
>suggest that rec.food.veg be left for the "information" and a new sub-group
>called rec.food.veg.eating be created for the recipes/tips/where-to-find-
>veg-food-in-X-city traffic/related food topics.

     I'm afraid that if the group were split as originally proposed (into
recipes and talk) that the discussion would be polarized into just
recipes and just politics.  The latter group could very well end up
being one huge flamefest.  Probably a lot of people would not bother
with the discussion group at all.  
     In this climate, then, we might not get such threads as the "What
should I do at my friend's wedding?" and "How do you cope when you go
home for the holidays?" ones, and similar threads, which I enjoyed a lot.
Major topics of discussion on this group are: nutrition, food, politics,
and culture.  Does anyone else suspect that splitting the group as first
proposed would promote food and politics and the expense of other discussion?
     If we _have_ to split the group, perhaps Karen Walrath's proposal
is good.  Other possibilities:

	rec.food.veg             rec.food.veg.politics

	rec.food.veg		 talk.politics.veg	 

	rec.food.veg.kind	 rec.food.veg.hostile     


					--Michele Coleman
From: gm115@cus.cam.ac.uk (Gabor Megyesi)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: low fat recipe
Date: 4 Sep 92 08:11:55 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

Letcho describes the correct pronounciation, the original Hungarian
spelling is lecso' .

Gabor      gm115@phx.cam.ac.uk