From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: A suggestion for rec.food.recipies
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:22:53 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr10.181152.1469@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Kamchatka Charlie writes:
>Michael Traub writes:
>     You misread my posting [but then, it wasn't very clear to begin with 8+( ]
> I said my problem was (amongst other items) with people who constantly dictate
>to other people that MILK is an evil substance and should be avoided at all
>cost.  Lest you forget, the recent spat of flamewars on r.f.v started when
>nonvegans started standing up to the vegans who were trying to dictate to the
>newsgroup what their diet should be.

I thought the recent spate started when you insisted that we were all
too intolerant.

>     And NO I will not suggest a rec.food.vegan.  I have no trouble with vegans
>on r.f.v and believe that rec.food.veg is where the vegans should exist.
>
Fine, so do I.

>     And those of us who don't love it are forced to chafe along with it.
>     (Before you suggest unsubscribing from r.f.v; let me say that I like this
>newsgroup and find it interesting.  What I DON'T like is the "You don't fit the
>rec.food.veg mode; therefore you are not welcome." atmosphere you wish to shove
>onto r.f.v.)
>
I'm not pushing that at all! I am merely saying if someone wants to tell
us that eating meat is ok, then I (and I am certain many others) are not
in the least bit interested. This is rec.food.veg isn't it?

>     Okay, so tell me your gods, your catechisms, your initiations, what it
>takes for join your religion.  Maybe many more of us want to join in.  You
>never know; as long as you keep turning r.f.v into a closed club.
>
I'm not turining it into a closed club! I am asking for some peace and
quiet in this group, why should we always have to put up with people
invading this group to tell us that we don't know what we are on about
or that we are intolerant?

>     So start posting the recipies here...I'll be waiting....
>
You must have been asleep, I have posted more recipes in this newsgroup in
the last month than any other poster.

>     I have been reading this newsgroup for a year now.  When I first logged
>on, the vegans were dictating the discussion on the net.  Then came the
>reaction to the dictatorship of the vegans.  Then someone said her SO was
>giving counterarguements to her arguements for being a vegetarian WHICH BROUGHT
>ON SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT SHE CASTRATE HER SO (this was before HE came on the
>net, mind you.)  In recent history there was a person bemoaning his/her fate in
>having to deal with meateaters, and now discussion on dividing the newsgroup to
>separate the discussion (which I like; after all I'm not under the illusion
>that vegetarianism is merely a dietary choice) from the recipies.  I've yet to
>hear anyone suggest that people here actually eat meat for once (and I'm not
>suggesting it here) NOR have I heard eggs considered acceptable vegetarian food
>(and I'd hate to see the flamewars that would arise should this come up as a
>topic).
>
So when anyone asks for help on the net when confronted by a majority of
meat eaters or an unhelpful spouse you think we should just lay down
our arms and die?

>     No; I said I would like more vegetarians.  That you consider the status
>quo as acceptable is okay, but I would like to be able to go into any town in
>the United States (or the world for that matter) and find the local McD's
>closed down from lack of business, two or three vegetarian chain resturaunts
>taking its place, and a group of local resturaunts with the local variety of
>vegetarian cuisine.
>
And you think by preaching tolerance of meat eaters you will succeed in this
quest?

>>>     1) Vegetarianism includes milk products as well.
>>
>>No, really? I didn't know that.
>Believe it or not, some r.f.v regulars believe (my statement above) as fact.
>
No, really???

>>>     I hope that in your next life you're born as an Eskimo in Siberia.  If
>>>then you can keep your vegetarian lifestyle intact, THEN you can be intolerant
>>>of everyone else.  ;+) ;+) ;+) ;+) ;+) ;+)
>>
>>Eskimos have shorter than average lifespans due to their high meat intake so
>>it wouldn't be much of a life anyway.
>     They also have lower LDL cholesterol levels than most vegetarians AND
>probably the lowest heart attack levels in the world.  Would appear to be
>something in the FISH that they eat...
>
I dont quite see the logic in your answer, just because they have lower
cholesterol levels does that make them live any longer?



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