Guest guest Posted July 15, 2002 Report Share Posted July 15, 2002 ummm nope! fraggle *disdainer of all things marmitey* " jojo " <tofujojo wrote: >HOW DARE YOU?!!!!!!!!!! > >Take that back right now, mister! > >-- jojo > - > EBbrewpunx > > Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:32 AM > Re: Sigh > > > marmite > *shudder* > > can i interest you in some coffee grounds that have been fermeting in my compost as well?? > i'll even send them to you fer free!!! > > fraggle > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2002 Report Share Posted July 15, 2002 " Werner " <mejda6 wrote: its this dark yeastie spread...like vegimite.... ummm an aquired taste fraggle >Hi Peter, > >I've never heard of Marmite. What is it? > >Werner. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2002 Report Share Posted July 15, 2002 Hi Fraggle > i hear they use enslaved dyslexic myopic children to make it, by roasting crickets slowly together with wombat pineal glands and > ostrich tongues, then blending it all together with spoiled bottles of coors beer It certainly tastes like that :-) Anyway, I'm glad you mentioned that, 'cos it means I can now claim an ethical reason for not eating it!!! :-) BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release 10/07/02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2002 Report Share Posted July 15, 2002 always willing to help peter also..they are children from the ivory coast who can no longer work picking cocoa, so they ship them in crates to cornwall where they have to produce marmite..and are then used to summon cthulhu... see, so, you really shouldn't eat it... fraggle " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: >Hi Fraggle > >> i hear they use enslaved dyslexic myopic children to make it, by roasting crickets slowly together with wombat pineal glands and >> ostrich tongues, then blending it all together with spoiled bottles of coors beer > >It certainly tastes like that :-) > >Anyway, I'm glad you mentioned that, 'cos it means I can now claim an ethical reason for not eating it!!! :-) > >BB >Peter > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release 10/07/02 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 Let em explain, carefully, why your statements are fallacious at best and facist at worst. I use the term facist not in a nazi-like sense, but rather in a totalitarian enforcement of your particular view. The basis of your argument is that we must follow your definition of vegetarian because you refer to the time when the word was created. This is kind of humourous, because people have been living vegetarian lifestyles since far before the 1830's does this mean that Pythagoras wasn't a vegetarian? He definately couldn't speak english. But the mainstay of protein in his diet was from plants, and never from meat. He was a vegetarian. Buddhists and other religious/ philosophical groups, have been living in the vegetarian ideal for centuries before the Great and Holy White Man came and handed down his term vegetarian to us po' unwashed masses of non meat eaters. Obviously though, none of us were vegetarians. We 'actually' didn't even exist, until the word vegetarian was given to us, then we realized that, coincidentally, we never ate meat and had never noticed it or lived the lifestyle as a tradition passed down for generations before the word vegetarian was used. Incidentally, its almost like when Hegel coined the term 'dialectic' as a method of engaging and exchanging information. It's not like Plato hadn't established the dialectic ages before, but simply was too stupid to know how to speak english. I mean, anyone who doesnt speak english.. myst be stupid, and quite obviously can't be a vegetarian, right? And it's not like buddhist academics in tibet had been using the dialectic method as a form of philosophical exchange in monastaries since the advent of their society. But, then, they never called it 'dialectic' so it must not have been. How benevloent of us, to forgive them too for being so ignorant, and allowing them the 'buddhist dialectic' and 'platonic dialectic'. We truly are enlightened, even though nobody that was around before the 1830's was a vegetarian. > For me, vegetarian has only one meaning, " a person > who does not eat meat. " > >>...my definition of vegetarian is 'someone who recieves the majority of their protein directly from a plant based diet'.<< In 1839 or thereabouts, when the word vegetarian was first recorded as being used, the word protein had not yet been invented. So, it appears that your " redefinition " is predated by a considerable amount of " prior usage. " Sorry...that's not how the world of words works. Your saying it just don't make it so. Yeah, sure. hey, read my intro. I particularly enjoy the part about black people only being 3/5ths of a human being, because thats how they were defined by the masses. Or the part about how women were lessers because they were created from adam's rib. I mean, it's not like the majority of the world held that to be a true definition at any one given time. Or even one aspect of a culture. >>...Now, again, my point is, we can do the chicken dance all we want providing sources to back our beliefs and prove how 'our' defintion is right.<< NOT!!! You can do whatever chicken dance you want to make your " whatever " point, but the historical usage of the word " vegetarian " speaks for itself. Yes, and your consistent need to turn every fair and even discussion into another attempt at ego masturbation and proving you can be 'most right' in front of everyone, rather than try to share new ideas and ways of looking at things, speaks for itself. >>I'd rather follow my heart, because I know I'm not forcing people to adhere to my view of things...<< Let me be clear here...you can hold " whatever " view your heart chooses. However, if your view is to " redefine " something that's already well understood by many generations of vegetarians, then a more tactful approach is kindly suggested (for your benefit and ours). DaveO Actually- the term vegetarian is an attempt at redifing a tradition that dates back throughout history. Your desire to be caught up in that term is rather totalitarian, and again, centered more on sounding smarter than other people than exchanging new and different ways of thinking about things. Vegetarians were around a long time before the term vegetarian, and the term was simply adopted- probably in laziness- by the tradition, and that tradtion has a wide variety of paths, of individuals who think for themselves and choose to work towards the goal of abstaining from meat entirely. But, in order to clear this up, and be fair to you and your defintion, I will no longer 'force' you to be part of my defintion of vegetarian. Instead, I shall furthermore refer to you as the 'impure and unenlightened vegan in training'. If your holy word is so immuteable and unchanging, what the hell are you doing speaking in gutteral american english anyways? Ye should know, good sir, that thee has no right to stray from thy native tongue, thee King's true English, for all thy present language is merely the gutteral tongue of thee impurity and ignorance. Language is a living thing; one word today will mean something completely different in one hundred years- time has proven that over and over again. So referring to the 1800's definition of a term, is ludacris (haha) at best, and a feeble grasp at once again attempting to sound more right, rather than sharing new ideas and ways of thinking. Society changes the meanings of words constantly, it happens over and over, and no one can stop it, no matter how much they cry about it or force others to obey their narrow minded views. So your view of vegetarianism, isn't mine, and I'm probably more of a vegetarian than you, by your defintion... ... I mean, how long did you eat the inside of a calf's stomach lining, loving it, without knowing it? Maybe not every day, maybe even most of your cheese was made without it, but even if it got in once a month, my dear inquisitor, by your own defintion, you ARE NOT a vegetarian. That mucous membrane was indeed meat. Not to even get on the subject of someone who maybe ate meat and didnt know it. Ive seen it happen; half veggie barbecues where there were mix ups and later on people found out.. I guess all those years of being a vegetarian, should be thrown out of the window, they no longer have the right to call themselves vegetarians, by your standard, because they picked the wrong chili. Oh, and not to mention, anyone that lives with animals, by your definition, can't be a vegetarian. 'Anyone who does not eat meat' right? Animals give off dander and dry skin, which is flesh, and it gets in the air- when you talk it goes into your mouth, and when you swallow, you are quite literally eating meat, in small amounts.. but any amount to you is unholy and impure, right? So, how anal do you want to get about 'your' holy definition of what vegetarians are? In the end, I can come up with a dozen examples to prove you wrong, but steadfastly, you'll pound your fist and assert that your definition is the right one. that's why I can only make light of the situation.. people who demand to be taken seriously are the most humourous. But, thats just my defintion. -K- ===== Where is this beauty? I search and search and then find, We are the lotus. Om Mani Padme Hum Send Flowers for Valentine's Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.