Vegetarian Restaurants
Jennifer Therisod
Veggie Heaven).
I'd love to hear of more.
Thanks,
Jennifer
jim andrews
Jennifer...@mail.utexas.edu says...
> There must be a number in Austin, but I've only been to 2 (Mother's and
> Veggie Heaven).
> I'd love to hear of more.
West Lynn Cafe
jim andrews
Logan Shaw
Jennifer Therisod <Jennifer...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>There must be a number in Austin, but I've only been to 2 (Mother's and
>Veggie Heaven).
>I'd love to hear of more.
Well, the obvious one is West Lynn Cafe.
1110 West Lynn. "Where?" you say? You basically want to take either
11th or 15th from Lamar west (or 15th east from Mopac) to West Lynn,
which is parallel to Mopac and Lamar and between the two.
They are a little more upscale than Mother's or Veggie heaven, and a
teency bit more expensive too, but still definitely reasonable. (All
entrees are either about $7 or about $9.)
The atmosphere is nice. It's somewhere on the border of being casual
and not. (It's definitely not earthy like Mother's.) The building is
actually a converted gas station, but you have to really think about it
before you notice, because the transformation is complete. And the
ceiling is cool. In fact, the whold building is cool, but the ceiling
is my favorite part. :-)
The items on the menu are basically all either salads, pasta entrees,
southwestern entrees, smoothies, drinks (including wine), or desserts.
Everything I've had has been good. The one that really stands out in
my mind is the Enchiladas in Pumpkinseed-Adobo Sauce, but then I'm more
likely to order something akin to Mexican than I am to order pasta.
All in all, a good restaurant. There are plenty of people who feel
West Lynn beats Mother's for the title of best Austin vegetarian
restaurant, but then there are plenty of people who feel the other
way. The point (did I have a point? really?) is that it's in the
running.
Of course, there are other vegetarian restaurants and a number of
vegetarian-friendly restaurants in Austin too. I can't think of
any right now though.
- Logan
Norman Richards
> All in all, a good restaurant. There are plenty of people who feel
> West Lynn beats Mother's for the title of best Austin vegetarian
> restaurant, but then there are plenty of people who feel the other
> way. The point (did I have a point? really?) is that it's in the
> running.
If I were voting, Veggie Heaven would be the winner. The food beats
both Mother's and West Lynn by a mile. As for West Lynn vs. Mother's,
my preference is Mother's. The food is almost identical between the
two, but I like the atmosphere of Mother's better.
Albert Nurick
> In article <38EE3DC4...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> Jennifer Therisod <Jennifer...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >There must be a number in Austin, but I've only been to 2 (Mother's and
> >Veggie Heaven).
> >I'd love to hear of more.
>
> Well, the obvious one is West Lynn Cafe.
And it falls outside the mold of a vegetarian restaurant that must be
downscale and overly funky. A nice atmosphere for a special occasion,
with prices that invite frequent visits.
Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO, vegetarian
restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores who
want to dine with vegetarians.
--
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
jim andrews
> Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO,
> vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes
> for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
That's kinda like saying a Kosher restaurant should
serve pork for the Gentiles.
jim andrews
Dusty Rhodes
news:V6JH4.1264$Nm2....@news.swbell.net...
> "Logan Shaw" <lo...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:8climb$6kf$1...@provolone.cs.utexas.edu...
> > In article <38EE3DC4...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> > Jennifer Therisod <Jennifer...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >There must be a number in Austin, but I've only been to 2 (Mother's
and
> > >Veggie Heaven).
> > >I'd love to hear of more.
> >
> > Well, the obvious one is West Lynn Cafe.
>
> And it falls outside the mold of a vegetarian restaurant that must be
> downscale and overly funky.
Boy, that's a relief, what, with all the stories lately about how
dangerous mold can be.
Cheers,
Dusty
the_austin_cars
>
> Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO, vegetarian
> restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores who
> want to dine with vegetarians.
Or perhaps the carnivores could just dine on the vegetarians? Afterall,
meat is meat. Personally, I rather not have the smell of death in a
place I go to eat, especially when it proclaims to be for vegetarians.
You have to keep in mind that to many vegetarians, not having meat
around is a matter of principle.
* Austin Cars *
DLS
Albert Nurick wrote in message ...
>Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO,
vegetarian
>restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores
who
>want to dine with vegetarians.
"Austin Cars" has a point, though. If you're going to bill yourself
as vegetarian you should probably stick to a meatless menu. For one
thing, the smell of meat cooking is kind of disgusting to someone
who's been veggie for a while. And some veggie-folks are, as he says,
very concerned that there were no meat, egg, or butter molecules on
the pan their eggplant has been fried in. I think that's taking it a
bit too far, but after all there are a lot of other places you can go
that serve both .
Lynn
----
reply to: lynns*at*jump*ucedot*net - minus the uce
Dusty Rhodes
news:38EFA2...@yahoo.com...
> Albert Nurick wrote:
> >
> > Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO,
vegetarian
> > restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores
who
> > want to dine with vegetarians.
>
>
Afterall,
> meat is meat. Personally, I rather not have the smell of death in a
> place I go to eat, especially when it proclaims to be for vegetarians.
> You have to keep in mind that to many vegetarians, not having meat
> around is a matter of principle.
Ah. Now I understand why you like Thundercloud so much. You simply know
no better.
Vegetarians wouldn't know a good sub if it jumped up and bit them on the
ass. Sorry, but it's true. A sub is built with MEAT! The rabbit food is
just garnish.
A vegetarian commenting on subs? What's your favorite hot dog? Barbecue?
Steak? Your opinion on any of these would be just as universal.
Cheers,
Dusty
The Austin Cars
>
> A vegetarian commenting on subs? What's your favorite hot dog? Barbecue?
> Steak? Your opinion on any of these would be just as universal.
I don't get involve with animal murder. Personally, I feel people who
like meat should eat people. Meat is meat, murder is murder. What's
the diff? Why waste your best friend by putting him six feet under? He
probably tastes like chicken. Yum (cluck cluck cluck)
Take care, Dusty.
DLS
Werner
|> Well, the obvious one is West Lynn Cafe.
Little Bombay on 94xx N. Lamar (search the DEJA-archives for "Bombay"
only to find reviews)
| nice atmosphere for a special occasion, with inviting prices...
| Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place.
my thoughts exactly...
| IMO, vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for
| carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
<chuckle> it doesn't quite work that way, though.
there's a conflict a bit similar as between smokers and non-smokers....
JCS
news:V6JH4.1264$Nm2....@news.swbell.net...
> "Logan Shaw" <lo...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:8climb$6kf$1...@provolone.cs.utexas.edu...
> > In article <38EE3DC4...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> > Jennifer Therisod <Jennifer...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >There must be a number in Austin, but I've only been to 2 (Mother's and
> > >Veggie Heaven).
> > >I'd love to hear of more.
> >
>
> with prices that invite frequent visits.
>
> restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores who
> want to dine with vegetarians.
If West Lynn's personnel are like most strict vegetarians, they'd have to
have completely separate pans, dishes, utensils and refrigeration for meat.
Not to mention a (probably new) chef willing to cook meat, waitstaff willing
to serve it, clean up people willing to dispose of it, and a customer base
willing to stomach the smell (which many vegetarians find absolutely
revolting.) My guess is that customers and employees alike would leave in
droves at the sight and smell of charred animal flesh in an erstwhile
vegetarian restaurant.
--
jan
Joseph Crowe
jim andrews wrote:
>
> That's kinda like saying a Kosher restaurant should
> serve pork for the Gentiles.
>
Ah, the Jewish dilemma.... Free Pork....
>
> jim andrews
Dusty Rhodes
news:38EFB6...@yahoo.com...
I respect your choice. I don't agree, but I respect your choice. I am
simply pointing out that it effectively invalidates any opinion you may
have about subs.
Cheeers,
Dusty
Dave Clark
>
> Dusty Rhodes wrote:
> >
> > A vegetarian commenting on subs? What's your favorite hot dog?
> > Barbecue? Steak? Your opinion on any of these would be just as
> > universal.
>
> I don't get involve with animal murder. Personally, I feel people
> who like meat should eat people. Meat is meat, murder is murder.
> What's the diff? Why waste your best friend by putting him six
> feet under? He probably tastes like chicken. Yum (cluck cluck
> cluck)
Nah, most people have too much fat, not really well marbled, it'd be
a hellacious grease fire in the smoker. I'll stick to the pork ribs,
chicken wings, and beef brisket, but thanks for the suggestion...
--
Dave Clark Austin, Texas
http://www.jump.net/~davec N 30d 27.526m
mailto:da...@jump.net W 97d 48.826m
My gastronomic rapacity knows no satiety - Homer Simpson
Norman Richards
> [...] IMO, vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of
> with-meat dishes for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
I think Italian restaurant should offer a few indian dishes for
indian food lovers who want to dine with people eating Italian food.
___________________________________________________________________________
o...@cs.utexas.edu soli deo gloria
Logan Shaw
>If West Lynn's personnel are like most strict vegetarians, they'd have to
>have completely separate pans, dishes, utensils and refrigeration for meat.
Which reminds me about something I've always wondered: if some
vegetarians aren't willing or interested in eating at restaurants that
serve any meat at all, then shouldn't some vegans be opposed to eating
at vegetarian restaurants that serve dairy products or eggs?
I mean, presumably some vegans are avoiding all animal-related products
for moral reasons; how then can they be willing to eat at a place where
animal-related products are served?
I suppose the answer is that vegan-only restaurants are few and far
between, so it's a practical concession. But it always has seemed
weird to me.
Since we're already on the subject of places that cater to people with
multiple different diet preferences, what about restaurants that aren't
vegetarian but are explicitly vegetarian-friendly? By that, I mean
restaurants that serve meat, but also have a sizeable portion of the
menu that a vegetarian might want to eat and have this marked clearly
on their menu.
Some examples off the top of my head are Trudy's and Magnolia Cafe,
though those many not be the best examples since I'm not sure how many
vegetarian-friendly items they have.
- Logan
Werner
| I think Italian restaurant should offer a few Indian dishes...
<chuckle> I think all restaurants should have to offer at least one diet drink!
ym
> There must be a number in Austin, but I've only been to 2 (Mother's and
> Veggie Heaven).
> I'd love to hear of more.
>
> Thanks,
> Jennifer
these links might help:
http://www.vegnetaustin.org/
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/
good luck!
YeeMan
:: remove XX in email to reply
--
"I've slept with women, but I don't think I'm gay or straight. I think I'm
just slutty." --the gorgeous Margaret Cho
Logan Shaw
Seriously, I would spend about $1 more per meal at most restaurants if
they had caffeine-free Dr. Pepper. I don't drink caffeine, and this
severely limits my choices. I end up ordering water most of the time
instead of something with the high mark-up most places charge for soft
drinks.
It wouldn't even have to be on tap; it would be fine with me if it came
from a 3-liter (I don't have to know), as long as said 3-liter hadn't
been sitting around for too long.
Yeah, I know I can drink Sprite, or I can have hot tea at lots of
places (since half the varieties of hot tea don't have caffeine). I
like Sprite, but I do get tired of it, and basically I don't like hot
beverages at all. (I mean, this is Texas, a state where it's hot lots
of the time, and most beverages are mostly water, and water has a very
high specific heat. So it only makes thermodynamic sense to drink cold
beverages.)
- Logan
Ben Combee
really need to update this soon, but I've been very busy. I've been mainly
focusing on non-vegetarian places that have good veggie items, but you
should be able to get some ideas.
"Jennifer Therisod" <Jennifer...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:38EE3DC4...@mail.utexas.edu...
Werner
| I would spend about $1 more per meal at most restaurants if they had
and I don't understand what's so hard about making peppermint+hibiscus
sun tea by the bucket (and buckets of money in the process)...
I'll drink water with a slice of lemon every time before I'd touch what's
commonly sold as ice tea... (and refuse to touch carbonated sugar water)
10 days ago, I took visitors to Shades on Friday evening and we ordered
hot coffee (it was rather cool) and their Nachos Supreme to get a quick
start. What arrived was $1.50 dish-water in a foam cup and nachos that
were anything but "supreme" -- we all agreed it was fit only for fishes
(they got most of my dish-water/coffee, too). I made a remark about the
coffee and was immediately offered a fresh double-the-coffee pot (they
said, and I believed), but it was something like Folgers, or worse, so
what's the point... :-(
sadly, both Shades and Iguana Grill seem to be going down the rip-off
route of The Oasis -- so, in the future, I'll drink a (bottle of) beer
but eat somewhere else.
Ray Shea
> Seriously, I would spend about $1 more per meal at most restaurants if
> they had caffeine-free Dr. Pepper. I don't drink caffeine, and this
> severely limits my choices. I end up ordering water most of the time
> instead of something with the high mark-up most places charge for soft
> drinks.
Root beer tends to be caffeine-free, and it tickles the same
funny bones as Dr. Pepper & Coke in a way that Sprite doesn't
(like, it goes real good with popcorn for instance).
--
Ray Shea -- Austin, TX
=====================================================================
"I think 49 Guinnesses is piggish." -- dylan thomas
Logan Shaw
>Logan Shaw wrote:
>> Seriously, I would spend about $1 more per meal at most restaurants if
>> they had caffeine-free Dr. Pepper. I don't drink caffeine, and this
>> severely limits my choices. I end up ordering water most of the time
>> instead of something with the high mark-up most places charge for soft
>> drinks.
>
>
>Root beer tends to be caffeine-free, and it tickles the same
>funny bones as Dr. Pepper & Coke in a way that Sprite doesn't
>(like, it goes real good with popcorn for instance).
Root beer is caffeine free naturally, but some brands, like Barq's and
Mug, add caffeine "for flavor" or for some other reason (maybe because
people expect brownish carbonated liquids to have it or something?).
Unfortunatley, it seems that lots of the time, waiters and waitresses
don't know whether the root beer their restaurant serves is caffeinated,
so I ask, but probably something like 75% of the time, it turns out it
is caffeinated.
But yeah, sometimes it's an option, and when it is, I often take
advantage of it.
- Logan
kate
needs to know. I thought that Barq's was the only caffeinated RB out there
in the local fountains (and in just about every tap in just about every
restaurant that serves to kids, dammit).
But the real reason for this post is to yammer about the YUMmy Root Beer
at Culver's. Oooooohhhhh. Culllllllverrrrrrr's. Please don't say it's
caffeinated.
Aside from Culver's, the best "on-draught" sodas in the area (IMHO) are
the ones maintained by RC. Usually those have 7-Up (far superior to yucky
syrupy Sprite) and Dad's (caffeine-free, I believe...) Root Beer. I think
that Aljon's still gets its service from RC, <?> but I could be wrong.
Arby's is another, but the other (locally owned) outlets escape me.
cheers <clink!>
kate
--
W.W.X.D.???
Scott Sexton
their own. Joe Bob say's check it out!
PS The Queso Fries are GREAT hangover cures!
--
**********************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party www.sexton.com/eeyores
CDR Listing www.sexton.com/cdr
Highlander
(kate) wrote:
> Whoa, Mug has caffeine??? Are you sure? These are important things a mom
> needs to know. I thought that Barq's was the only caffeinated RB out there
> in the local fountains (and in just about every tap in just about every
> restaurant that serves to kids, dammit).
I dont think Mug has caffeine. I remember thinking it was strange they
had the slogan "The foam goes straight to your brain", yet had no caffeine
(which I assumed this was a reference to).
> Aside from Culver's, the best "on-draught" sodas in the area (IMHO) are
> the ones maintained by RC. Usually those have 7-Up (far superior to yucky
> syrupy Sprite) and Dad's (caffeine-free, I believe...) Root Beer. I think
> that Aljon's still gets its service from RC, <?> but I could be wrong.
> Arby's is another, but the other (locally owned) outlets escape me.
Who has RC besides Arby's?
James
Logan Shaw
Highlander <+++jvpan...@alumni.utexas.net> wrote:
>In article <xmess-12040...@ip54.auschron.com>, xm...@auschron.com
>(kate) wrote:
>
>> Whoa, Mug has caffeine??? Are you sure?
>
>had the slogan "The foam goes straight to your brain", yet had no caffeine
>(which I assumed this was a reference to).
Looks like I'm wrong. I went to www.pepsi.com and searched and found
out that it has a "great root beer taste that can't be beat, with no
caffeine".
I guess I must've assumed Mug would be caffeinated since it's made by
PepsiCo and they're somewhat evil.
Sorry for the misinformation...
- Logan
Logan Shaw
Highlander <+++jvpan...@alumni.utexas.net> wrote:
>In article <xmess-12040...@ip54.auschron.com>, xm...@auschron.com
>(kate) wrote:
>> the ones maintained by RC. Usually those have 7-Up (far superior to yucky
>> syrupy Sprite) and Dad's (caffeine-free, I believe...) Root Beer. I think
>> that Aljon's still gets its service from RC, <?> but I could be wrong.
>> Arby's is another, but the other (locally owned) outlets escape me.
>
>Who has RC besides Arby's?
Does Whataburger? I know that some locations have lots and lots of
things on tap, like maybe 15 different things. One of the options is
IBC Root Beer, and it's the same price as all the other soft drinks.
Of course, not all locations are the same. I'm thinking of the
location on Anderson Ln., just east of Shoal Creek.
- Logan
Albert Nurick
news:38EF666D...@activepower.com...
> Albert Nurick wrote:
>
> > Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO,
> > for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
>
> serve pork for the Gentiles.
Not really. If you have pork in the kitchen, you're not Kosher anymore. I
do
not recall similar dietary laws for vegetarian dishes. Heck, lots of
restaurants
offer a few vegetarian items amongst the omnivorous cusine.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
news:38EFA2...@yahoo.com...
> Albert Nurick wrote:
> >
> > Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO, vegetarian
> > restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores who
> > want to dine with vegetarians.
> Personally, I rather not have the smell of death in a
> place I go to eat, especially when it proclaims to be for vegetarians.
"Smell of death"? Sounds like a violation of health codes. Either that,
or you're making a political statement.
> You have to keep in mind that to many vegetarians, not having meat
> around is a matter of principle.
Ah. It seems that my second alternative was the correct one.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
news:38EFB6...@yahoo.com...
> Dusty Rhodes wrote:
> >
> > A vegetarian commenting on subs? What's your favorite hot dog? Barbecue?
> > Steak? Your opinion on any of these would be just as universal.
>
>
> I don't get involve with animal murder. Personally, I feel people who
> like meat should eat people. Meat is meat, murder is murder. What's
> the diff? Why waste your best friend by putting him six feet under? He
> probably tastes like chicken. Yum (cluck cluck cluck)
Sure, but you gleefully participate in the wholesale slaughter of plants,
you even
name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and
consume.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> > restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes for carnivores who
> > want to dine with vegetarians.
>
> have completely separate pans, dishes, utensils and refrigeration for
meat.
willing
> to serve it, clean up people willing to dispose of it, and a customer base
> willing to stomach the smell (which many vegetarians find absolutely
> revolting.) My guess is that customers and employees alike would leave in
> droves at the sight and smell of charred animal flesh in an erstwhile
> vegetarian restaurant.
<chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I
went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a
vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude
from the waiter.
Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless of
what their religion may be.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
news:slrn8f4ph...@technophilus.dhs.org...> > [...] IMO, vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of
> > with-meat dishes for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
>
Many ethnic restaurants offer a few generic choices for this sort of
situation (i.e. burgers). The choices tend to be bland but those that will
appeal to a wide variety of patrons (thus not Indian.)
But as Jan pointed out, it's more like a religion than a choice, thus the
zealotry amongs some vegetarians.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Dusty Rhodes
I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me
about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't
stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable
living things.
Choosing to be a vegetarian, OTOH, for health reasons makes perfect
sense to me. I don't agree, but at least it's not transparently
disingenuous and hypocritical.
Cheers,
Dusty
Albert Nurick
message news:0e7J4.84802$17.18...@news4.giganews.com...
> > plants, you even
> > name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and
> > consume.
>
> I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me
> about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't
> stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable
> living things.
Yep. Plants just don't have faces, I guess. IMO, it's the typical kind of
incomplete analysis that leads to a great deal of the misguided activism
that
we observe in our society... as bad as the "feel good" politics that these
same folks often complain about.
> Choosing to be a vegetarian, OTOH, for health reasons makes perfect
> sense to me. I don't agree, but at least it's not transparently
> disingenuous and hypocritical.
Agreed.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
JCS
Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote in message
news:0e7J4.84802$17.18...@news4.giganews.com...
> Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote in message
> news:FS6J4.4106$Nm2.1...@news.swbell.net...
> > news:38EFB6...@yahoo.com...
> > > Dusty Rhodes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A vegetarian commenting on subs? What's your favorite hot dog?
> Barbecue?
> > > > Steak? Your opinion on any of these would be just as universal.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't get involve with animal murder. Personally, I feel people
> who
> > > like meat should eat people. Meat is meat, murder is murder.
> What's
> > > the diff? Why waste your best friend by putting him six feet under?
> He
> > > probably tastes like chicken. Yum (cluck cluck cluck)
> >
> plants,
> > you even
> > name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and
> > consume.
>
> I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me
> about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't
> stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable
> living things.
Well, one huge difference is that many, if not most, plant foods evolved
specifically to attract a hungry herbivore as a means of seed dispersal...
fruits, seeds, nuts, grains. Can't think of any similar adaptations in the
animal world.
Reminds of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and the animal that was
bred to want to be eaten, and was, according to Doug Adams, "capable of
saying so clearly and distinctly."
"Bahahahaaaaa.... sir, can I interest you in parts of my body?"
--
jan
JCS
> > > Heck, if they served meat, I might frequent the place. IMO,
> > > vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat
> > > dishes for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
> >
> > to have completely separate pans, dishes, utensils and refrigeration
> > for meat. Not to mention a (probably new) chef willing to cook
> > meat, waitstaff willing to serve it, clean up people willing to dispose
> > of it, and a customer base willing to stomach the smell (which many
> > vegetarians find absolutely revolting.) My guess is that customers
> > and employees alike would leave in droves at the sight and smell of
> > charred animal flesh in an erstwhile vegetarian restaurant.
>
> <chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I
> went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a
> vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude
> from the waiter.
I do fail to understand why vegetarians get the grief they do. Sure,
evidence suggests that humans are basically omnivores, meaning we've evolved
to eat anything we can capture and hold down. But by comparison to the
bizarre meat-and-oil centered diet most Westerners are raised to,
vegetarianism is an adaptive norm.
> Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless of
> what their religion may be.
You said something about "a huge load of attitude"... ?
--
jan
Logan Shaw
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>the_austin_cars <the_aus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:38EFA2...@yahoo.com...
>> Personally, I rather not have the smell of death in a
>> place I go to eat, especially when it proclaims to be for vegetarians.
>
>"Smell of death"? Sounds like a violation of health codes. Either that,
>or you're making a political statement.
Is it possible for you to believe that they just don't like the smell
of meat? Or do they have to have the same preferences as you?
As a kid, my parents had to coerce me to eat my vegetables, because I
didn't like them. My sister was the other way around. She ate all her
vegetables (and fruits) without any convincing, but she ate her meat
only because our parents made her.
Gradually, as she got older, she found herself eating just chicken and
fish, because she preferred them to red meat. Eventually, that trailed
off too. I talked to her one time about it, and she said that on a few
occasions she tried eating meat, but found she liked it even less
because she hadn't had any of it in a while and was thus not acclimated
to it.
So, today she's a vegetarian. Not for moral or health reasons, but
because she doesn't like meat. And guess what: she finds the smell of
it distasteful. In fact, she was chosen for a focus group when they
were building Central Market and she suggested they lay it out so that
nobody had to go through the meat section if they didn't want to,
because of the smell.
So, if I were a vegetarian and I went to a vegetarian restaurant, one
of the attractions would be that I wouldn't have to smell meat.
It would be a lot like if there were restaurants that sold food that
was entirely free of celery, lima beans, and squash. I pretty much
hate those foods enough that a guarantee that I wouldn't even have to
smell them would be worth something to me.
Now, if you add in the moral dimension, the smell of meat becomes (for
some people) objectionable for two independent reasons. Since
vegetarian restaurants are there to serve people who find it
objectionable, it only makes sense for them to cater to what those
people want.
- Logan
Logan Shaw
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
><chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I
>went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a
>vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude
>from the waiter.
Ask any vegetarian if they've even gotten a negative response from a
waiter or waitress when they tried to order stuff *without* meat at a
restaurant that serves meat. No, they usually don't get a moral
tirade, but sometimes the waiter/waitress (or cook) is unwilling to be
accomodating, and sometimes they get looked down upon or laughed at.
So what's the difference between the "anyone who eats meat is a
murderer" and "anyone who doesn't eat meat is stupid and they should
just be normal like me" attitude?
- Logan
Logan Shaw
Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote:
>I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me
>about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't
>stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable
>living things.
>
>sense to me. I don't agree, but at least it's not transparently
>disingenuous and hypocritical.
I don't eat veal (or live goldfish, or numerous other "delicacies")
because I feel that although most meat is O.K., the way these foods are
produced is inhumane.
Does that automatically make me transparently disingenuous and
hypocritical?
- Logan
Logan Shaw
Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote:
>I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me
>about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't
>stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable
>living things.
You're absolutely right! Down with specieism! Specieism MUST be
[ahem] ROOTED OUT of our society!
Why did you know that right at this very moment, the University of
Texas at Austin SEGREGATES its biology classes? Yes, that's right!
Instead of living in a SPECIESBLIND world, we live in one where one
class of subject matter goes by the name ZOOLOGY, but another, totally
INNOCENT class of subject matter is forced to endure the OBLOQUY of
being called by the derogatory name BOTANY. This INJUSTICE must be
STOPPED!
Will this even END? I feel the University of Texas should institute a
subject matter desegregation policy IMMEDIATELY! If we all work
together, then one day soon PLANTS will no longer be forced to move to
the back of the [cough cough] SYLLABUS while the ANIMALS sit at the
front!
If you agree, come show your support for this WORTHY CAUSE by
demonstrating with me at an ANTI-SPECIEISM rally to be held on the West
Mall the SIXTH TUESDAY of THIS MONTH at 13:00am!
- Logan
JCS
news:8d37bd$jki$1...@havarti.cs.utexas.edu...
> In article <0e7J4.84802$17.18...@news4.giganews.com>,
> Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote:
> >I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers me
> >about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I can't
> >stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable
> >living things.
>
> You're absolutely right! Down with specieism! Specieism MUST be
> [ahem] ROOTED OUT of our society!
>
> Why did you know that right at this very moment, the University of
> Texas at Austin SEGREGATES its biology classes? Yes, that's right!
> Instead of living in a SPECIESBLIND world, we live in one where one
> class of subject matter goes by the name ZOOLOGY, but another, totally
> INNOCENT class of subject matter is forced to endure the OBLOQUY of
> being called by the derogatory name BOTANY. This INJUSTICE must be
> STOPPED!
>
> Will this even END? I feel the University of Texas should institute a
> subject matter desegregation policy IMMEDIATELY!
They've already done it. The botany and zoology departments no longer
exist, many of their fields having been integrated into a new department
called "Integrative Biology." How did you see so clearly into the past? :-)
> If we all work
> together, then one day soon PLANTS will no longer be forced to move to
> the back of the [cough cough] SYLLABUS while the ANIMALS sit at the
> front!
Heh, he... actually, UT Botany was invariably ranked #1 or #2 nationally,
higher than zoo. :-)
> If you agree, come show your support for this WORTHY CAUSE by
> demonstrating with me at an ANTI-SPECIEISM rally to be held on the West
> Mall the SIXTH TUESDAY of THIS MONTH at 13:00am!
Yep, us people and us artichokes and us acellular slime molds must all come
together as friends, because it's good to eat a friend, my friend.
--
jan
Albert Nurick
JCS <tee...@jump.net> wrote in message news:8d31ph$cv9$1...@news.jump.net...
> > went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a
> > vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude
> > from the waiter.
>
> evidence suggests that humans are basically omnivores, meaning we've
evolved
> to eat anything we can capture and hold down. But by comparison to the
> bizarre meat-and-oil centered diet most Westerners are raised to,
> vegetarianism is an adaptive norm.
I've got no problem with the diet... I've got a problem with the preaching
that
often accompanies it.
> > Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless
of
> > what their religion may be.
>
> You said something about "a huge load of attitude"... ?
Yep. The "how dare you eat meat" BS.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> In article <oR6J4.4105$Nm2.1...@news.swbell.net>,
> Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> >the_austin_cars <the_aus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:38EFA2...@yahoo.com...
> >> Personally, I rather not have the smell of death in a
> >> place I go to eat, especially when it proclaims to be for vegetarians.
> >
> >"Smell of death"? Sounds like a violation of health codes. Either that,
> >or you're making a political statement.
>
> Is it possible for you to believe that they just don't like the smell
> of meat? Or do they have to have the same preferences as you?
If so, that's what they could have said. The "smell of death" is the type
of
high drama that is typical of the vegetarians I find irritating. Let me be
clear: I have no problem with their preference, my problem is with the
preaching.
> As a kid, my parents had to coerce me to eat my vegetables, because I
> didn't like them. My sister was the other way around. She ate all her
> vegetables (and fruits) without any convincing, but she ate her meat
> only because our parents made her.
>
> Gradually, as she got older, she found herself eating just chicken and
> fish, because she preferred them to red meat. Eventually, that trailed
> off too. I talked to her one time about it, and she said that on a few
> occasions she tried eating meat, but found she liked it even less
> because she hadn't had any of it in a while and was thus not acclimated
> to it.
I know folks like this. Like you, I took more to meat than to vegetables.
> So, today she's a vegetarian. Not for moral or health reasons, but
> because she doesn't like meat. And guess what: she finds the smell of
> it distasteful. In fact, she was chosen for a focus group when they
> were building Central Market and she suggested they lay it out so that
> nobody had to go through the meat section if they didn't want to,
> because of the smell.
Interesting.
> So, if I were a vegetarian and I went to a vegetarian restaurant, one
> of the attractions would be that I wouldn't have to smell meat.
Hmmm... I wonder how common your sister's preference is? In
other words, would they lose more business or gain more if they
added meat to the menu?
> It would be a lot like if there were restaurants that sold food that
> was entirely free of celery, lima beans, and squash. I pretty much
> hate those foods enough that a guarantee that I wouldn't even have to
> smell them would be worth something to me.
I'm OK with celery, but am not fans of the other two. And there are
plenty of other things I dislike. But having 'em on a plate across the
table is no big deal.
I guess this is just a natural step in our current society, the chant of
"I am Offended, and I Must Be Appeased." We've become a rather
sickeningly self-centered group.
> Now, if you add in the moral dimension, the smell of meat becomes (for
> some people) objectionable for two independent reasons. Since
> vegetarian restaurants are there to serve people who find it
> objectionable, it only makes sense for them to cater to what those
> people want.
Ok.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> In article <%V6J4.4109$Nm2.1...@news.swbell.net>,
> Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> ><chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's secular. I
> >went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware that it was a
> >vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a huge load of attitude
> >from the waiter.
>
> waiter or waitress when they tried to order stuff *without* meat at a
> restaurant that serves meat. No, they usually don't get a moral
> tirade, but sometimes the waiter/waitress (or cook) is unwilling to be
> accomodating, and sometimes they get looked down upon or laughed at.
>
> So what's the difference between the "anyone who eats meat is a
> murderer" and "anyone who doesn't eat meat is stupid and they should
> just be normal like me" attitude?
Both are silly attitudes. But the presence of one does not justify the
presence of the other.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:00:17 -0500, Dusty Rhodes
> <te...@texas.net> wrote:
> > I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers
> > me about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I
> > can't stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less
> > valuable living things.
>
> whole "shooting people people is murder" meat eating crowd. It's
> their blatant specieism I can't stand. How typically humanistic to
> assume animals are less valuable living things.
In the viewpoint of some of us, they are.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Norman Richards
<te...@texas.net> wrote:
> I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers
> me about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I
> can't stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less
> valuable living things.
Come to think of it - that reminds me of what bothers me about the
whole "shooting people people is murder" meat eating crowd. It's
their blatant specieism I can't stand. How typically humanistic to
assume animals are less valuable living things.
___________________________________________________________________________
o...@cs.utexas.edu soli deo gloria
Highlander
(Logan Shaw) wrote:
> In article <+++jvpaniagua-12...@dhcp-74-96.edb.utexas.edu>,
> Highlander <+++jvpan...@alumni.utexas.net> wrote:
> >In article <xmess-12040...@ip54.auschron.com>, xm...@auschron.com
> >(kate) wrote:
> >> Aside from Culver's, the best "on-draught" sodas in the area (IMHO) are
> >> the ones maintained by RC. Usually those have 7-Up (far superior to yucky
> >> syrupy Sprite) and Dad's (caffeine-free, I believe...) Root Beer. I think
> >> that Aljon's still gets its service from RC, <?> but I could be wrong.
> >> Arby's is another, but the other (locally owned) outlets escape me.
> >
> >Who has RC besides Arby's?
>
> Does Whataburger? I know that some locations have lots and lots of
> things on tap, like maybe 15 different things. One of the options is
> IBC Root Beer, and it's the same price as all the other soft drinks.
No, Whataburger has Coke, but they also have IBC. They must have some
kind of deal going. However I remember when they started serving IBC it
was a big enough deal that it merited "We now serve IBC Root Beer" signs
near the fountain.
Interesting note on Arby's. Everywhere I'd ever been to Arby's (Waco,
Austin, San Antonio) they served RC. Also the restaurants were quite old
and not really kept up too well.
However when my girlfriend moved to the Metroplex I noticed that not only
are the Arby's nicer, but they serve Coke. Up there Arby's is marketed
sort of like fast food for adults. They have clean stores and friendly
workers. What does this all mean?!
James
Sid Subramanian
> > On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 11:26:25 -0500, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com>
> wrote:
> > > with-meat dishes for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
> >
> > indian food lovers who want to dine with people eating Italian food.
>
> Many ethnic restaurants offer a few generic choices for this sort of
> situation (i.e. burgers). The choices tend to be bland but those that
will
> appeal to a wide variety of patrons (thus not Indian.)
There are still two problems with your recommendation though: first, as
others have pointed out, the attraction of the vegetarian restaurant is
precisely the fact that vegetarian patrons can order anything off the menu
and not have meat in it. Second, there are plenty of meatless generic
choices at vegetarian restaurants that anyone can eat. At West Lynn you
can, for example, order a simple pasta with marinara sauce, or sauteed
veggies with no spicing. What could be more generic than that? Does one
really need to have meat to make a bland, boring dish? :-)
As an omnivore who's married to a vegetarian (and thus eats a lot of
meatless meals), I'm a little baffled by the idea that a generic choice to
satisfy the masses must have meat in it. It seems to me that someone used
to a conventional diet can find plenty to eat at West Lynn in the same
unsatisfying way in which vegetarians can find boring dishes that they can
eat at most other restaurants.
Sid
jim andrews
says...
> jim andrews <jand...@activepower.com> wrote in message
> news:38EF666D...@activepower.com...
> > Albert Nurick wrote:
> >
> > > vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of with-meat dishes
> > > for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
> >
> > serve pork for the Gentiles.
>
> Not really. If you have pork in the kitchen, you're not Kosher anymore. I
> do not recall similar dietary laws for vegetarian dishes. Heck, lots of
> restaurants offer a few vegetarian items amongst the omnivorous cusine.
And they aren't *vegetarian restaurants*. This isn't difficult.
Logic dictates that a vegetarian restaurant is one that doesn't
serve meat, doesn't it?
Look, there are plenty of vegetarians who don't have a problem
with eating at a place that serves meat. I was just such a person
for over four years. That doesn't mean all vegetarians don't mind
it, and it doesn't mean that a place like Threadgill's should be
called a *vegetarian* restaurant. It ain't.
jim andrews
jim andrews
> > Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless of
> > what their religion may be.
>
> You said something about "a huge load of attitude"... ?
No shit. You could cut the irony with a, ummm . . . vegetable?
jim andrews
Albert Nurick
message news:8d4n4b$2ph$1...@news.jump.net...
> There are still two problems with your recommendation though: first, as
> others have pointed out, the attraction of the vegetarian restaurant is
> precisely the fact that vegetarian patrons can order anything off the menu
> and not have meat in it.
OK, I guess. I've got to conclude that vegetarians are a lot more uppity
about this than omnivores; I certainly don't get offended by veggie
offerings
on a menu, even if it's not something that interests me.
> Second, there are plenty of meatless generic
> choices at vegetarian restaurants that anyone can eat. At West Lynn you
> can, for example, order a simple pasta with marinara sauce, or sauteed
> veggies with no spicing. What could be more generic than that? Does one
> really need to have meat to make a bland, boring dish? :-)
For some folks, it isn't a meal if there's no meat.
> As an omnivore who's married to a vegetarian (and thus eats a lot of
> meatless meals), I'm a little baffled by the idea that a generic choice to
> satisfy the masses must have meat in it. It seems to me that someone used
> to a conventional diet can find plenty to eat at West Lynn in the same
> unsatisfying way in which vegetarians can find boring dishes that they can
> eat at most other restaurants.
Perhaps.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
I
> > do not recall similar dietary laws for vegetarian dishes. Heck, lots of
> > restaurants offer a few vegetarian items amongst the omnivorous cusine.
>
> And they aren't *vegetarian restaurants*. This isn't difficult.
> Logic dictates that a vegetarian restaurant is one that doesn't
> serve meat, doesn't it?
That's certainly one definition. I'd consider a vegetarian restaurant to be
one that caters primarily to vegetarians, just as having burgers on the menu
at a Chinese place does not make it anything but a Chinese restaurant.
> Look, there are plenty of vegetarians who don't have a problem
> with eating at a place that serves meat. I was just such a person
> for over four years. That doesn't mean all vegetarians don't mind
> it, and it doesn't mean that a place like Threadgill's should be
> called a *vegetarian* restaurant. It ain't.
Okey dokey. To each his own, though. I spend a lot of money dining
out, and West Lynn has never gotten a share of it. They've been around
for quite a while, so obviously they've survived this hardship. ;-)
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
I'm not following here; am I displaying an attitude in your opinion?
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Logan Shaw
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>OK, I guess. I've got to conclude that vegetarians are a lot more uppity
>about this than omnivores; I certainly don't get offended by veggie
>offerings
>on a menu, even if it's not something that interests me.
I'm going to assume you're smart enough to understand why this is,
i.e. that it's because those entrees that the vegetarians don't
want to eat contain meat, whereas the ones you don't want to eat
don't contain anything you morally object to eating (vegetarian
food being, mostly, a subset of normal food).
So assuming that, I'm going to have to conclude that either:
(a) you don't agree that vegetarians are reasonable in being offended
if someone does something they regard as morally wrong,
or
(b) you think the view that it's morally wrong to eat meat is something
that could not be held by a reasonable, rational person.
I can't understand either point of view, personally. If you accept
that vegetarians genuinely believe it's immoral to eat meat, then you
have to allow them to be offended when people do what they think of as
immoral, just like anyone else would be about any other subject. And
if you think vegetarianism isn't a defensible stance, I don't know how
to answer that except to say that every group (culture, etc.) has mores
about what it considers O.K. and what it does not consider O.K. to eat.
>For some folks, it isn't a meal if there's no meat.
So if you had a breakfast composed of pancakes, an omelette, an english
muffin, and hash browns, that wouldn't count as a real meal? What if
you went to a Tex-Mex place and had chips and salsa, and then ordered a
plate of cheese enchiladas with rice and beans, and then followed that
up with sopapillas? What about two slices of cheese pizza, a salad,
and a Coke?
This is the kind of statement that would frustrate me if I were a
vegetarian. You are saying vegetarians are unreasonable, and yet your
view of eating is so centered on meat that you are (apparently) unable
to conceive of a meal that would be good without it. So how can I
believe you are really honestly considering the possibility that some
other diet might be good?
- Logan
Albert Nurick
> In article <AIqJ4.9346$lT3.2...@news.swbell.net>,
> Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> >OK, I guess. I've got to conclude that vegetarians are a lot more uppity
> >about this than omnivores; I certainly don't get offended by veggie
> >offerings
> >on a menu, even if it's not something that interests me.
>
> I'm going to assume you're smart enough to understand why this is,
> i.e. that it's because those entrees that the vegetarians don't
> want to eat contain meat, whereas the ones you don't want to eat
> don't contain anything you morally object to eating (vegetarian
> food being, mostly, a subset of normal food).
>
> So assuming that, I'm going to have to conclude that either:
>
> (a) you don't agree that vegetarians are reasonable in being offended
> if someone does something they regard as morally wrong, or
> (b) you think the view that it's morally wrong to eat meat is something
> that could not be held by a reasonable, rational person.
I guess it's a combination of both, actually. I believe that our
society is currently filled with way too many people finding way
too many things that offend them. If someone honestly feels that
eating meat is wrong, I respect that, but I suspect that most of the
vegetarians are more like the typical activist whose beliefs are
less strong than their desire to be seen as an activist. ;-)
> I can't understand either point of view, personally. If you accept
> that vegetarians genuinely believe it's immoral to eat meat, then you
> have to allow them to be offended when people do what they think of as
> immoral, just like anyone else would be about any other subject. And
> if you think vegetarianism isn't a defensible stance, I don't know how
> to answer that except to say that every group (culture, etc.) has mores
> about what it considers O.K. and what it does not consider O.K. to eat.
I'm not trying to tell 'em what to do; I just suggested that a couple of
non-vegetarian choices might be a good thing. It's funny how merely
making this suggestion causes such a response.
> >For some folks, it isn't a meal if there's no meat.
>
> So if you had a breakfast composed of pancakes, an omelette, an english
> muffin, and hash browns, that wouldn't count as a real meal?
Yep, but the omelette would be a Denver one, and I'd add bacon or sausage
on the side.
> What if
> you went to a Tex-Mex place and had chips and salsa, and then ordered a
> plate of cheese enchiladas with rice and beans, and then followed that
> up with sopapillas? What about two slices of cheese pizza, a salad,
> and a Coke?
*None* of those things are stuff I'd order. Chicken enchiladas verdes
would be much more likely, as would pepperoni pizza.
> This is the kind of statement that would frustrate me if I were a
> vegetarian. You are saying vegetarians are unreasonable, and yet your
> view of eating is so centered on meat that you are (apparently) unable
> to conceive of a meal that would be good without it.
I can conceive a meal that would be fine without meat, I just probably
wouldn't choose to pay for it.
> So how can I
> believe you are really honestly considering the possibility that some
> other diet might be good?
I've *never* said that vegetarians shouldn't eat what they wish; I
merely suggested that restaurants like West Lynn Cafe might want to add
some items with meat.
It seems, like so many groups, vegetarians aren't too tolerant of those
with differing opinions; for some, it seems that merely the *choice* to
eat a non-vegetarian meal would make a restaurant unacceptable.
As someone brought up, it's sounds like the kosher laws, which is why I
mentioned that it seemed more like religion that anything else.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Dusty Rhodes
>
> Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> > I wasn't going to bring that up, but that's *exactly* what bothers
me
> > about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I
can't
> > stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable
> > living things.
>
> Well, one huge difference is that many, if not most, plant foods
evolved
> specifically to attract a hungry herbivore as a means of seed
dispersal...
> fruits, seeds, nuts, grains. Can't think of any similar adaptations
in the
> animal world.
That is an excellent answer. Unfortunately, it is not complete. Without
limits to population, limits supplied throughout time by predators, and
the adaptations to predatory behavior, no animal species would survive
and thrive. IOW, it's a 2 way street, evolutionarily speaking.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
> In article <0e7J4.84802$17.18...@news4.giganews.com>,
> Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote:
> >about the "meat is murder" crowd. It's their blatant specieism I
can't
> >stand. How typically animalistic to assume plants are less valuable
> >living things.
> >
> >sense to me. I don't agree, but at least it's not transparently
> >disingenuous and hypocritical.
>
> I don't eat veal (or live goldfish, or numerous other "delicacies")
> because I feel that although most meat is O.K., the way these foods
are
> produced is inhumane.
I do not eat veal, either. Or chilled monkey brains. Point, please?
> Does that automatically make me transparently disingenuous and
> hypocritical?
I don't know. Does it? It certainly would if your primary reason for
avoiding all meat was because meat is murder. That does not appear to be
the case here.
Cheers,
Dusty
Werner
> I don't eat veal (or live goldfish, or numerous other "delicacies")
> Does that automatically make me transparently disingenuous and hypocritical?
no, but your use of the word "inhumane" made me chuckle....
(I also wonder if "the delicacies" might object to being included...:-)
jim andrews
says...
> > In article <LP6J4.4104$Nm2.1...@news.swbell.net>, alb...@nurick.com
> > says...
> > > Not really. If you have pork in the kitchen, you're not Kosher anymore.
> I
> > > do not recall similar dietary laws for vegetarian dishes. Heck, lots of
> > > restaurants offer a few vegetarian items amongst the omnivorous cusine.
> >
> > And they aren't *vegetarian restaurants*. This isn't difficult.
> > Logic dictates that a vegetarian restaurant is one that doesn't
> > serve meat, doesn't it?
>
> That's certainly one definition. I'd consider a vegetarian restaurant to be
> one that caters primarily to vegetarians, just as having burgers on the menu
> at a Chinese place does not make it anything but a Chinese restaurant.
Well, beef (ground or not) doesn't fall exclusively OUTSIDE
of the definition of Chinese food. Big difference.
jim andrews
jim andrews
> > In article <8d31ph$cv9$1...@news.jump.net>, tee...@jump.net says...
> > > Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%V6J4.4109$Nm2.1...@news.swbell.net...
> >
> > > > Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless
> of
> > > > what their religion may be.
> > >
> > > You said something about "a huge load of attitude"... ?
> >
> > No shit. You could cut the irony with a, ummm . . . vegetable?
>
> I'm not following here; am I displaying an attitude in your opinion?
Absolutely. For starters, you've taken a thread that simply
asked about what options one might have for vegetarian dining
in Austin and turned it into a rant on the zealotry of CERTAIN
vegetarians. Here's one quote:
"<chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's
secular. I went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware
that it was a vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a
huge load of attitude from the waiter.
Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks,
regardless of what their religion may be."
I see loads of attitude in your post. You probably don't. Surprise.
jim andrews
Victor M. Martinez
>I do not eat veal, either. Or chilled monkey brains. Point, please?
But veal is soooo yummy!!!!! If it wasn't that damn expensive, I'd eat it
all the time. Cant' talk about monkey brains, but veal brains are delicious!
Cheers.
--
Victor M. Martinez, Jr. | The University of Texas at Austin
mar...@che.utexas.edu | Department of Chemical Engineering
http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv | Austin, TX 78712
If we knew what we were doing it would not be called research, would it?
Albert Nurick
> In article <PKqJ4.9347$lT3.2...@news.swbell.net>, alb...@nurick.com
> > > In article <LP6J4.4104$Nm2.1...@news.swbell.net>, alb...@nurick.com
> > > says...
> > > > Not really. If you have pork in the kitchen, you're not Kosher
anymore.
> > I
> > > > do not recall similar dietary laws for vegetarian dishes. Heck,
lots of
> > > > restaurants offer a few vegetarian items amongst the omnivorous
cusine.
> > >
> > > And they aren't *vegetarian restaurants*. This isn't difficult.
> > > Logic dictates that a vegetarian restaurant is one that doesn't
> > > serve meat, doesn't it?
> >
> > That's certainly one definition. I'd consider a vegetarian restaurant
to be
> > one that caters primarily to vegetarians, just as having burgers on the
menu
> > at a Chinese place does not make it anything but a Chinese restaurant.
>
> Well, beef (ground or not) doesn't fall exclusively OUTSIDE
> of the definition of Chinese food. Big difference.
Hamburgers do.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
>
> Absolutely. For starters, you've taken a thread that simply
> asked about what options one might have for vegetarian dining
> in Austin and turned it into a rant on the zealotry of CERTAIN
> vegetarians.
It's Usenet. Threads morph. Heck, at least this one is still
discussing the subject. ;-)
> Here's one quote:
>
> "<chuckle> I guess that religion is religion, even when it's
> secular. I went into West Lynn a few years ago, and wasn't aware
> that it was a vegetarian place. I asked about meat, and got a
> huge load of attitude from the waiter.
>
> Thanks, but no thanks. Religious zealots tend to be jerks,
> regardless of what their religion may be."
>
> I see loads of attitude in your post. You probably don't. Surprise.
The attitude was a sort of resigned amusement; I tried to make that clear
by the "<chuckle>". I guess I didn't make it clear enough for you. Sorry
for not spelling things out better.
I do find it a bit amusing that my daring to comment on the attitude
displayed by the vegetarian zealot who served me is viewed as attitude;
ah, the joys of our politically correct society.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
DLS
Albert Nurick wrote in message ...
>jim andrews <jand...@activepower.com> :
>> In article <sLqJ4.9348$lT3.2...@news.swbell.net>,
alb...@nurick.com
>> says...
>I do find it a bit amusing that my daring to comment on the attitude
>displayed by the vegetarian zealot who served me is viewed as
attitude;
>ah, the joys of our politically correct society.
It's your conclusion, offered without any supporting facts, that this
person's attitude was due to vegetarian zealotry. Maybe this person
has an attitude about most everything. Maybe this person was simply
reacting to your boorishness. Just because you think your argument is
clever and amusing, doesn't mean it actually is.
Lynn
----
reply to: lynns*uceat*jump*ucedot*ucenet - minus the uce
Werner
>>>>> Religious zealots tend to be jerks, regardless of their religion
>>>> You said something about "a huge load of attitude"... ?
>>> No shit. You could cut the irony with a, ummm . . . vegetable?
whatever.
Ignore the matter if you can't laugh along with others...
stop trying to make Albert out as an enemy of vegeans... he isn't!
If you can't laugh along, think it's stupid, then ignore it. If you
simply can't do that, then spare us the ranting here and take it over
to austin.flame or to email.
Free Advice, etc... (you know how it went)
Albert Nurick
news:8d7t4i$a4k$1...@news.jump.net...
> Albert Nurick wrote in message ...
> >jim andrews <jand...@activepower.com> :
> >> In article <sLqJ4.9348$lT3.2...@news.swbell.net>,
> alb...@nurick.com
> >> says...
>
>
> >I do find it a bit amusing that my daring to comment on the attitude
> >displayed by the vegetarian zealot who served me is viewed as
> attitude;
> >ah, the joys of our politically correct society.
>
> It's your conclusion, offered without any supporting facts, that this
> person's attitude was due to vegetarian zealotry.
You're right. I have no idea what was going on in his mind. I merely
reported what I observed; I asked about meat, and the attitude appeared.
Before that, the waiter was pleasant.
> Maybe this person has an attitude about most everything. Maybe this
> person was simply reacting to your boorishness.
Could be. But I wasn't aware that I was being boorish when I asked if
they had any items with meat; I believe I was being very polite. Of
course, feel free to jump to conclusions; the fact that you weren't
there shouldn't enter into things at all. ;-)
> Just because you think your argument is
> clever and amusing, doesn't mean it actually is.
I suppose. It does seem that many of austin.food's denizens have been
taking themselves extremely seriously in recent posts.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> Jim, unfortunately, doesn't dig Albert's humour (nor attitude):
It does look that way; I think he's held it against me that I poke
fun at Mike Dahmus.
> stop trying to make Albert out as an enemy of vegeans... he isn't!
Thanks, Werner. You're right. I think vegetarianism is a valid choice;
just not one that I choose to make. What I find silly is folks who get
all self-righteous about their choices, and bristle up when this is
pointed out.
> If you can't laugh along, think it's stupid, then ignore it. If you
> simply can't do that, then spare us the ranting here and take it over
> to austin.flame or to email.
>
> Free Advice, etc... (you know how it went)
For once, free advice that's worth more than it cost. ;-)
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Logan Shaw
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>> It's your conclusion, offered without any supporting facts, that this
>> person's attitude was due to vegetarian zealotry.
>
>You're right. I have no idea what was going on in his mind. I merely
>reported what I observed; I asked about meat, and the attitude appeared.
>Before that, the waiter was pleasant.
Since I find it hard to believe you asked before seeing the menu
(unless your practice is to always ask the waiter whether you're in a
vegetarian restaurant just to be sure), I will assume you asked the
waiter whether it was a vegetarian restaurant after seeing the menu.
In that case, you apparently already knew that the restaurant did not
serve any with-meat items because the information was there on the menu
that you had just read. In that case, what were you trying to
accomplish by asking the waiter whether it was a vegetarian
restaurant? It seems unlikely to me that you were simply trying to
gather information, and so I am hardly surprised that the waiter
responded negatively.
>I suppose. It does seem that many of austin.food's denizens have been
>taking themselves extremely seriously in recent posts.
In other words, you said something incitive, and now you are blaming
others for their reaction to it. This sounds a little like folks who
harass or insult others and then, when asked to stop, respond that
their targets are "too sensitive".
- Logan
Albert Nurick
> In article <SILJ4.10403$lT3.2...@news.swbell.net>,
> Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> >> It's your conclusion, offered without any supporting facts, that this
> >> person's attitude was due to vegetarian zealotry.
> >
> >You're right. I have no idea what was going on in his mind. I merely
> >reported what I observed; I asked about meat, and the attitude appeared.
> >Before that, the waiter was pleasant.
>
> Since I find it hard to believe you asked before seeing the menu
> (unless your practice is to always ask the waiter whether you're in a
> vegetarian restaurant just to be sure), I will assume you asked the
> waiter whether it was a vegetarian restaurant after seeing the menu.
You are correct.
> In that case, you apparently already knew that the restaurant did not
> serve any with-meat items because the information was there on the menu
> that you had just read.
Many restaurants offer items that are not on the menu, Logan.
> In that case, what were you trying to
> accomplish by asking the waiter whether it was a vegetarian
> restaurant?
I was trying to determine if they had any items with meat. At the time,
the restaurant hadn't done any marketing and had no signs that indicated
the fact. It was upscale, and didn't feel like any vegetarian restaurant
I'd ever seen. It was an honest question.
> It seems unlikely to me that you were simply trying to
> gather information, and so I am hardly surprised that the waiter
> responded negatively.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
> >I suppose. It does seem that many of austin.food's denizens have been
> >taking themselves extremely seriously in recent posts.
>
> In other words, you said something incitive,
How dare I point out the self-righteousness of certain individuals. How
dare I suggest that offering other choices might be an option.
> and now you are blaming
> others for their reaction to it. This sounds a little like folks who
> harass or insult others and then, when asked to stop, respond that
> their targets are "too sensitive".
I'd be willing to bet that you see this happen all the time. Lighten up,
Logan.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
The Austin Cars
>
> > >"Smell of death"? Sounds like a violation of health codes. Either that,
> > >or you're making a political statement.
> >
> > Is it possible for you to believe that they just don't like the smell
> > of meat? Or do they have to have the same preferences as you?
>
> If so, that's what they could have said. The "smell of death" is the type
> of
> high drama that is typical of the vegetarians I find irritating. Let me be
> clear: I have no problem with their preference, my problem is with the
> preaching.
What preaching? Meat is death, is it not?
Does not the animal have to die for you to
then eat it? The smell of meat, therefore,
is accurately described as "the smell of
death." That is not preaching, it is pretty
much a simple fact. No offense to you, of
course, though I am sure you're going to have
some kind of comeback. :-)
Death, by the way, deserves high drama. Some
vegetarians feel death can be associated with
murder.
On the other hand, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." To
achieve "meat to eat," one must kill... must
they not? For if, afterall, that applied only
to not killing men, it would have read: "Thou
Shalt Not Murder."
Nothing to fight over... just be aware that
this is a point of view. Seems a pretty logical
one too! LOL
Unlike some vegetarians, however, before you
chastise me, let me state that I don't look down
on people who eat meat, nor comment, nor frown.
To each their own... including our points of
view. Open your mind.
Party on, dude.
Logan Shaw
Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>> In that case, you apparently already knew that the restaurant did not
>> serve any with-meat items because the information was there on the menu
>> that you had just read.
>
>Many restaurants offer items that are not on the menu, Logan.
Have you ever been to or heard of a restaurant that has a menu entirely
free of with-meat items, but which serves meat if you ask for it? Do
you actually believe a single such restaurant is likely to exist in the
entire world? I will grant that it is possible, but I would be very
surprised.
>> In other words, you said something incitive,
>
>How dare I point out the self-righteousness of certain individuals. How
>dare I suggest that offering other choices might be an option.
You didn't say it might be an option. You said they should do it.
In doing so, you ignored the common-sense fact that offering meat is
antithetical to the raison d'etre of a vegetarian restaurant. I am
trying to think of a reason one might do that other than to taunt
someone, but I can't.
If you want to say you disagree with vegetarianism and that you think
some or all vegetarians are self-righteous, I don't have a problem with
that. But what you have said is different.
>> and now you are blaming
>> others for their reaction to it. This sounds a little like folks who
>> harass or insult others and then, when asked to stop, respond that
>> their targets are "too sensitive".
>
>I'd be willing to bet that you see this happen all the time.
In other words, you're calling me "too sensitive".
- Logan
The Austin Cars
>
> Sure, but you gleefully participate in the wholesale slaughter of plants,
> you even
> name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and
> consume.
>
> --
> Albert Nurick
> alb...@nurick.com
Yeah, that's the usual response... you're very
typical. Surprised you didn't say we murder molecules
that we breathe in or some such nonsense. LOL
Keep me smiling. :-)
The Austin Cars
>
> I respect your choice. I don't agree, but I respect your choice. I am
> simply pointing out that it effectively invalidates any opinion you may
> have about subs.
>
> Cheeers,
>
> Dusty
But there are at least two meals a vegitarian
can get at Thundercloud... and it is, afterall,
possible that PEOPLE WE KNOW eat meat. We don't
avoid you guys totally, you know!
Later.
The Austin Cars
>
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 11:26:25 -0500, Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> > [...] IMO, vegetarian restaurants should offer a couple of
> > with-meat dishes for carnivores who want to dine with vegetarians.
>
> indian food lovers who want to dine with people eating Italian food.
>
You hit it right on the nail.
Dusty Rhodes
news:38F7C7...@NOSPAMyahoo.com...
> Albert Nurick wrote:
<snip>
> On the other hand, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." To
> achieve "meat to eat," one must kill... must
> they not? For if, afterall, that applied only
> to not killing men, it would have read: "Thou
> Shalt Not Murder."
It's back to Hebrew school for you, child. "Thou shalt not murder," is a
far closer translation of the original Hebrew text into English than,
"Thou shalt not kill." Next time you cite a "fact" to support your
logically strained argument you may want to make sure it's actually a
fact. Not to mention, your entire argument is specious, at best, as the
Bible makes it clear in countless places that eating animals is just
fine.
Cheers,
Dusty
Logan Shaw
Dusty Rhodes <te...@REMOVETHIStexas.net> wrote:
>The Austin Cars <the_aus...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:38F7C7...@NOSPAMyahoo.com...
>> achieve "meat to eat," one must kill... must
>> they not? For if, afterall, that applied only
>> to not killing men, it would have read: "Thou
>> Shalt Not Murder."
>
>Bible makes it clear in countless places that eating animals is just
>fine.
For instance, Hebrews 4:14-15 says Jesus was without sin, and Luke
24:42-43 says, "They gave him [ Jesus ] a piece of broiled fish, and he
took it and ate it in their presence."
That's the New Testament, and there are some who don't go for that and
only go for the Torah. They'd have to consider things like the
numerous passages in the the Pentateuch which describe which kinds of
meat are O.K. to eat and which kinds are not.
On the other hand, there's the part (1st chapter of Daniel) that says,
"'Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but
vegetables to eat and water to drink.' . . . At the end of the ten days
they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men
who ate the royal food."
But it's hard to know what exactly the royal food was and what the
problem with it was, so that's hardly conclusive.
- Logan
The Austin Cars
>
> >your entire argument is specious, at best, as the
> >Bible makes it clear in countless places that eating animals is just
> >fine.
Don't recall the exact quote, but there is a passage that
talks about the first days of creation and it cites that
God created nuts and seed bearing plants. "These for man
shall be his meat."
> For instance, Hebrews 4:14-15 says Jesus was without sin, and Luke
> 24:42-43 says, "They gave him [ Jesus ] a piece of broiled fish, and he
> took it and ate it in their presence."
Actually, the original translation to that is, "They gave him
[ Jesus } a piece of food, and he took it and ate it in their
presence."
It was the English kings who changed "food" to other words
that implicated meat.
That is fact. But I think the Bible is just a good story...
not using it to prove any points. Just stating that death
is death and killing is killing.
If I was religious, I'd actually be quite happy that you all
eat meat. This way, heaven will be very empty when I get there
(you all be tending the fires in the sinner land!) - LOL
j/k
Lighten up. :-)
The Austin Cars
>
> It's back to Hebrew school for you, child. "Thou shalt not murder," is a
> far closer translation of the original Hebrew text into English than,
> "Thou shalt not kill."
No it is not.
Cheers!
Wendy Chatley Green
<the_aus...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
:Logan Shaw wrote:
:>
:> >your entire argument is specious, at best, as the
:> >Bible makes it clear in countless places that eating animals is just
:> >fine.
:
:Don't recall the exact quote, but there is a passage that
:talks about the first days of creation and it cites that
:God created nuts and seed bearing plants. "These for man
:shall be his meat."
:
:
:
:> For instance, Hebrews 4:14-15 says Jesus was without sin, and Luke
:> 24:42-43 says, "They gave him [ Jesus ] a piece of broiled fish, and he
:> took it and ate it in their presence."
:
:Actually, the original translation to that is, "They gave him
:[ Jesus } a piece of food, and he took it and ate it in their
:presence."
Nope--the original Greek has it as "fish" (ixthous.)
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:
: Nope--the original Greek has it as "fish" (ixthous.)
Make that "ixthuos".
The Austin Cars
>
> For some inexplicable reasons, The Austin Cars
> <the_aus...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :Actually, the original translation to that is, "They gave him
> :[ Jesus } a piece of food, and he took it and ate it in their
> :presence."
>
Greek??? Nope--the original Hebrew has it as "food"
Wendy Chatley Green
<the_aus...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
The New Testament, which you're quoting, was originally
written in Greek.
Dusty Rhodes
news:38F883...@NOSPAMyahoo.com...
Heh. Well, gee, if you say so. Screw the biblical scholars. Glad you could
clear that up for us.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
> Logan Shaw wrote:
> >
> > >your entire argument is specious, at best, as the
> > >Bible makes it clear in countless places that eating animals is just
> > >fine.
Logan Shaw did NOT write that. I know because I wrote that. At least learn
to trim & quote properly. Though, in your case, the distraction from your
added content is not necessarily a bad thing.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
> Wendy Chatley Green wrote:
> >
> > For some inexplicable reasons, The Austin Cars
> > <the_aus...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > :Actually, the original translation to that is, "They gave him
> > :[ Jesus } a piece of food, and he took it and ate it in their
> > :presence."
> >
> > Nope--the original Greek has it as "fish" (ixthous.)
>
>
>
> Greek??? Nope--the original Hebrew has it as "food"
Original Hebrew? New Testament? Wow, you really are a Biblical scholar.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dave Clark
Dusty Rhodes wrote:
>
> The Austin Cars wrote:
> >
> > Greek??? Nope--the original Hebrew has it as "food"
>
> Original Hebrew? New Testament? Wow, you really are a Biblical
> scholar.
Aww cut The Austin Cars some slack, he/she is lacking the proper
brain food... MEAT!
MAKE IT MEAT! MAKE IT MEAT! ;o)
--
Dave Clark Austin, Texas
http://www.jump.net/~davec N 30d 27.526m
mailto:da...@jump.net W 97d 48.826m
Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of checks.
The Austin Cars
>
> Dusty Rhodes wrote:
> >
> > The Austin Cars wrote:
> > >
> > > Greek??? Nope--the original Hebrew has it as "food"
> >
> > Original Hebrew? New Testament? Wow, you really are a Biblical
> > scholar.
>
> Aww cut The Austin Cars some slack, he/she is lacking the proper
> brain food... MEAT!
>
Actually, I'm rather having fun spitting mindless
things back and forth with you kids. :-)
Did you know that Budda was actually Jewish?
(*still giggling at ya guys!*)
Albert Nurick
> In article <2CNJ4.5899$_H2.1...@news.swbell.net>,
> Albert Nurick <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> >> In that case, you apparently already knew that the restaurant did not
> >> serve any with-meat items because the information was there on the menu
> >> that you had just read.
> >
> >Many restaurants offer items that are not on the menu, Logan.
>
> Have you ever been to or heard of a restaurant that has a menu entirely
> free of with-meat items, but which serves meat if you ask for it? Do
> you actually believe a single such restaurant is likely to exist in the
> entire world? I will grant that it is possible, but I would be very
> surprised.
You miss the point entirely.
I scanned the menu, and didn't see anything that appealed to me. I asked
the
waiter an honest question, and the response was exactly the sort of "how
dare
you" crap that I've been receiving *right here* from some rather
self-righteous
folks.
That, my friend, is poor business on the part of the restaurant, but seems
sadly common amongst some vegetarians, if my experience both at West Lynn
and here are any indication.
> >> In other words, you said something incitive,
> >
> >How dare I point out the self-righteousness of certain individuals. How
> >dare I suggest that offering other choices might be an option.
>
> You didn't say it might be an option. You said they should do it.
So? It's my opinion. That's incitive?
> In doing so, you ignored the common-sense fact that offering meat is
> antithetical to the raison d'etre of a vegetarian restaurant. I am
> trying to think of a reason one might do that other than to taunt
> someone, but I can't.
That doesn't surprise me. You view Vegetarian as some sort of pseudo-
religion; I view it as a focus for a restaurant, like Italian or Tex-Mex.
> If you want to say you disagree with vegetarianism and that you think
> some or all vegetarians are self-righteous, I don't have a problem with
> that. But what you have said is different.
OK.
> >> and now you are blaming
> >> others for their reaction to it. This sounds a little like folks who
> >> harass or insult others and then, when asked to stop, respond that
> >> their targets are "too sensitive".
> >
> >I'd be willing to bet that you see this happen all the time.
>
> In other words, you're calling me "too sensitive".
Judging from your responses to me in this thread and another here, that's
how it looks from where I sit.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> Albert Nurick wrote:
> >
> > > >"Smell of death"? Sounds like a violation of health codes. Either
that,
> > > >or you're making a political statement.
> > >
> > > Is it possible for you to believe that they just don't like the smell
> > > of meat? Or do they have to have the same preferences as you?
> >
> > If so, that's what they could have said. The "smell of death" is the
type
> > of
> > high drama that is typical of the vegetarians I find irritating. Let me
be
> > clear: I have no problem with their preference, my problem is with the
> > preaching.
>
>
>
> What preaching? Meat is death, is it not?
So are vegetables, but they don't seem to be wrapped in so much
drama. <chuckle>
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> Logan Shaw wrote:
> >
> > >your entire argument is specious, at best, as the
> > >Bible makes it clear in countless places that eating animals is just
> > >fine.
>
> talks about the first days of creation and it cites that
> God created nuts and seed bearing plants. "These for man
> shall be his meat."
A source? I've *never* run across these words in Genesis. And
they don't make sense, in as much as there are passages in the
Old Testament describing exactly which animals are considered
clean to eat.
> > For instance, Hebrews 4:14-15 says Jesus was without sin, and Luke
> > 24:42-43 says, "They gave him [ Jesus ] a piece of broiled fish, and he
> > took it and ate it in their presence."
>
> Actually, the original translation to that is, "They gave him
> [ Jesus } a piece of food, and he took it and ate it in their
> presence."
>
> It was the English kings who changed "food" to other words
> that implicated meat.
>
> That is fact.
A source? IMO, this seems like wishful revisionism.
> But I think the Bible is just a good story...
> not using it to prove any points. Just stating that death
> is death and killing is killing.
But killing plants is OK, right?
> If I was religious, I'd actually be quite happy that you all
> eat meat. This way, heaven will be very empty when I get there
> (you all be tending the fires in the sinner land!) - LOL
Eating meat is a sin according to Judaism or Christianity? A
source would be very much appreciated.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> Wendy Chatley Green wrote:
> >
> > <the_aus...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > :Actually, the original translation to that is, "They gave him
> > :[ Jesus } a piece of food, and he took it and ate it in their
> > :presence."
> >
>
Ummm... the New Testament was not originally written in Hebrew, but
in Greek. The Old Testament was originally in Hebrew.
You'll understand if I take the rest of your Biblical "facts" with
a large grain of NaCl, won't you?
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> Albert Nurick wrote:
> >
> > Sure, but you gleefully participate in the wholesale slaughter of
plants,
> > you even
> > name your movement after the innocent vegetables that you murder and
> > consume.
>
>
> typical. Surprised you didn't say we murder molecules
> that we breathe in or some such nonsense. LOL
It appears that your knowledge of biology is on par with your
knoledge of theology.
> Keep me smiling. :-)
I have a feeling that shiny objects do that just fine.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Therel Moore
>
>Actually, I'm rather having fun spitting mindless
>things back and forth with you kids. :-)
>
>Did you know that Budda was actually Jewish?
>
>(*still giggling at ya guys!*)
And the troll once unmasked, claims he was only having fun.
Thus his knowledge of humor is on par with his religious wisdom,
ie. lacking.
Therel Moore
Agnostic Pagan and Carnivore
The Austin Cars
Therel Moore wrote:
> And the troll once unmasked, claims he was only having fun.
>
> Thus his knowledge of humor is on par with his religious wisdom,
> ie. lacking.
>
> Therel Moore
> Agnostic Pagan and Carnivore
Actually, this didn't start out as what you define as "trolling,"
but when I realized the level of people I was dealing with in
the replies, I thought it'd be fun to play a little... sort of like
when you're a kid and you discover what a magnifing glass
can do and you spend the next hour holding it over ants in
the back yard. I wasn't hurting anyone that really mattered,
just the newsgroup's bar flies, don't you know, the guys who
have a comment about everything... sort of like that old saying,
"Jack of all Trades, Masters of None." Be cool. *waves*
Norman Richards
> > Don't recall the exact quote, but there is a passage that talks
> > about the first days of creation and it cites that God created
> > nuts and seed bearing plants. "These for man shall be his meat."
>
> A source? I've *never* run across these words in Genesis. And they
> don't make sense, in as much as there are passages in the Old
> Testament describing exactly which animals are considered clean to
> eat.
No - he's right. But the "meat" thing he is referring to is just an
oddity of that wacky King James translation. If you read any modern
translation, you wouldn't see that. (in other words, it would say
"meat" when talking about "meat" and "food" when talking about "food")
FWIW - I think the original poster was on the right track. At least
in the Genesis account, people did not begin eating meat until the
time of Noah. From the creation until Noah people did not eat
animals. An amusing "coincidence" is that immediately after the time
of noah recorded life spans begin dropping rapidly.
___________________________________________________________________________
o...@cs.utexas.edu soli deo gloria
DLS
Our definition of a year is a recent phenomenon. Some experts believe
that these recorded ages are greater because the ancients used other
units of measure. For instance, lunar cycles rather than solar
cycles. A lifespan of 750 lunar cycles (what we call a month),
divided by 13 (moons in a solar year), is 57 solar years, still an old
man by ancient standards.
Lynn
----
reply to: lynns*uceat*jump*ucedot*ucenet - minus the uce
Love problems? ask Tante Lina.
Need a dream guide? call on Cmaydn.
http://www.focusforms.com