Hi Mark & Kirt:

Well, Kirt, you knew I couldn't stay out of this forever, didn't you?  I'm
only jumping in at this eleventh hour because I was out all last week and
only just now got caught up.
I'll just say my stuff once then shut up:

To Mark:
Thanks for stating your original point, which I though was a very good
and valid one.  I'm sorry you got reamed for it.  Compassion is an
unpopular stance on this list, and even though your point was not about
compassion per se, but about being sure we don't delude ourselves, it
still took a lot of guts to post it.  I wonder if you will be so bold to open up
your opinions again in the future (I hope so)?  FWIW, I have read and
reread this whole debate and fail to see any of the attack or judgment
you have been accused of.  Up until you were accused of ill-intent I was
in the interesting position of agreeing with *everybody* in this debate.  I
admire and envy your grace under fire.

Kirt:
>Animal rights folks seem much more perseverated on compassion and
>mercy than anyone else. What feelings might they be assuaging?
I looked up both perseverate and assuage in my pocket Websters.
Perseverate is not in there, so I'll have to assume it's like 'fixated.'  So,
back to the time-honored tradition of psychoanalyzing
compassion-types.  It seems to me they are not assuaging but rather
trying to live by their feelings.

> I know prejudice when I hear it:
> admit it, you think that non-vegans are simply not as good as vegans.
This in and of itself smacks of prejudice against veganoids.  (My
term...should I copyright it?   :-))

>To pre-judge folks based on lunch seems the silliest of all, but...
This really begs the question.  If he *was* judging you, which I still don't
admit, it's not for 'lunch' but for killing.

>And FWIW, if I ever do sink into dismissing vegans ...
I'd say that ship has sailed, your stated exceptions notwithstanding,
based on the remainder of the sentence:
>it will have nothing to do with their lunch, but everything to do with their
>tacit "superiority" they excude and the relentless anger they direct
>toward the "bad guys" who eat the "wrong stuff".
Sigh....

>I'll repeat my original question to you[Mark]: Why must the other fellow
>defend his/her lunch to you?
HE NEVER ASKED YOU TO!  What am I missing?  Are you guys having a
private conversation besides this public one?

>I have no desire to convert anyone to any point of view. I find (aspiring
>and actual) vegans to have a corner on "touchiness" when their beliefs
>are challanged
I can't even believe you wrote this after the touchiness you've displayed
here.

<<snip rest of diatribe>>
Do you feel better now?  This whole thing just made me feel really sad.
But, I've put my helmet on, so flame away, or simply ignore, your choice.

Cheerless,
Martha