Ah, sorry I misunderstood. Everyone's diet is a little different, but the bulk of my calories come from dishes made from grains and legumes, with vegetables and nuts integrated into the dishes usually rather than by themselves. For example, chana masala in a sauce of tomatoes, ginger, peppers, spices, spinach, onions and some vegetable oil will have the majority of the calories coming from the garbanzo beans, then vegetable oil and vegetables in second place. I have an uncontrollable sweet tooth, so I do eat a lot of pastries, cookies, chocolate, icecream, that sort of thing, but it's probably best not to use that as an example I'm a fruit addict as well.

Indian cuisine has some of the best veg food around since they have the largest vegetarian food culture in the world. Whenever I'm in a city with no vegan restaurants I just go to an Indian place and I'm set. If you cook check out this site, has super simple and delicious Indian vegetarian recipes.

Post Punk Kitchen is a cool recipe site, too. I made their blueberry oatmeal waffles and roasted butternut alfredo this week and they were pretty orgasmic.

some good high calorie foods:

natto
rice
pasta
(sweet) potatoes
bananas
raisins
beans
nuts

...
natural peanut butter
guacamole
hummus
"potatoes" - purple/jagaimo/satoimo/satsumaimo/yamaimo
Most Chinese vegetable dishes (from the oil) beware of the chicken crystals usually thrown in
bread
flour-thickened soups
many varieties of formed rice cakes (niangao, tteok, toppoki etc.)

vileru Wrote:Switching topics, I ordered vegetarian curry last night to the shock of my girlfriend. Immediately, she said it won't taste good and that I should order chicken masala instead. Ever since I arrived in Japan, I've been constantly eating meat.

Vegetarian Indian curries are amazing, though it's hard to find the real thing. I lived in Singapore for 6 months (20-25% Indian) and ate Indian food made for Indians by Indians. I'd go out to lunch with Indian guys and just order whatever they would get and it was almost always delicious, and usually vegetarian. Though they do love their sweet desserts- too sweet for me.

Japanese food does tend to have meat in it- even if it's cut up really fine and hidden However, the volume of meat is so much less than a typical American diet, and meat is rarely the main dish. Tons of veg, rice, miso and a small piece of meat (often fish!), or strips of thinly sliced meat. I eat a very Japanese diet (as my wife cooks, and she is Japanese) and just got blood work done at a physical- my doctor was very impressed with my cholesterol levels, white/red blood count, etc. And this from a guy that likes a few beers. We do often have 1 or 2 days a week where we don't have any meat- it's not tough given all the wonderful veg we get in this area.

For those in the Bay Area- check out Oren's Hummus in Palo Alto- fantastic vegetarian/vegen foods. I found in on Yelp as the highest rated restaurant in the area- it inspired us to buy some chickpeas from whole foods and make our own hummus

Us in the Bay Area are really spoiled for awesome veg food. I'm going back to Japan in a couple weeks to see my family for the holidays, and think I might have mini withdrawals. "Vegan" is still a very foreign word in the land of the rising sun Heck, lots of people don't even know what shojin ryouri is.

Japan has the lowest consumption of meat of any industrialized nation, but consumption has skyrocketed since the end of WWII and the Westernization of the Japanese diet. Since 2000 we're seeing a trend of seafood consumption decreasing at the same rate beef/pork/poultry is increasing, so it's pretty clear seafood is just getting replaced. Beef imports to Japan next year are set to rise pretty highly too, and I wouldn't be surprised if before long the Japanese diet is a mirror image of America's.

I've been thinking about this thread and conversation a lot Aijin. There is a lot here that I agree with and appreciate, but one thing that is still bothering me is the speciesism point of view.

If one is not a speciesist (racism->racist, speciesism->speciesist?) and believes that all species are equal they must consider all species equal in terms of pain, suffering and death. I won't even get off on the tangent here that plants, insects and fungi are species too, let's just stick with the Animal Kingdom for now. If someone truly believe that an animal is equal to a human, they must avoid hurting or killing animals in any way possible, even to the detriment of themselves. There is no way to do that on a traditional vegetarian or vegan diet. The link you posted earlier showing the number of deaths per million calories was interesting, but it still proves the point- animals die in order for you to eat.

To the person that is truly against speciesism, this is unacceptable. They would only eat food that they know has not caused any animals to suffer or to die, I'd assume mostly by planting and harvesting their own food by hand. You can say that your diet minimizes animal suffering and death, but you cannot say that you are not a speciesist.

Yep, we're all speciesists, racists, sexists, and every other -ist to a certain extent, and I'm no exception. It's like the Avenue Q song, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist."

This morning I was cleaning dishes and accidentally killed an ant. I thought, "Awh" and was a little bummed, but I wasn't scarred for life like I would have if I had put down a dish and crushed a baby dolphin in the process, and saw her twitching on my countertop. Our cultures put different animals in a hierarchy for how much sympathy and care we should have towards them, and even if one rejects that hierarchy, just like any cultural view some fragments will likely always remain.

But as with with racism, sexism, and other isms, speciesism isn't a question of either being one or not, it exists in a spectrum like the others. For racism there's a world of difference between being a KKK member and going out and lynching black people, versus someone who views black people as equal but feels slightly uncomfortable when around them because they grew up in a 100% white neighborhood. For sexism there's a world of difference between someone thinking women are objectively inferior to men, and don't deserve equal legal rights, versus someone who thinks women are equal but because of cultural bias would prefer a male doctor versus a female one because he has subconscious associations that being a doctor is a male career.

Likewise, for speciesism there is a world of difference between viewing all animals as innately inferior, and sentencing hundreds of them to torturous existences and slaughter for your palette versus someone who indirectly kills bugs and small animals in crop fields by eating vegetables. It's all about minimizing the suffering each of us causes. Would I love if animals weren't harmed as a side effect of harvesting crops? Yes! But getting every farm to implement nets, underground wall systems, and whatever else that would require isn't gonna happen anytime soon, and most of us don't have the resources to grow all our own food. So we do what is in our power, and choose compassion over cruelty by eating foods that cause the least amount of suffering and death that we can.

One extreme form of Buddhist diet specifies that eating plants also causes suffering and death, so that the only way to live in complete compassion is to starve oneself to death. And, yeah, living in a bubble and starving to death is the only way to cause 0 animal death in this day and age, but this isn't a question of extremes, it's just a matter of leading a lifestyle that minimizes suffering as best as you can

Aijin Wrote:it's just a matter of leading a lifestyle that minimizes suffering as best as you can

Agreed. I also think that the only people who can protest whaling* are vegetarians and vegans, otherwise you're a hypocrite. Southpark certainly had it right.

I also made the point above because it seemed in direct conflict with the 10 minutes I watched of the video that talked about speciesism. It seemed to be sensationalism that isn't based in reality (unlike your post above).

I try and be conscious of what products I buy and eat- whether they be vegetables, dairy or meat. They damn well better be using the sharpest blades possible when harvesting the lettuce I eat!

*assuming it's sustainable and not killing protected species- the arguments to stop whaling because of financial reasons or because no one is eating whale is outside of what I'm talking about here

captal Wrote:Japanese food does tend to have meat in it- even if it's cut up really fine and hidden However, the volume of meat is so much less than a typical American diet, and meat is rarely the main dish. Tons of veg, rice, miso and a small piece of meat (often fish!), or strips of thinly sliced meat.

Do you always eat traditional meals that consist of miso, tsukemono, rice, and fish? Many common home meals are very much meat-centered: curry rice, tonkatsu, donburi, nabe, yakiniku, karaage, sukiyaki, etc. Sure, I always have plenty of vegetables with yakiniku and nabe, but that doesn't change anything about the rather large portions of meat.

captal Wrote:Agreed. I also think that the only people who can protest whaling* are vegetarians and vegans, otherwise you're a hypocrite. Southpark certainly had it right.

It is hypocritical, but sadly that doesn't stop people. The animal hierarchy for Americans seems to look like this: "Humans>Primates>Cats/dogs>Dolphins/whales/horses>everything else" Dolphins and whales are very romanticized, and people sit around their TVs watching Whale Wars thinking, "How can they do that?" as they bite into beef and pork. It's just like how so many people look at eating dogs and cats with disgust and horror, yet never think twice about the other meat they eat. As if a golden retriever suffers more in a slaughterhouse than a pig.

I see "stop puppy mills!" bumperstickers all the time, yet haven't come across a single "stop veal!" sticker :\ People don't stop to think why they love some animals called friends, and eat others called food, as the saying goes.

Sea Shepherd has piqued my interest lately, I'm curious what will happen with Paul Watson coming out of hiding and manning their shop this season despite the red notice issued by Interpol. I respect Sea Shepherd a lot simply because they've succeeded at making activism popular culture, rather than just getting labeled as terrorists and stuck in maximum security prisons.

vileru Wrote:

captal Wrote:Japanese food does tend to have meat in it- even if it's cut up really fine and hidden However, the volume of meat is so much less than a typical American diet, and meat is rarely the main dish. Tons of veg, rice, miso and a small piece of meat (often fish!), or strips of thinly sliced meat.

Do you always eat traditional meals that consist of miso, tsukemono, rice, and fish? Many common home meals are very much meat-centered: curry rice, tonkatsu, donburi, nabe, yakiniku, karaage, sukiyaki, etc. Sure, I always have plenty of vegetables with yakiniku and nabe, but that doesn't change anything about the rather large portions of meat.

We have curry and stew, but they are usually either vegetarian or don't have much meat in them. The amount of meat in nabe or sukiyaki is still much less than the typical American meal, in my exprience (and are far healthier). Agreed on karaage, given it's friend chicken

I'd estimate the amount of red meat I ate while living in Japan was <1% of what I normally had consumed in America, Chicken maybe 10-20%, Pork 25-30%, Fish 500-1000% and Rice... at least 100x as much.

As for Whale Wars- I've always found it kind of stupid since they are part of the romanticization of Whales. Why aren't they fighting the meat industry back home? Because whales are pretty and interesting, unlike cows and pigs. I bet they are sitting on their ship eating their meat and fish just like everyone else, and thus, hypocrites.

Although many Japanese people don't regularly eat as much meat as the US, you can definitely find high-meat meals. My local Maruetsu constantly has double-tonkatsu bento (1300 calories!), and the donburi that I see in both the school cafeteria and restaurants around here have at least as much meat as I would see in a typical American meal, if not more. And it's almost always deep fried. Most of the choices at the Origin Bento have lots of meat.

(And obviously meat-no meat is not the only metric; ramen, for instance, is very unhealthy despite often having only a small amount of meat.)

It's true that typical home-cooked Japanese meals, on average, have much less meat than their US counterparts. But I think it's getting a bit idealistic to imagine that the "rice, miso soup, fish, veggies" meal represents what everyone in Japan is eating all the time.

captal Wrote:As for Whale Wars- I've always found it kind of stupid since they are part of the romanticization of Whales. Why aren't they fighting the meat industry back home? Because whales are pretty and interesting, unlike cows and pigs. I bet they are sitting on their ship eating their meat and fish just like everyone else, and thus, hypocrites.

From the Sea Shepherd FAQ:

Quote:The Japanese argue that it is hypocritical for Westerners to eat meat and condemn the Japanese for eating whale meat? Do you agree?

Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd ships are vegan ships. We do not serve animal products on board our vessels. We are not hypocritical.

Activism is just like professions; people devote themselves to whatever they feel most strongly about, or to whatever their skill set is best suited for. Someone who becomes vegan after watching the movie "Babe" might feel most passionately about farm animals, whereas someone whose life is spent working out at sea might feel they can make the most change by working for an organization like Sea Shepherd rather than fighting factory farming with Mercy for Animals. Sea Shepherd is famous for the whales, but their mission statement is protection of the ocean's animals as a whole. They have campaigns against the slaughter of sharks, bluefin tuna, and seals as well.

I found this quote by him that I like, about how one can't be a true environmentalist if they are not also a vegetarian/vegan:

Quote:You cannot be an environmentalist unless you are a vegan or vegetarian. It’s a total contradiction. It’s willful ignorance on their part. You know, the Sierra Club or Greenpeace dismiss veganism or vegetarianism as an animal rights thing. It’s an environmentalist thing. And in fact, it’s probably the most significant environmental problem on the planet right now.

For instance, Greenpeace had an article like, “You can save the world by singing in the shower.” Some sort of silly thing where you turn off the shower, sing, lather up, and the water you save when you turn off the shower will save the planet. And then you go and have a steak, which takes 3,000 gallons of water to produce one ounce. It’s an incredible waste, and environmentalists don’t take this into account.

The 3,000 gallons of water for an oz of steak is an incorrect statistic, but the real number is still crazy high, and he's spot on with the point he's making, so I can forgive him for the mistake

Aijin Wrote:Activism is just like professions; people devote themselves to whatever they feel most strongly about, or to whatever their skill set is best suited for. Someone who becomes vegan after watching the movie "Babe" might feel most passionately about farm animals, whereas someone whose life is spent working out at sea might feel they can make the most change by working for an organization like Sea Shepherd rather than fighting factory farming with Mercy for Animals.

The endangered species factor is probably significant as well (farm animals are nowhere near extinct, whales are).

Aijin Wrote:The 3,000 gallons of water for an oz of steak is an incorrect statistic, but the real number is still crazy high, and he's spot on with the point he's making, so I can forgive him for the mistake

What people don't tell you (or realize) when they quote these statistics (even in the rare instances when they are remotely accurate), is that a large fraction of this "incredible waste" of water comes directly from the sky to grow grass that cows graze on. Then the cows eat the grass, excrete the water, and the water goes back into the sky. If growing plants with precipitation is a waste of water, then I think the rainforests have got some 'splaining to do.

All these statistics really demonstrate to me is that the people who quote them don't understand how the water cycle works.

JimmySeal Wrote:All these statistics really demonstrate to me is that the people who quote them don't understand how the water cycle works.

I think they do. The point of quoting it like that though, is because they are using the figures as scare tactics. Much like middle school DARE campaigns where they show these totally diseased lungs and still born babies, and tell you "If you smoke pot, this is what happens to you."

it pretty obviously uses more resources to create meat than plant food, because you have to grow plant food to feed the animals. So instead of having 2 fields growing plants to feed a vegan population, you'd have 1 field growing plants for people, a building full of animals to produce meat and an additional field growing food for the animals in order to feed a non-vegan population. You might even need 2 fields to produce the equivalent calories worth of meat because energy is lost in the process. You also need to provide drinking water and heating for the animals. You need to refrigerate the meat. You need all the slaughterhouse equipment (which uses energy) and you need to pay a bunch of people to work with the animals and maintain the production lines. All that labor could be redirected towards other industries thereby decreasing the demand and cost of that labour and thereby lowering consumer prices in other areas.

nadiatims Wrote:All that labor could be redirected towards other industries thereby decreasing the demand and cost of that labour and thereby lowering consumer prices in other areas.

If you could overnight shutdown 4/5 of the meat production industry permanently. Meaning no more cattle/chickens/pigs being raised to be consumed. You would overnight create massive unemployment across the country which wouldn't be easily remedied. Some of these people would be capable of switching their work to plant growth but you'd still probably have many in the vertical production chain which wouldn't have anywhere to go and they'd be forced into a situation where they couldn't necessarily "magically retrain" for a new profession/career. Just because you suddenly cut down an industry doesn't mean all those bodies will magically be moved into other parts of the market and make everything cheaper. Nor do I think that just because you have more people and potentially cheap [slave] labor, does that mean that prices will go down. If there is competition, maybe, but if there are too many monopolies and large corps I suspect much of this money saved through lower wages will see its way into dividends instead of in lower prices. Plus once monopolies ares formed prices can go back up slowly (Ex: Best Buy and brick and mortar electronics). Small business can't compete with large business.

nadiatims Wrote:So instead of having 2 fields growing plants to feed a vegan population, you'd have 1 field growing plants for people, a building full of animals to produce meat and an additional field growing food for the animals in order to feed a non-vegan population.

Yes, and while we're at it let's eliminate the gaming, film and other entertainment industries, golf courses, luxury cars, water parks, and anything else that's not absolutely necessary for human survival. Because apparently anything that uses anything more than the bare minimum amount of land, resources, or labor in order for people to actually enjoy their lives is wasteful.
Sounds like paradise to me.

That's the thing though Jimmy, taste buds are very malleable. You can get the same amount of enjoyment from greens as from meat, after the adaptation period - as opposed to going to live as a hermit, where you will adapt to live without luxury, but that will be adapting to live with less enjoyment, not adapting to get the same amount of enjoyment as with non-hermit life. Not to mention that many entertainment venues have side benefits; unlike meat overconsumption (a distinction has to be made between making meat rarer, and completely banning it, the latter being a huge overkill).

Terrible statistics quoters have perfectly understandable reasons for doing what they do, as with, really, all fear-mongers and misinformers. Doesn't decrease their sin in spreading misinformation though, nor does it help me believe in veggie activists' ability to stay neutral when presenting information. When a source proves itself unreliable once, that decreases the reliability of any future data from that source (there's also a problem with distrusting an entire group due to a single overzealous author, but it's partially a reason for the community to police itself). It basically means that if one is too busy/doesn't care enough about the topic enough to even research it, they can't trust info that has been served to them on a plate either.

Fadeway Wrote:That's the thing though Jimmy, taste buds are very malleable. You can get the same amount of enjoyment from greens as from meat,

The same could be said about almost anything that people enjoy. ("Driving preferences are very malleable. You can get the same amount of enjoyment from a Smart Car as you can from a BMW.")

Besides which, I'm doubtful that that is even true. There are few things that I enjoy more than going to my hometown pub and having a 24 ounce New York strip steak. There is no vegetarian food anywhere that could replace that.

Fadeway Wrote:That's the thing though Jimmy, taste buds are very malleable. You can get the same amount of enjoyment from greens as from meat

I don't see why this keeps getting restated differently over and over in this thread. How can you make a qualitative statement about how I experience reality when you aren't me? You are basically saying that I am experiencing the color red in exactly the same way that you are. When the reality might be that I am not seeing red at all or maybe some really bland shade of it. Hell, I may not even have the same concentration of receptors to allow me to see red in the same way you do, something like Tetrachromacy. Even in the realm of taste there is something like this. Ignoring the genetics of some people having taste bud receptors for stuff like unami, many people possess different concentrations of taste buds. Some have very few while others have many and are known as Supertasters. So trying to imply that everyone should experience the wonderful taste of veggies the way you do seems crazy to me.

JimmySeal Wrote:What people don't tell you (or realize) when they quote these statistics (even in the rare instances when they are remotely accurate), is that a large fraction of this "incredible waste" of water comes directly from the sky to grow grass that cows graze on. Then the cows eat the grass, excrete the water, and the water goes back into the sky. If growing plants with precipitation is a waste of water, then I think the rainforests have got some 'splaining to do.

Why are you using grazing systems as the norm for beef production, when it accounts for less than 10% of the world's beef? Soy, corn, and grains fed to animals in high density feedlots, pens, and stalls is what factory farming gives us. Grass is a thing of yesteryear.

Green water (rainwater) does account for a large percentage of water used in animal agriculture, but the issue isn't so simple as to say it gets put back into the water cycle and there are no issues. The simple fact of the matter is that animal agriculture does have an incredible water footprint, and that it is much higher than plant based crops.

Here's a 50 page report by the Institute for Water Education that covers every detail possible for this topic. http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Re...s-Vol1.pdf

When you look at the greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, deforestation, and every other issue of animal agriculture as a whole, it seems crazy to me to not at least lower consumption of meat. You don't have to go vegetarian to lower your footprint on the planet, you just do whatever you can as an individual. Be it one less meal of meat per day, Meatless Monday, or whatever.

Quote:Yes, and while we're at it let's eliminate the gaming, film and other entertainment industries, golf courses, luxury cars, water parks, and anything else that's not absolutely necessary for human survival. Because apparently anything that uses anything more than the bare minimum amount of land, resources, or labor in order for people to actually enjoy their lives is wasteful.
Sounds like paradise to me.

You don't have to live "bare minimum," but if we all have the American consumerism mindset, where we can consume as much as we want and waste as much as we want without thinking twice, we're pretty screwed in the long run. Global water crisis is brewing, with already around 3 billion people affected by water scarcity, and with the population and standard of living projected to skyrocket, the issue of water scarcity will only worsen. I mean, come on, a single dairy cow has a larger water footprint than a human, with all our water parks, our swimming pools, and our industries.

I'm not sure I get what you're aiming at with the gaming, film, entertainment, and luxury car comparisons. How are the gaming, film, entertainment, and luxury car industries one of the world's leading sources of environmental damage like animal agriculture is? It's not like Porsche is causing widespread pollution, global warming, and deforestation, but Honda isn't, and you pick between the two or something. The water park bit makes more sense, but once again what's the alternative? Is there a form of water park that uses a fluid that produces just as much fun and is pretty much the same as water, but isn't as wasteful, and as a consumer you get to pick between the two? Nope.

It feels to me like you're thinking a diet without meat would be stripping food of all its pleasure, and that there's no experience to replace it. That you'd be living in a barren wasteland of eating broccoli all day or something. The reality is you can have just as rich, diverse, and delicious of a diet-if not more so-when decreasing your consumption of animal products. It's not a choice between heaven or hell, it's a choice between delicious foods that are horrible for the environment, or delicious foods that are better for the environment. It's a matter of dead flesh between your burger bun, or a patty made of portobella mushrooms and black beans; between icecream made from secreted cow pus, or from coconut milk. It's not that one tastes better than the other, they each have their own unique flavors and deliciousness, and you just pick between which is screwing over the planet more than the other.

VS

VS

VS

Pretty much anything you can eat as an omnivore, you can eat as a vegan/vegetarian. There's nothing really lost.

Aijin Wrote:Is there a form of water park that uses a fluid that produces just as much fun and is pretty much the same as water, but isn't as wasteful, and as a consumer you get to pick between the two? Nope.

So... are we pretending vix's post right above yours, and mine above that, never happened?

Sorry about the driving analogy, but I don't get it, as I'm not a driver myself. I'm too risk-minded to enjoy it.

vix86 Wrote:[...]How can you make a qualitative statement about how I experience reality when you aren't me? [...]

Humans are pretty similar. I do have a problem with vegetarians claiming animals experience the same things they do; but going to the other extreme and saying that humans are wildly different is nearly as bad. Differences are the exception, not the rule.

vix86 Wrote:[...]You are basically saying that I am experiencing the color red in exactly the same way that you are. When the reality might be that I am not seeing red at all or maybe some really bland shade of it. [...]

Regarding colors, what rent would the belief that everyone experiences them differently pay, if it were true? If for me, blue and red were reversed, would I care? If it didn't affect my appreciation of the world in any way, it wouldn't matter; it would be of the same importance as a tag on an asteroid somewhere. If it affected my appreciation of art, for example; then it would be obvious, if widespread, that such a difference exists. Basically, if humans did experience the world differently, we would know, or it would be a mere semantic difference without meaning (if I'm using the word "semantic" correctly).

Admittedly, I hadn't heard of Supertasters before. I don't see how it matters regarding malleability or the meat-veggie taste scale though. How is the intensity/experience thing even related? You either like or you don't like a food; the argument is that you can adapt to like it - how I or you experience that liking or how strong it is...how does it matter?

vix86 Wrote:[...]So trying to imply that everyone should experience the wonderful taste of veggies the way you do seems crazy to me.

I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't like most vegetables either. I am picky though; and I've observed how my tastes change over time with some interest, since a very early age - and eventually nurtured a liking for a few foods I considered healthy as well.

The "I enjoy meat now" argument really reminds me of the anti-polyphasic or anti-early riser folks who say "staying up early doesn't feel good". Yeah, it doesn't feel good now, but after a few days, it feel perfectly fine, and in fact it's impossible to get up at 11am after a week where you've gotten up at 5am every day (unless you've been sleep depriving yourself). We aren't talking about your current tastes at all, it's whether they can change that matters. An "I enjoy meat and dislike vegetables" argument says "I am comfortable with my current situation and don't feel sufficient intrinsic motivation to change it"; it says nothing about whether a change is possible or not (whether it's desirable or good to have the change is a different concern, of course).

EDIT:

JimmySeal Wrote:So... are we pretending vix's post right above yours, and mine above that, never happened?

An argument being ignored doesn't mean it's correct, just that it's ignored. Yeah, it might be reasonable or even prove the point completely - in that case, the ignorer is probably hard-headed, has no intention to consider the other side or think rationally, and there's probably no point debating with them. It might also be ignored because the poster doesn't want to engage in too many chains of argumentation at once, because the comment is so off the mark it's not worth crossing the huge inferential distance, or because the poster just didn't have the time or desire to reply. In any case, meta discussion like this is rarely useful.

I went and dug up this great page on debating I read a few months ago - http://www.zompist.com/arguing.html (I wonder, am I myself stoking the harmful flames of meta-discussion by posting this?) - here's what the guy has to say on not responding:

Quote:The malicious non-response
Sometimes I don’t respond to something, and someone pounces on this, as if it’s so telling that I conveniently passed over this apparently devastating point.

As a public service, here’s five more likely reasons I might not have responded to every item in your 400-line post:
I agreed with it, or close enough. It happens.
It wasn’t that important.
I was trying to focus the discussion. We won’t get anywhere arguing about fifty things at once.
I had no more time. A serious debate takes hours, time usually taken from things I should really be doing instead.
You were so far off the rails by that time that it wasn’t worth it.