Michelle going vegan will help to get the message out Visible and aware.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2012 10:06PM by pborst.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KidRaw? Why are you posting this on this thread?


I posted that post because I was responding to banana who's post and also to coco's post, which I quoted at the beginning of my post --

Here are their posts above about the cannibal situation which I was replying to --

******************

Re: Michelle Pfeiffer Goes Vegan
Posted by: banana who ()
Date: June 07, 2012 08:32PM

Coco, it is posted as a lark because it's out there, but yeah, I do feel that it is very strange "synchronicity." I don't think it qualifies as paranoia, but I don't deny that it's out there. (By the way, I find it also odd that Canada had a public shooting in a mall or something, along with our Cannuck cannibal character.)

**************

Re: Michelle Pfeiffer Goes Vegan
Posted by: coco ()
Date: June 07, 2012 09:30PM


You find it odd that there was a public shooting here? It doesn't happen often but it does happen now and again. Of course, as it's rare it gets a lot of press. But one shooting? This is the biggest country in the world, there's going to be some crime and murder here.
I don't know where the cannibalism is coming from in that case, there is ZERO official indication that he ate anything. Sensationalism.

***************

So I was the third person who spoke on the subject and used the word "cannibal". And the reason I did speak about it here is because I was the person who posted the original thread about the Cannibal Situation in the Other Topics Forum, and so I felt it was my duty to correct the misinformation posted by coco, that it was my responsibility.

It sounds complicated, so I'll try to explain it more succinctly.

I was only responding to the subject that banana who and coco had already posted before me and I was correcting coco's misinformation about my news story.

*****************

As an aside --

Am I the only one who feels like all the 'regular people' have left this raw food board, and only the board police are left to monitor each other and make sure there are no improprieties here -

No getting "off-topic" on a thread
No hint of anything that could be construed as 'racism', 'sexism' or 'homophobia'
No posting anything negative
Post your topic in the proper forum, no cross-referencing
It must be totally P.C.

The board police are trying to detect a poster's INTENTION so as to excoriate that person
(Did I forget anything?)

All that's left are those who want to police the others and who are looking for a fight. The normal people have left. Only the hardcore base faction is still around and so now they have to turn on each other.

Parallels.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2012 12:15AM by KidRaw.

KidRaw,

Surely, not this thread? This thread is about Michelle Pfeiffer, and the thread you want is over in Other Topics, no?

No, I wrote my post about the cannibal situation here in this thread (with the links and quotes to show coco that he is indeed a cannibal) in response to banana who's post in this very thread and coco's post in this very thread. So I was the third person in this very thread (go look, please) to mention the cannibal situation in this very thread - but of course, I'm 'the bad guy'. And the police have called me out on it. So now I have to defend myself against pborst's allegation and now yours.

Of course, I'm not the first person in this thread who was accused of impropriety and has had to explain him/herself - so far it's been WY, John Rose, HH, banana who, and me.

And BTW, looking back at all the posts I see there were actually three posts in this thread that mentioned the cannibal situation before I post my information to correct the misinformation.

Why are some people so quick to pick apart others' INTENTIONS and motivations?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2012 01:04AM by KidRaw.

KidRaw Wrote:

> Am I the only one who feels like all the 'regular
> people' have left this raw food board, and only
> the board police are left to monitor each other
> and make sure there are no improprieties here -
>
> No getting "off-topic" on a thread
> No hint of anything that could be construed as
> 'racism', 'sexism' or 'homophobia'
> No posting anything negative
> Post your topic in the proper forum, no
> cross-referencing
> It must be totally P.C.
>
> The board police are trying to detect a poster's
> INTENTION so as to excoriate that person
> (Did I forget anything?)
>
> All that's left are those who want to police the
> others and who are looking for a fight. The normal
> people have left. Only the hardcore base faction
> is still around and so now they have to turn on
> each other.
>
> Parallels.....


Oh goodness, let's not forget the instigators. Sure are plenty of those around here lately.

Kidraw,

I'm not obvious to others posting and a little thread drift. I'm guilty of it myself at times on others threads. Your was a little different though, full of gratuitious descriptions and links that have nothing to do with the purpose of your thread. BW was making a statement to another member about something that happened to her on another thread. That does not give you license to thread hijack this. If you want to talk about cannibalism, start your own thread. Don't dump your nonsense here.

Paul

oblivious, not obvious.

Ah, this thread is shot to hell anyhow, so let me be perfectly clear here: I wasn't really "offended" by John Rose and WY. I just happened to notice that they were not taken to task the way that I see certain people (including me) are.

Yes Coco, I am an "instigator" because I dared mention the differences in treatment. Here is the post in question:

<banana who,

I preface this by reminding you that I like and respect you, but, yes, I am wondering about you and am hoping this is snark, because there is a lot of conjecture in your post! How do you take the leap from two unrelated incidents of psychological aberration in two different parts of a vast continent, link them by race, then to socio-economic status, then to monolithic medical malfeasance, all without any evidence?

Please, please be careful; it's this kind of riffin' on maybes that leads to things like ethnic ethnic cleansing and unjustified interminable wars.

I'm just saying .>

I asked for clarification the next day and nada. Drive-by post. Of course, I suspect that the poster did not thoroughly read my post and just didn't like any mention of conspiracy theories. Fine, but at least I should get some sort of mea culpa if true.

Jodi--another drive-by. Ironically, she accused me of passive-aggression but if ever there is an instance of passive-aggression, it's posting something and just taking off. Everything I post on here I will answer and clarify. If I have to apologize, I will. If I want to defend it, I will.

Oh I wasn't talking about YOU. You're pretty reasonable, dude. That thread though, it's a weird one.

"Dude?" LOL...

I know it's weird. Life is weird. I no longer believe what I am told.

I was listening to a radio show last week and this Black man just wrote a book about his dad's experiences being given LSD against his will in prison in 1953! I feel that this book is probably self-published so I don't know if I can find it via Google but it's just awful what they did to him. The CIA ran experiments with acid long before the Summer of Love. Things that make ya go hmmm....

God I love life and the Internets: [www.thewatcherfiles.com]

My apologies BW .. I didnt feel your post needed any answer from me .. i stated my position . .you stated yours

whats the issue?

and what do you mean by *another drive-by* I dont always have time to respond to posts as Im working 12 hours a day , 7 days a week.

and as I said I dont feel your post required a response. If you do .. please tell me what you would like to discuss. (I may not be able to respond till 8pm pacfic as that is when i get home, im currently on my iphone at work)


banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jodi--another drive-by. Ironically, she accused me
> of passive-aggression but if ever there is an
> instance of passive-aggression, it's posting
> something and just taking off. Everything I post
> on here I will answer and clarify. If I have to
> apologize, I will. If I want to defend it, I will.

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Jodi, you jumped to the conclusion that I was trying to put down WY. You were wrong. I can see how it might have looked that way, but it upset me to be accused of that because I would never do it. I said something to Paul out of anger and was glad that the comment was removed. I don't have to snipe at someone because I am afraid of expressing anger.

I felt a bit cornered when WY took me up on my offer because I was just teasing him. No, I am not going to "rate" someone no matter how great they look. It's just not me.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kidraw,
>
> I'm not obvious to others posting and a little
> thread drift. I'm guilty of it myself at times
> on others threads. Your was a little different
> though, full of gratuitious descriptions and links
> that have nothing to do with the purpose of your
> thread. BW was making a statement to another
> member about something that happened to her on
> another thread. That does not give you license
> to thread hijack this. If you want to talk about
> cannibalism, start your own thread. Don't dump
> your nonsense here.
>
> Paul

pborst - I guess you still don't understand, so I'll have to explain it again. I'll try another way.

I had posted about the Canadian Cannibal in the Other Topics forum, so that subject is my responsibility to get the correct information out.

In this MF thread, before I ever posted a word about cannibals, banana who and coco had both posted about the Canadian Cannibal and coco stated some incorrect information about the Canadian Cannibal. So I felt it was my duty to correct coco's misinformation.

So, yes, I posted the links to reference my correct information and I posted the actual sentence or paragraph that actually stated the correct information. I did that as CLARIFICATION because that was my responsibility as the owner of the original post about the Canadian Cannibal, even though it did originate on the Other Topics Forum.

So to clarify - I was not the FIRST person to talk about the Canadian Cannibal in this MF thread. I was the THIRD person whose responsibility it is to dissiminate the proper information because it's my news story.

So is that clear to you now? Are you going to continue to accuse me of posting inappropriately when I was actually responding to two other posts previous to mine because I felt it was my duty to clarify?

AGAIN - BANANA WHO AND COCO WERE BOTH TALKING ABOUT THE CANADIAN CANNIBAL BEFORE I MENTIONED IT. AND I HAD TO GIVE LINKS AND QUOTES ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE ARE ALSO THOSE ON HERE WHO ARE STICKLERS FOR 'STATING REFERENCES' - oh, yeah, that's you, too, like in the Troll thread you had started, accusing poor JohnA of being a Troll for not posting references and links and quotes to back up his statement. So I post references and quotes and still it's a problem for you.

Next thing I know, you'll be accusing me of being a troll.

I await your apology.

P.S. - I did not 'hijack this' thread like you're accusing me of - it was hijacked long before I posted the Cannibal Clarification Information.

And I don't get the 'hijack' thing, because in real life, someone starts talking about a subject and after those present give their opinions, it morphs into another subject, again and again.

I crown you the king of the board police - are you going to arrest me now or kick me off the board? I'm glad you're not the monitor here - it's feeling like a police state on here to me as it is. There's no First Amendment - Freedom of Speech - here.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kidraw,

Don't dump your nonsense here.

> Paul


****************

I find that statement of yours to me very offensive and insulting and a personal attack.

I await an apology.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> pborst - I guess you still don't understand, so
> I'll have to explain it again. I'll try another
> way.

I understand perfectly. You are trying to rationalize spamming my thread with gratuitous links for reasons best know to yourself. Both Coco and BW were discussing the cannibal thread without either gratuitous links and descriptions. e.g. no discussion of ice picks in their post. So there is no excuse for your hijacking this thread with your spam. None.

> I had posted about the Canadian Cannibal in the
> Other Topics forum, so that subject is my
> responsibility to get the correct information
> out.

Get it out on that thread or by PM. I don't care. Stop spamming my thread

> In this MF thread, before I ever posted a word
> about cannibals, banana who and coco had both
> posted about the Canadian Cannibal and coco stated
> some incorrect information about the Canadian
> Cannibal. So I felt it was my duty to correct
> coco's misinformation.

Do it on that thread, not this one and link or refer the person instead of hijacking this thread. The distinction is that they merely discussed the issue and did not provide grisley details and gratuitous links. You have your own thread, discuss it there and link to it from here if you want. You have no cause to spam cannibalism links on a thread for Michelle Pfeiffer.

>
> So, yes, I posted the links to reference my
> correct information and I posted the actual
> sentence or paragraph that actually stated the
> correct information. I did that as CLARIFICATION
> because that was my responsibility as the owner of
> the original post about the Canadian Cannibal,

Not here. See above.

> even though it did originate on the Other Topics
> Forum.
>
> So to clarify - I was not the FIRST person to talk
> about the Canadian Cannibal in this MF thread.

You were the first person to spam gratuitously. I'd ask you to respect my request and desist in further spamming. I would much appreciate it.

> was the THIRD person whose responsibility it is to
> dissiminate the proper information because it's my
> news story.

Nope. No excuse. Stop it.

> So is that clear to you now? Are you going to
> continue to accuse me of posting inappropriately
> when I was actually responding to two other posts
> previous to mine because I felt it was my duty to
> clarify?

Yes. Because you didn't respond. You linked a bunch irrelevant nonsense you could have just easily put on your thread, then put a link to it here on this thread. Instead, you choose to hijack the thread with your cannibalism nonsense.

> AGAIN - BANANA WHO AND COCO WERE BOTH TALKING
> ABOUT THE CANADIAN CANNIBAL BEFORE I MENTIONED IT.
> AND I HAD TO GIVE LINKS AND QUOTES ABOUT IT

Not here you didn't. You had a perfectly good alternative which you chose to ignore. You have your own thread, state it there and link here if you feel the need. But stop spamming and hijacking. Thanks.

> BECAUSE THERE ARE ALSO THOSE ON HERE WHO ARE
> STICKLERS FOR 'STATING REFERENCES' - oh, yeah,
> that's you, too, like in the Troll thread you had
> started, accusing poor JohnA of being a Troll for
> not posting references and links and quotes to
> back up his statement. So I post references and
> quotes and still it's a problem for you.

I'm not going back. I'm moving forward. I'm dedicating my energy to support the members of this community on their raw vegan journey and mine. I would welcome to talk to you about subject on that if you would like.

> Next thing I know, you'll be accusing me of being
> a troll.

Don't put words in my mouth. I haven't called you anything.

> I await your apology.

For what?

> P.S. - I did not 'hijack this' thread like you're
> accusing me of - it was hijacked long before I
> posted the Cannibal Clarification Information.

see above.

> And I don't get the 'hijack' thing, because in
> real life, someone starts talking about a subject
> and after those present give their opinions, it
> morphs into another subject, again and again.

Thread drift occurs and is understandable and tolerated. We've all done thread drift at sometime, myself included. Having a short tangent or sidebar is fine. I distinguish that from your post because of the descriptions and links, that the other posters you mention did not do either in kind or in degree

> I crown you the king of the board police - are you
> going to arrest me now or kick me off the board?

Funny, you presume that I'm going to label you, but intstead it's you who's doing the namecalling and labeling.

> I'm glad you're not the monitor here - it's
> feeling like a police state on here to me as it
> is. There's no First Amendment - Freedom of Speech
> - here.

I'm glad I'm not a monitor either. I don't need to be. Prana does an excellent job. And I value his leadership and judgment. FWIW, the First Amendment applies to the government, not private individuals. This is John Kohler's board. And he and Prana can do pretty much what they want as long as it doesn't violate the law. We cannot discuss animal products, politics, religion. If I don't like it, I can go somewhere else and start my own board. Frankly, I'm glad for the limits we have. They enable us to share our thoughts and experiences on raw veganism.

I'm sorry you feel that I have been unfair with you. And, I would like you to respect forum rules, and be more sensitive to posts and their relevance and appropriateness to the forum that they are in.

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2012 09:44PM by pborst.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kidraw,
>
> Don't dump your nonsense here.
>
> > Paul
>
>
> ****************
>
> I find that statement of yours to me very
> offensive and insulting and a personal attack.
>
> I await an apology.

KidRaw,

I find your personal decision to place a post on cannibalism with gratituous links and description of eating body parts and ice picks to be not only offensive, but in poor taste. I stand by my statement. Good night.

Paul

Oh, I get it now --

It's kind of like I defiled your Michelle Pfeiffer thread with my cannibalism post.

Why didn't you say that. I didn't realize your threads are so sacred to you.

@banana who and utopian life, thanks for pointing this out. I found much of this thread quite unintelligent and offensive, and was glad to see others say something.

p.s. I'm wrote this after reading the first page only.

@banana who and utopian life, thanks for pointing this out. I found much of this thread quite unintelligent and offensive, and was glad to see others say something.

p.s. I wrote this after reading the first page only, but I would rather view other threads than finish this one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2012 10:14PM by RawPlease.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, I get it now --
>
> It's kind of like I defiled your Michelle Pfeiffer
> thread with my cannibalism post.
>
> Why didn't you say that. I didn't realize your
> threads are so sacred to you.


I think pborst does come across as someone with weird priorities, personally! Hey, maybe he is not raw?? (pulls on a ninja mask and looks around...)

I figured, isn't raw and living food and the like way of life suppose to make one healthier, happier, calmer and grounded, while pborst seems to be so much obsessing over random posts/threads made online, over the internet, where anyone and everyone can write absolutely anything!


Oops it looks like I've defiled Michelle Pfeiffer thread too...... oh well BW was right there is one road for it anyway........I'll get my coat still...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2012 10:23PM by chat.

Thanks, chat, hon!

banana who,

That was me questioning your logical leaps in the cannibalism thread in Other Topics; I did not pursue it further because I think it was quite clear from my original response to you that I found your line of reasoning on the subject odd. I don't see the point of reasserting this because it would be patently rude and confrontational, and I do not wish to be. I also don't see why you would drag that issue into this thread/forum. If it's so troubling to you that you must discuss it further, that's what PMs are for, right?

KidRaw,

That banana who mentions my post in the thread about cannibalism in Other Topics in this thread does not mean that you or anybody else should be using this thread to start Cannibalism Thread, Part II. That is not appropriate, as it's thematically totally unrelated to the point of this thread, to any valid tangent, and to your opinion about Michelle Pfeiffer, who is not a cannibal. Or high on bath salts. Or homeless. Or whatever else might even tenuously link that thread with this one. That this is not obvious is bewildering to me.

We have different forums for a reason, and PMs for a reason. And no, I don't enjoy pointing out all of this out

Tam, last mention of the infamous cannibal thread: I DID ask for clarification on the appropriate thread. You chose not to respond to me (or did not see my questions to you). Big difference.

As for PMs, if I feel called out for something, then I want a public hashing out. That way, the person is forced to explain their comments in front of all of us. I mean, after all, YOU could have sent ME a PM with your concerns instead of publicly sharing them...

That was a discussion that a bunch of us were conversing in, it would have been weird for PMs, no?

As for the extreme thread hijack here, maybe a link to the cannibal thread would have been more appropriate? Instead of making a big huge post with links etc. We did veer off topic a bit but also reined ourselves in before it went too far I think. That big ole post seemed too far to me, more than a mention, you know?

Oh no, could Michelle be...a ZOMBIE?! LOL: [3.bp.blogspot.com]

wow

a brutally surprisingly amazing video
for its astonishing lack of content/insight/uniqueness

i learned a heck of a lot more reading this thread

i don't recall the contents of ANY video on nutrition being that vapid
and i've seen my fair share

shocking!

i didn't know rather to laugh or cry

so i did neither
was just simply dumbfounded

i have nothing against michelle pfeiffer

but let's face it, if it were not for her star status

she would have been KICKED OFF the set in 2 nanoseconds FLAT!

content MEANS something to some people

still...

its not TOTALLY out of style

YET...

my post above
was over the top judgemental
but for some reason, perhaps my core issue was how the media
keeps churning fluff and passing it off as content

so i'm back to staying more focused on the fact that there are incredibly insightful videos, articles and books as well

and i'm very grateful for those

the people who post on this forum
wow.. a lot of ridiculously intelligent people!
who have freely given their time, energy and insight

and whose posts i've greatly enjoyed reading...

i guess i'll focus on that instead

not sure what i was griping about

worse things could happen to an individual .... LOL

oh my gosh.. what IS my problem?

you're right pborst
MP lends some visibility

so... its all good

i guess i would have much rather seen someone like john rose or coco or prana

being interviewed instead

to give insight to the vegan lifestyle

okay now

i said my rant

will try and place my playing blocks in the right cubicles
and tidy up MY life a little more :"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2012 11:23AM by la_veronique.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh no, could Michelle be...a ZOMBIE?! LOL:


Well, considering pborst bit my head off, I'm thinking they're starting to come out of the woodwork now

LOL Ver, fluff passed off as content, ha! It seems that's widely considered valid reporting these days.

I think we are seeing a radical dumbing down of humanity, so insipid has the potential of actually reaching a great number of individuals, particularly those who follow and wish to emulate the lifestyles of "stars". She admits it's about vanity for her and that is a HUGE motivator for so many people. I like that she talks about her high cholesterol even though she was following what's considered a "healthy" diet and lifestyle, then makes a point of it having lowered dramatically simply due to cutting out animal protein. It's a shame that she's fixated on carbs, that will not serve her well long term but hopefully she'll make changes along the way.
To me she simply sounded like someone new to the diet who wasn't following a script or even a pre-thought out response to questions about it. She doesn't know yet but hopefully she'll learn. And her explanation was perfect for those who have never even considered a vegan or vegetarian diet, it was very simple and straight forward without the overwhelming amount of info or guilt tripping that is so often encountered. Remember her audience, I think this will reach them even though it was useless for us here. We are further along in our health pursuits, she's just a beginner and so are many who saw that interview. It's a start.