PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

[Guest guest]



A few of the people where I work have gone back to eating cheap eggs, a few still don't buy any at all, and a dozen still buy the free-range eggs. I don't think PETA has that much success with every 16 people who have heard their message.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:19 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Trouble with Jamie Olivers ever expanding empire campaign is that most of the people probably went back to eating battery eggs, same with Hugh Fernly dingly wingly whatsisnames campaign agains battery raised chickens, most people went back to buying the cheapest. The only winners out of both campaigns was the celebrity chefs bank balances.............

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork > Sent: Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 7:45:17 PMRe: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

I find it strange that amongst people I know, PETA has had no effect on what they eat or wear. Jamie Oliver - an omnivore - has had more effect by highlighting abusive animal-rearing in a serious documentary. Most of the people at work who saw that programme either stopped eating eggs or swapped to eating free-range eggs.

 

There was no hint of sex or silliness in his campaign - but it had a measure of success.

 

Jo

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:26 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

The biggest organization on the block is always going to have *more* than its fair share of detractors, problems, scandals, mis-fires, loose ends, and critics. Like 'em or not, PETA is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla of the veg scene, and they have their target audience for their philosophy: young people who aren't already set in their ways and habits. i'd guess that the ratio of over 35/under 35 folks who adopt veg lifestyles is very high, so instead of creating ads featuring ed mcmahon pushing boca burgers and depends, they use the imagery and iconography (sex, music, shock n awe) of the younger generation, in the hopes (i'm guessing) that these folks will not only become veg, but raise their kids that way. i thought the ad was shockingly effective in the way it smuggled veg into the mainstream during the biggest advertising day in the country and one of the biggest burgz n dogz days as well. go PETA! blake

[Guest guest]



I'm not sure about that. I know lots of tree huggers who eat meat and wouldn't do otherwise.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:21 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

As you said it takes a lot to make a carnie into a veggie, partly I think due to stereotypes.

Just going to knit some lentils, hug my tree, and pocket mulch a bit more............

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork > Sent: Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 7:40:54 PMRe: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

I mix with mostly meat-eaters. They think it is all very stupid. They say that nothing like that is ever going to make them stop eating meat. Some of them say they quite like looking at the sexy women - but it would never encourage them to give up meat. One said they just enjoy the two types of meat on offer!! - Says it all to me.

 

Jo

 

 

-

clawsywp

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:57 PM

Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

I jsut watched the advert, made me LOL because its so over the top.I think they do a good job getting publicity, how else would anyone get even the slightest thought of vegetarianism into peoples heads during the superbowl? I think they have to do publicty stunts to get any mention of vegetarianism into the media at all.good for them obvoiusly they got almost free publicity out of this.plus they arent aiming the adverts at people who are already vegan, they are after the people who arent.I dont like everything Peta does but i think this advert is pretty funny, and also.....just remebered i have been having 'words' with nasty little vegan hating young men lately, their arguments against veganism are like, vegans are whimps etc.. i think this advert would really help deal with that veganism isnt macho bs stereotype.(not that macho stuff isnt a bad stereotype, but i dont thnk peta is after fixing the whole world, just trying to help animals)

[Guest guest]



I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it - what do you suggest might be good?

 

Jo

 

-

Blake Wilson

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:18 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

Of course, Jo. Here's what you said:"What I am saying is that PETA has got it all wrong."So what, in your opinion, is the "right" way to utilize PETA's resources? WWJD?Blake

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork > wrote:

 

 

 

 



Not my problem because it is not a situation I would put myself in - but - that doesn't mean that I cannot comment on it, does it Blake?

 

Jo

 

[Guest guest]

Well, if you're going to say PETA " has got it all wrong " , that suggests you've got an alternative, i.e. an opinion on what might be the " right " way to do it. I'm fine with what they do and I'm glad they're doing it.

Blake On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote:

 

 

 

 



I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it - what do you suggest might be good?

 

Jo

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:18 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

Of course, Jo. Here's what you said: " What I am saying is that PETA has got it all wrong. " So what, in your opinion, is the " right " way to utilize PETA's resources? WWJD?Blake

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote:

 

 

 

 



Not my problem because it is not a situation I would put myself in - but - that doesn't mean that I cannot comment on it, does it Blake?

 

Jo

 

[Guest guest]

Well.... I still like PETA! They get a lot of " crap " done no matter how crazy

they look!

I agree, go PETA!

Danielle

 

 

 

, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote:

>

> Hi Blake

>

> I think the problem with PETA is quite simply the fact that they're not

> actually that " attractive " .... they're more like the really uncool kid

> trying desperately to be seen as cool... and inevitably just getting laughed

> at. Or, perhaps, more like the dirty old man trying to be sexy.

>

> Thing is, I don't want to be associated with the dirty old man of the animal

> rights movement!

>

> BB

> Peter

>

> 2009/2/3 Blake Wilson <mbw

>

> > The biggest organization on the block is always going to have *more* than

> > its fair share of detractors, problems, scandals, mis-fires, loose ends, and

> > critics. Like 'em or not, PETA is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla of the veg

> > scene, and they have their target audience for their philosophy: young

> > people who aren't already set in their ways and habits.

> >

> > i'd guess that the ratio of over 35/under 35 folks who adopt veg lifestyles

> > is very high, so instead of creating ads featuring ed mcmahon pushing boca

> > burgers and depends, they use the imagery and iconography (sex, music, shock

> > n awe) of the younger generation, in the hopes (i'm guessing) that these

> > folks will not only become veg, but raise their kids that way.

> >

> > i thought the ad was shockingly effective in the way it smuggled veg into

> > the mainstream during the biggest advertising day in the country and one of

> > the biggest burgz n dogz days as well.

> >

> > go PETA!

> >

> > blake

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I don't think it suggests that. I think that I have commented that I

disagree with what they do - doesn't mean to say I need to think

about what they should do.

 

I'm glad you enjoy their antics.

 

Jo

 

, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:

>

> Well, if you're going to say PETA " has got it all wrong " , that

suggests

> you've got an alternative, i.e. an opinion on what might be

the " right " way

> to do it.

>

> I'm fine with what they do and I'm glad they're doing it.

>

> Blake

>

> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork

wrote:

>

> > 

> > I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it - what do you

suggest

> > might be good?

> >

> > Jo

> >

> > -

> > ** Blake Wilson <mbw

> > *To:*

> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:18 PM

> > *Subject:* Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of

the Weird

> > on msnbc.com

> >

> > Of course, Jo. Here's what you said:

> >

> > " What I am saying is that PETA has got it all wrong. "

> >

> > So what, in your opinion, is the " right " way to utilize PETA's

resources?

> > WWJD?

> >

> > Blake

> >

> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, jo.heartwork

<jo.heartworkwrote:

> >

> >> 

> >> Not my problem because it is not a situation I would put myself

in - but -

> >> that doesn't mean that I cannot comment on it, does it Blake?

> >>

> >> Jo

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I have not researched PETA's triumphs. There was a lot of dissent on

here a while back about the fact that they did have a lot of dogs put

down, when they were supposed to be saving them.

 

Jo

 

, " natenjade " <lilbugga wrote:

>

> Well.... I still like PETA! They get a lot of " crap " done no

matter how crazy they look!

> I agree, go PETA!

> Danielle

>

>

>

> , Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi Blake

> >

> > I think the problem with PETA is quite simply the fact that

they're not

> > actually that " attractive " .... they're more like the really

uncool kid

> > trying desperately to be seen as cool... and inevitably just

getting laughed

> > at. Or, perhaps, more like the dirty old man trying to be sexy.

> >

> > Thing is, I don't want to be associated with the dirty old man of

the animal

> > rights movement!

> >

> > BB

> > Peter

> >

> > 2009/2/3 Blake Wilson <mbw@>

> >

> > > The biggest organization on the block is always going to have

*more* than

> > > its fair share of detractors, problems, scandals, mis-fires,

loose ends, and

> > > critics. Like 'em or not, PETA is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla

of the veg

> > > scene, and they have their target audience for their

philosophy: young

> > > people who aren't already set in their ways and habits.

> > >

> > > i'd guess that the ratio of over 35/under 35 folks who adopt

veg lifestyles

> > > is very high, so instead of creating ads featuring ed mcmahon

pushing boca

> > > burgers and depends, they use the imagery and iconography (sex,

music, shock

> > > n awe) of the younger generation, in the hopes (i'm guessing)

that these

> > > folks will not only become veg, but raise their kids that way.

> > >

> > > i thought the ad was shockingly effective in the way it

smuggled veg into

> > > the mainstream during the biggest advertising day in the

country and one of

> > > the biggest burgz n dogz days as well.

> > >

> > > go PETA!

> > >

> > > blake

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Ok, I guess that's the end of the talk then, eh? I guess when I'm told something is " wrong " I rather anticipate a follow-up. And if we're having a debate or even a mildly spirited conversation about what's normative (or right and wrong, good or bad), and someone says " X is wrong " and can't provide a reason why (as in, " Y is right because.... " ) then I think the force and validity of their position is weakened.

But I'm stuck in all that dualistic/Socratic thinking anyway. And sure, I guess I " enjoy " their " antics " . But more importantly, they advance a cause I believe in, and no one else is doing it to that extent.

Blake On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:42 AM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork wrote:

 

 

 

 

I don't think it suggests that. I think that I have commented that I

disagree with what they do - doesn't mean to say I need to think

about what they should do.

 

I'm glad you enjoy their antics.

 

Jo

 

, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:

>

> Well, if you're going to say PETA " has got it all wrong " , that

suggests

> you've got an alternative, i.e. an opinion on what might be

the " right " way

> to do it.

>

> I'm fine with what they do and I'm glad they're doing it.

>

> Blake

>

> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork

wrote:

>

> > 

> > I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it - what do you

suggest

> > might be good?

> >

> > Jo

> >

> > -

> > ** Blake Wilson <mbw

> > *To:*

> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:18 PM

> > *Subject:* Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of

the Weird

> > on msnbc.com

> >

> > Of course, Jo. Here's what you said:

> >

> > " What I am saying is that PETA has got it all wrong. "

> >

> > So what, in your opinion, is the " right " way to utilize PETA's

resources?

> > WWJD?

> >

> > Blake

> >

> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, jo.heartwork

<jo.heartworkwrote:

> >

> >> 

> >> Not my problem because it is not a situation I would put myself

in - but -

> >> that doesn't mean that I cannot comment on it, does it Blake?

> >>

> >> Jo

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Blake,

I may not always agree with your posts, but I understand where your coming from on this.....

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Blake Wilson <mbw Sent: Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 2:56:52 PMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

Ok, I guess that's the end of the talk then, eh? I guess when I'm told something is "wrong" I rather anticipate a follow-up. And if we're having a debate or even a mildly spirited conversation about what's normative (or right and wrong, good or bad), and someone says "X is wrong" and can't provide a reason why (as in, "Y is right because....") then I think the force and validity of their position is weakened.But I'm stuck in all that dualistic/Socratic thinking anyway. And sure, I guess I "enjoy" their "antics". But more importantly, they advance a cause I believe in, and no one else is doing it to that extent. Blake

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:42 AM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it suggests that. I think that I have commented that I disagree with what they do - doesn't mean to say I need to think about what they should do.I'm glad you enjoy their antics.Jo

@gro ups.com, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:>> Well, if you're going to say PETA "has got it all wrong", that suggests> you've got an alternative, i.e. an opinion on what might be the "right" way> to do it.> > I'm fine with what they do and I'm glad they're doing it.> > Blake> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ ...> wrote:> > > 

> > I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it - what do you suggest> > might be good?> >> > Jo> >> > -

> > ** Blake Wilson <mbw> > *To:* @gro ups.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:18 PM> > *Subject:* Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird> > on msnbc.com> >> > Of course, Jo. Here's what you said:> >> > "What I am saying is that PETA has got it all wrong."> >> > So what, in your opinion, is the "right" way to utilize PETA's resources?> > WWJD?> >> > Blake> >> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ ...>wrote:> >> >> 

> >> Not my problem because it is not a situation I would put myself in - but -> >> that doesn't mean that I cannot comment on it, does it Blake?> >>> >> Jo> >>> >>> >>> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Still a lot of negativity on here!

 

Definitionantics plural nounamusing, silly or strange behaviour:

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

heartwerk <jo.heartwork Sent: Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 7:42:48 AMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

I don't think it suggests that. I think that I have commented that I disagree with what they do - doesn't mean to say I need to think about what they should do.I'm glad you enjoy their antics.Jo@gro ups.com, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:>> Well, if you're going to say PETA "has got it all wrong", that suggests> you've got an alternative, i.e. an opinion on what might be the "right" way> to do it.> > I'm fine with what they do and I'm glad they're doing it.> > Blake> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ ...> wrote:> > > > > I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it - what do you suggest> > might be

good?> >> > Jo> >> > -> > ** Blake Wilson <mbw> > *To:* @gro ups.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:18 PM> > *Subject:* Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird> > on msnbc.com> >> > Of course, Jo. Here's what you said:> >> > "What I am saying is that PETA has got it all wrong."> >> > So what, in your opinion, is the "right" way to utilize PETA's resources?> > WWJD?> >> > Blake> >> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ ...>wrote:> >> >> > >> Not my problem because

it is not a situation I would put myself in - but -> >> that doesn't mean that I cannot comment on it, does it Blake?> >>> >> Jo> >>> >>> >>> > > >>

[Guest guest]

One of my favorite local Indian restaurants, All India Cafe, is on the second floor of a mini mall at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Bundy. There is nothing else worth eating in the mini-mall, except, perhaps the fast food Hawaiian barbecue place. But even that doesn't look all that enticing. And of course, the least enticing of the lot is the upstairs corner, Thai Beer.Thai Beer is a just an idiotic name. There’s no other more sophisticated way for me to say it. It’s just stupid. If the place were a bar, perhaps it would make more sense, but it also has the word Thai in it, so would they only serve beers from Thailand? It is a restaurant, so at the very least, it should be called Thai Food. But let's face it, that's about as good as those places I've seen called "Donuts" and "Best Chinese." *ugh* And, of course, there’s that other Thai chain, Thai Dishes. I guess Thai Beer was the next best thing.

blue and gold - go cal vegan bears!One day, on the drive that I do every other day (when Barrington is too tightly packed with traffic), I noticed that Thai Beer was gone. In its place, a royal blue sign with yellow lettering spelling out California Vegan. It made me think it was a vegan restaurant owned by someone who went to Cal (Go Bears! school colors are blue and yellow). That’s Berkeley. Vegan and Berkeley – made sense to me.So I thought that one day I’d try it. I have had vegan food before – Real Food Daily and A Votre Sante – and it wasn’t bad. If you get past the “meat†and just focus instead on eating vegetables, you’re good. A salad with greens, vegetables, and an olive oil based dressing, you know, is vegan too, but it doesn’t make you bristle.Well, imagine *the horror, the horror* when we decided to try California Vegan, went in, and found that California Vegan, which replaced that god awful Thai restaurant, was, in fact, vegan Thai! Oh well. I’ll try anything once, even twice, and though I’ve eaten and hated Thai almost every single time, I’ve never had vegan Thai. And it couldn’t be horrible since there were other people enjoying their meals there – a young Asian couple sitting in the corner and an

extremely pale, obviously vegan (*slap me* for such flagrant foodie profiling!), extremely thin, almost skeletal, bald man enjoying what looked like a burger and fries. Just as we were finishing up our meal, two families came in, pushed three tables together and took over the center of the restaurant. Thank God it was at the end of our meal– there were lots of little kids with that party.The menu has all the standard Thai items, and if you had somehow mis-read the sign out front when walking in, you probably wouldn’t have figured out that the restaurant is vegan because the dishes can come with shrimp, chicken, and beef. Tofu is also available, so I guess that’s the vegan part.Wrong.The sign had confused me - vegan. Then the menu - Thai - didn’t

jive with the sign so that confused me. Then the dishes - meats - didn’t jive with the menu so that confused me. I called over our Thai-looking server (no, no I can’t tell us Asians apart. that confuses me too) with red-dyed hair and earrings to ask him if this was a vegan restaurant? Yes. But you have meat? Yes, shrimp, chicken, and beef are all “shrimp,†“chicken,†and “beef,†made from soy. Oooh. This was going to be interesting. I've done meat-quote-unquote before and it was, yes, interesting.

So by now, it’s pretty clear that I am not a huge fan of Thai food. I can’t go into all the details, but it basically comes down to lime and coconut flavors in savory foods not quite working with my tastebuds. But I can always get by at Thai restaurants with the spicy soups, even with that tangy citrus. So we chose to share a large bowl of soup to start – I can’t remember exactly, but tom yum something. I was anxious to try the “chicken.†For the main event, we ordered a

green curry. I kind of wanted to see if soy shrimp would actually be shaped and colored like shrimp, but we *ahem* chickened out :)The soup looked fairly innocuous. So innocuous, that it didn’t even look like it had anything in it – just a deep reddish orange broth halo-ed with ring of shiny red oil and a single bay leaf for flavor. But when I stuck my little rounded spoon down in the broth and gave it a slurpy swirl, there were cute little button mushrooms, a whole cherry tomato, and something that upon first cursory glance, looked like chicken. However, upon further inspection, I could see: it wasn’t vegetable; it wasn’t animal. It looked like a yellow kitchen sponge that needed to be replaced about three weeks ago because it had turned an awful, dirty grey beige after scrubbing a sinkful of Chinese restaurant ventilation hood filters. *hmm*So I took a bite and chewed. It

looked like a sponge, so it certainly made sense that it tasted like a sponge. It was sort of weirdly chewy, but not like meat. No, more like springy and rubbery like the way I’d imagine fake Spam to feel like in my mouth. Nope, not chicken. It’s made of soy, but it didn’t taste like tofu either. If I were going to go soy, I’d rather just have tofu!Though the “chicken†was too weird for me, I did enjoy the broth. It was flavorful, a touch oily for my taste, and for as dark red as it was, still could have used a bit more heat. We finished up just as our server brought out the next plate.

 

The green curry is not actually green. Rather, it’s a creamy pale yellow color with only the faintest hint of green. After the soup, we didn’t mind that sliced bamboo shoots are the most prominent ingredient, with a couple pieces of eggplant, bell peppers, and only a few pieces of “chicken.†The curry is served in a shallow oblong bowl on a large plate that has a perfect dome of steamed brown rice, a salad that looks like garnish, and a spring roll.I tried the salad first, just to let my tastebuds recalibrate after the strange sponginess of the “chicken†and the flavors of the soup. Just a plain little salad of greens, but I enjoyed the dressing that is sometimes called “sesame†and sometimes called “peanut†depending on which one fits better with the cuisine *wink* I ate some of the chewy brown rice with the dressing,

too. The vegetable spring roll was decent, with its flaky crisp skin, but still tasted a bit oily. It would have been alright if it had been served with a vinegar-based dipping sauce, but the dark brown stuff in the little cup was syrupy sweet.The curry tasted just fine as far as I can tell, but I am not a good judge. If I go by the taste of it in its own flavor vacuum, then I can’t be fair because I just don’t love the taste and texture of Thai curry to begin with. If I go by how it compares to other green curries I’ve tried, I still can’t be fair, because this one is vegan, and it will taste different no matter what. It’s fairest to say that I tasted the curry part and didn’t hate it, but mostly picked out the eggplant and bamboo shoots to dip in the salad dressing.California Vegan did alright, but I think once was enough for me on vegan Thai food. For a strictly vegan diet, California Vegan is probably a nice

change from the usual brown rice and vegetables at A Votre Sante and Real Food Daily. (And it’s also nice for vegans who live in West Hollywood since there is a location on Sunset) However, it’s just not for me. If I want to eat vegan, then I’d rather eat food cooked with flavors that I love (like Latin!), and unfortunately, I don’t love the combination of flavors in Thai cooking. However, If I have to eat Thai food, then I’d rather eat at place that has ingredients that taste more familiar to me. Like chicken chicken.California Vegan12113 Santa Monica BoulevardSecond FloorLos Angeles, CA 90025310.207.4798www.californiavegan.com

 

6 Comments:

 

 

rachael said...

I used to live right near that Thai Beer and ordered fromt there often. I have to say, they had my favorite peanut sauce in town and the Angel wings were pretty damn tasty.That said, I now (well, when I'm home. Sigh) live near the California Vegan on Sunset and am not 100% sure they have the same menu as the one you visited. I've been there a few times and always had things like lentil loaf, mock chicken pot pie and interesting veggie burgers. The leaning is Thai, for sure, but the menu is pretty ecelectic. Anyway, thats just my two cents, as a life long vegan and all (ha ha!)I am off to finish up my Paper Chef entry...have fun judging!

9:15 AM sarah said...

i am still learning to like thai - i have yet to try some of the place in thai town, and even some of the other more authentic-ish places here on the westside. but who knows - perhaps i will just never be able to train my tastebuds to it :)and yes the california vegan place did have other vegan dishes besides thai - there were a few sandwiches, burgers and other things but they were more like afterthoughts to an all thai menu. perhaps if i go back, i'll give the lentil loaf a try

9:21 AM Nic said...

I'm sure that starting with a more authentic Thai place is a good way to ease yourself into the cuisine. I have to say that imitation meat is not always the best option at a vegan/vegetarian place. We know it's not meat. They don't have to pretend. One place that does an absolutely AMAZING job is a vegan sushi place (of all things!) in Berkeley. If you're ever up the the Bay Area, Sarah, I highly recommend Cha-Ya. It's sure to improve upon the "brown rice and veggies" reputation of vegan food!

3:17 PM sarah said...

hm, i don't ever remember cha-ya when i was in school there (go bears!) but that was also a long time ago, and in college, my diet included all of what was within a fiv block walking radious of the unit 1 dorms! (thank heaven for top dog, zona rosa, and fat slice!)

11:24 PM Anonymous said...

Thanks for saving me from what sounds like an awful experience. I do love Thai food, but Vegan Thai is just plain scary.

11:35 AM Anonymous said...

did you think it could be possible that there are vegan Thai people in Thailand? so why then should Vegan Thai be scary? Duh....

12:40 AM

 

Peter vv

[Guest guest]

As it has been said previously, unless we have some figures to back all this up, its all conjecture. They do seem to have a lot more success in the US than over here.

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork Sent: Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 11:19:16 PMRe: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 A few of the people where I work have gone back to eating cheap eggs, a few still don't buy any at all, and a dozen still buy the free-range eggs. I don't think PETA has that much success with every 16 people who have heard their message.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:19 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Trouble with Jamie Olivers ever expanding empire campaign is that most of the people probably went back to eating battery eggs, same with Hugh Fernly dingly wingly whatsisnames campaign agains battery raised chickens, most people went back to buying the cheapest. The only winners out of both campaigns was the celebrity chefs bank balances.... .........

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comTuesday, 3 February, 2009 7:45:17 PMRe: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

I find it strange that amongst people I know, PETA has had no effect on what they eat or wear. Jamie Oliver - an omnivore - has had more effect by highlighting abusive animal-rearing in a serious documentary. Most of the people at work who saw that programme either stopped eating eggs or swapped to eating free-range eggs.

 

There was no hint of sex or silliness in his campaign - but it had a measure of success.

 

Jo

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:26 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

The biggest organization on the block is always going to have *more* than its fair share of detractors, problems, scandals, mis-fires, loose ends, and critics. Like 'em or not, PETA is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla of the veg scene, and they have their target audience for their philosophy: young people who aren't already set in their ways and habits. i'd guess that the ratio of over 35/under 35 folks who adopt veg lifestyles is very high, so instead of creating ads featuring ed mcmahon pushing boca burgers and depends, they use the imagery and iconography (sex, music, shock n awe) of the younger generation, in the hopes (i'm guessing) that these folks will not only become veg, but raise their kids that way. i thought the ad was shockingly effective in the way it smuggled veg into the mainstream during the biggest advertising day in the country and one of the biggest burgz n dogz days as well. go PETA! blake

[Guest guest]

I think the bigger the coverage, the more chance you have of success?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork Sent: Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 11:17:01 PMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 I think the point would be not which one gets most coverage, but which one converts the most people.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:15 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Very defensive again Jo? I was addressing Peter, just making an observation?

Incidentally I do agree with finding out whether it did have any effect, likewise with any AR or other vegan organisations and their campaigns, would be good to see which gets the most coverage.

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comTuesday, 3 February, 2009 7:48:07 PMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 Do you think they will succeed? Have you asked anyone whether they have heard of the video? If you have spoken to someone who has seen the video, or heard of it, did you ask them if they are going to become vegan? If you did, what was the answer?

 

I think it is too easy for us to say that this advert might work - but we should actually find out if it has had any effect on anyone we know.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:36 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Thats very negative Peter?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comTuesday, 3 February, 2009 6:22:54 PMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

Maybe so... but that's why they'll never succeed!BBPeter

2009/2/3 fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net>

 

 

but, in PETA's view, they are selling something.

they are selling the idea of vegetarianism and veganism.

they are putting a product (veganism) out there and trying to higlight it and promote it the same way (or in a parody of the same way) as every other mainstream commerical idea in today's society.

get people's attention.

so, in their view, they are selling something.

Peter Kebbell Feb 3, 2009 9:13 AM @gro ups.com Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

Hi FraggleHmmmm - I just disagree with their concept there. Any publicity is good publicity when you're trying to sell a product. It's great to appear on loads of news stations to sell your latest bottle of coke, and even better if you don't have to say too much about the product itself....But animal rights is never going to spread that way. People aren't going to say "oh yeah, I've heard of PETA, I'm going to go veggie". PETA aren't selling a brand, they're spreading an ideal, and the only way to do that is to get the information out there so that people can make informed decisions. It's absolutely no use just getting the name of the brand on the news.BBPeter

2009/2/3 fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net>

 

 

well...

PETA 's modus operandi is to continually gain attention by appealing to the MTV generation.

any publicity is good publicity is thier belief...

 

heartwerk Feb 2, 2009 11:46 PM @gro ups.com Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

I read about it last week. I find PETA to be a continual embarrassment to the animal rights movement - it puts many people off associating themselves with it.Jo@gro ups.com, "CKG" <cynthiaandtheothers

wrote:>> SORRY! I should have put a warning on this or something because the readers'> comments at the end are very off-color for those who do not like that sort> of thing. Cyn> > > > @gro ups.com [@gro ups.com] On> Behalf Of CKG> Monday, February 02, 2009 6:23 PM> @gro ups.com> PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on> msnbc.com> > > > Sheesh. Did anyone hear about this PETA ad that was turned down for the> Super (Stupor?) Bowl?? Cyn> > > > Latest post from Ads of the Weird: PETA pulls a lame stunt> (http://adblog. msnbc.msn. com/archive/ 2009/01/27/ 1763315.aspx)>

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

--George W. Bush

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

--George W. Bush

[Guest guest]

many generations?? what are you Methusila?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork Sent: Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 11:15:18 PMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 A spokeswoman, on this group, for those I have spoken to about this subject, who happen to span many generations. Nothing pretentious about that Peter.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:10 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

A spokesperson for all generations! ......... ... Jo for prime minister?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comTuesday, 3 February, 2009 7:52:49 PMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 The people I have spoken to about this are all generations from 17 upwards. They were the ones who have not heard of the video, and said that it would not encourage them to change their eating habits even if they had seen it.

 

Incidentally, I have friends (good friends) ranging from 22 to older than myself - most of them being under 40. So when I talk I am not just talking for about people of my generation.

 

Jo

 

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:38 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Thats just it Jo, they have no interest in your generation.No good preaching to the converted... ......

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comTuesday, 3 February, 2009 5:32:12 PMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 They are wrong then - I would never support them now, and to the normal person they give animal rights activists a very bad name.

 

Jo

 

 

-

fraggle

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:07 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

well...

PETA 's modus operandi is to continually gain attention by appealing to the MTV generation.

any publicity is good publicity is thier belief...

heartwerk Feb 2, 2009 11:46 PM @gro ups.com Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

I read about it last week. I find PETA to be a continual embarrassment to the animal rights movement - it puts many people off associating themselves with it.Jo@gro ups.com, "CKG" <cynthiaandtheother s wrote:>> SORRY! I should have put a warning on this or something because the readers'> comments at the end are very off-color for those who do not like that sort> of thing. Cyn> > > > @gro ups.com [@gro ups.com] On>

Behalf Of CKG> Monday, February 02, 2009 6:23 PM> @gro ups.com> PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on> msnbc.com> > > > Sheesh. Did anyone hear about this PETA ad that was turned down for the> Super (Stupor?) Bowl?? Cyn> > > > Latest post from Ads of the Weird: PETA pulls a lame stunt> (http://adblog. msnbc.msn. com/archive/ 2009/01/27/ 1763315.aspx)>"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

--George W. Bush

[Guest guest]

well, it is a group based in the colonies, so that would make sense

Peter VV Feb 4, 2009 10:44 AM Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

As it has been said previously, unless we have some figures to back all this up, its all conjecture. They do seem to have a lot more success in the US than over here.

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork > Sent: Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 11:19:16 PMRe: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 A few of the people where I work have gone back to eating cheap eggs, a few still don't buy any at all, and a dozen still buy the free-range eggs. I don't think PETA has that much success with every 16 people who have heard their message.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:19 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Trouble with Jamie Olivers ever expanding empire campaign is that most of the people probably went back to eating battery eggs, same with Hugh Fernly dingly wingly whatsisnames campaign agains battery raised chickens, most people went back to buying the cheapest. The only winners out of both campaigns was the celebrity chefs bank balances.... .........

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comTuesday, 3 February, 2009 7:45:17 PMRe: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

I find it strange that amongst people I know, PETA has had no effect on what they eat or wear. Jamie Oliver - an omnivore - has had more effect by highlighting abusive animal-rearing in a serious documentary. Most of the people at work who saw that programme either stopped eating eggs or swapped to eating free-range eggs.

 

There was no hint of sex or silliness in his campaign - but it had a measure of success.

 

Jo

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:26 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

The biggest organization on the block is always going to have *more* than its fair share of detractors, problems, scandals, mis-fires, loose ends, and critics. Like 'em or not, PETA is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla of the veg scene, and they have their target audience for their philosophy: young people who aren't already set in their ways and habits. i'd guess that the ratio of over 35/under 35 folks who adopt veg lifestyles is very high, so instead of creating ads featuring ed mcmahon pushing boca burgers and depends, they use the imagery and iconography (sex, music, shock n awe) of the younger generation, in the hopes (i'm guessing) that these folks will not only become veg, but raise their kids that way. i thought the ad was shockingly effective in the way it smuggled veg into the mainstream during the biggest advertising day in the country and one of the biggest burgz n dogz days as well. go PETA! blake

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, men are scattered and smeared over the desert grass,

And the generals have accomplished nothing.

 

-Nefarious War

Li Po (Circa 750)

[Guest guest]

Oh dear, Blake! I can't be held responsible for what you anticipate.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:56 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

Ok, I guess that's the end of the talk then, eh? I guess when I'm told something is "wrong" I rather anticipate a follow-up. And if we're having a debate or even a mildly spirited conversation about what's normative (or right and wrong, good or bad), and someone says "X is wrong" and can't provide a reason why (as in, "Y is right because....") then I think the force and validity of their position is weakened.But I'm stuck in all that dualistic/Socratic thinking anyway. And sure, I guess I "enjoy" their "antics". But more importantly, they advance a cause I believe in, and no one else is doing it to that extent. Blake

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:42 AM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork > wrote:

 

 

 

 

I don't think it suggests that. I think that I have commented that I disagree with what they do - doesn't mean to say I need to think about what they should do.I'm glad you enjoy their antics.Jo

, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:>> Well, if you're going to say PETA "has got it all wrong", that suggests> you've got an alternative, i.e. an opinion on what might be the "right" way> to do it.> > I'm fine with what they do and I'm glad they're doing it.> > Blake> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote:> > > 

> > I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it - what do you suggest> > might be good?> >> > Jo> >> > -

> > ** Blake Wilson <mbw> > *To:* > > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:18 PM> > *Subject:* Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird> > on msnbc.com> >> > Of course, Jo. Here's what you said:> >> > "What I am saying is that PETA has got it all wrong."> >> > So what, in your opinion, is the "right" way to utilize PETA's resources?> > WWJD?> >> > Blake> >> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartworkwrote:> >> >> 

> >> Not my problem because it is not a situation I would put myself in - but -> >> that doesn't mean that I cannot comment on it, does it Blake?> >>> >> Jo> >>> >>> >>> > > >>

[Guest guest]



You seem to see a lot of negativity - cheer up.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:18 PM

Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Still a lot of negativity on here!

 

Definitionantics plural nounamusing, silly or strange behaviour:

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

heartwerk <jo.heartwork > Sent: Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 7:42:48 AMRe: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

I don't think it suggests that. I think that I have commented that I disagree with what they do - doesn't mean to say I need to think about what they should do.I'm glad you enjoy their antics.Jo@gro ups.com, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:>> Well, if you're going to say PETA "has got it all wrong", that suggests> you've got an alternative, i.e. an opinion on what might be the "right" way> to do it.> > I'm fine with what they do and I'm glad they're doing it.> > Blake> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ ...> wrote:> > > > > I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it - what do you suggest> > might be good?> >> > Jo> >> > -> > ** Blake Wilson <mbw> > *To:* @gro ups.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:18 PM> > *Subject:* Re: FW: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird> > on msnbc.com> >> > Of course, Jo. Here's what you said:> >> > "What I am saying is that PETA has got it all wrong."> >> > So what, in your opinion, is the "right" way to utilize PETA's resources?> > WWJD?> >> > Blake> >> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ ...>wrote:> >> >> > >> Not my problem because it is not a situation I would put myself in - but -> >> that doesn't mean that I cannot comment on it, does it Blake?> >>> >> Jo> >>> >>> >>> > > >>

[Guest guest]



I agree - that is why I am discounting 'coverage' rather than success.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:44 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

As it has been said previously, unless we have some figures to back all this up, its all conjecture. They do seem to have a lot more success in the US than over here.

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork > Sent: Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 11:19:16 PMRe: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 A few of the people where I work have gone back to eating cheap eggs, a few still don't buy any at all, and a dozen still buy the free-range eggs. I don't think PETA has that much success with every 16 people who have heard their message.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:19 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

 

 

 

Trouble with Jamie Olivers ever expanding empire campaign is that most of the people probably went back to eating battery eggs, same with Hugh Fernly dingly wingly whatsisnames campaign agains battery raised chickens, most people went back to buying the cheapest. The only winners out of both campaigns was the celebrity chefs bank balances.... .........

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comTuesday, 3 February, 2009 7:45:17 PMRe: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

I find it strange that amongst people I know, PETA has had no effect on what they eat or wear. Jamie Oliver - an omnivore - has had more effect by highlighting abusive animal-rearing in a serious documentary. Most of the people at work who saw that programme either stopped eating eggs or swapped to eating free-range eggs.

 

There was no hint of sex or silliness in his campaign - but it had a measure of success.

 

Jo

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:26 PM

Re: Re: PETA pulls a lame stunt - Ads of the Weird on msnbc.com

 

 

The biggest organization on the block is always going to have *more* than its fair share of detractors, problems, scandals, mis-fires, loose ends, and critics. Like 'em or not, PETA is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla of the veg scene, and they have their target audience for their philosophy: young people who aren't already set in their ways and habits. i'd guess that the ratio of over 35/under 35 folks who adopt veg lifestyles is very high, so instead of creating ads featuring ed mcmahon pushing boca burgers and depends, they use the imagery and iconography (sex, music, shock n awe) of the younger generation, in the hopes (i'm guessing) that these folks will not only become veg, but raise their kids that way. i thought the ad was shockingly effective in the way it smuggled veg into the mainstream during the biggest advertising day in the country and one of the biggest burgz n dogz days as well. go PETA! blake