Masterfoods caves into veggies!

[pembrokestephen]

Did you just ban someone for having a bit of an argument?

Excuse me, but I think you'll find it was my turn to tell editor how to run his own webzine site, and decide who to ban. Don't push in, it's not fair.

Now, editor, about your banning policy...

 

[editor]

Excuse me, but I think you'll find it was my turn to tell editor how to run his own webzine site, and decide who to ban. Don't push in, it's not fair.

 

[_angel_]

is there no end to maddalene's charm?

This from the man who finds it hard to construct a sentence without using the 'c' word.

 

[_angel_]

God the whole squad has turned up. Where's VP??

 

[In Bloom]

You're only reaping what you sow, Mrs Swarthy.

So angel's to blame for what her boyfriend does now? Mental.

Anyway, back to the thread. So a large company decided against modifying one of their products due to market pressure eh? Amazing stuff.

 

[_angel_]

So angel's to blame for what her boyfriend does now? Mental.

Anyway, back to the thread. So a large company decided against modifying one of their products due to market pressure eh? Amazing stuff.

I don't care. I can eat Mars bars again.

 

[longdog]

This from the man who finds it hard to construct a sentence without using the 'c' word.

What?

Chav?

 

[editor]

So angel's to blame for what her boyfriend does now? Mental.

Err, no. I was referring to her conduct on these boards. Pretty obvious, I would have thought.

The Swarthy reference is a comment on her current user tag line. Doh! Perhaps you didn't see it?

Looking forward to your apology for the 'mental' comment.

 

[pembrokestephen]

God the whole squad has turned up. Where's VP??

I only found the thread in the process of trying to find out why Crowd Trouble had been banned.

Imagine my surprise when, just after I'd read the post from editor which explained it all...I encountered a post from you being outraged!

I mean, what are the odds on that, eh?

Maddalene In Standing-Up-For-Returning-Banned-Poster Shocker! Film at 11!!

 

[In Bloom]

Err, no. I was referring to her conduct on these boards. Pretty obvious, I would have thought.

The Swarthy reference is a comment on her current user tag line. Doh! Perhaps you didn't see it?

I assumed it was in response to people making an issue of it in the first place.

Looking forward to your apology for the 'mental' comment.

I was referring to the idea, not suggesting that you are actually mentally ill or something.

Personally, I think you're being a bit unfair to angel, and I can't help but think that her relationship with Swarthy has something to do with that. But whatever.

 

[TAE]

Sounds like a plan to me.

Now I'll never find out the difference between 'working class' and 'middle class'.

 

[audiotech]

Thomas Koner/Swarthy Thug/Mr Lustbaster has a solid relationship with someone.

 

[editor]

Personally, I think you're being a bit unfair to angel, and I can't help but think that her relationship with Swarthy has something to do with that. But whatever.

At no point did I suggest that she was responsible for Swarthy's posts, as you suggested. Neither does her relationship with him bear any impact on how I treat her here.

You've made all that all up in your little confused head.

Still, if you're too stubborn and rude to apologise, so be it.

 

[editor]

Now I'll never find out the difference between 'working class' and 'middle class'.

You need a troller to work it out for you?

 

[TAE]

He wasn't answering anyway.

Do you know the difference between 'working class' and 'middle class' (from a political class struggle point of view) ?

 

[_angel_]

Thomas Koner/Swarthy Thug/Mr Lustbaster has a solid relationship with someone.

 

[In Bloom]

At no point did I suggest that she was responsible for Swarthy's posts, as you suggested. Neither does her relationship with him bear any impact on how I treat her here.

You've made all that all up in your little confused head.

Still, if you're too stubborn and rude to apologise, so be it.

No need to be rude, dear.

I'm not getting into this same argument again, sorry.

 

[Dubversion]

No need to be rude, dear.

I'm not getting into this same argument again, sorry.

odd - you seemed quite keen to get into it a few posts ok, before you were made to look like an arse

 

[In Bloom]

odd - you seemed quite keen to get into it a few posts ok, before you were made to look like an arse

*sigh*

What a surprise, in jumps dubversion. I only hope the floor can take the strain.

I happen to strongly disagree with editor about _angel_, but we're not going to agree, and there's no point getting into another bunfight about it.

 

[Dubversion]

ah, reduced to making snide, 3rd hand digs about physical appearance now, In Bloom? what a sorry cunt you are

and if you read the thread, i posted before you so you're the one jumping in. Dumb fuck

 

[In Bloom]

I happen to strongly disagree with editor about _angel_, but we're not going to agree, and there's no point getting into another bunfight about it.

.

 

[pembrokestephen]

ah, reduced to making snide, 3rd hand digs about physical appearance now, In Bloom? what a sorry cunt you are

and if you read the thread, i posted before you so you're the one jumping in. Dumb fuck

I keep thinking that In Bloom seems like quite a reasonable person, then he comes out with another weird diatribe about something utterly inconsequential, and it takes me 3 months to be able to take him seriously again.

 

[Dubversion]

he has his moments of lucidity, but then his 'stances' take over...

 

[In Bloom]

Anyway, Masterfoods, rennet, etc.

Anybody else think that the fact that Masterfoods caved in so quickly reveals the ultimately apolitical and conservative nature of ethical consumerism as a form of political activity?

 

[Dubversion]

nope

 

[In Bloom]

nope

Just curious

What I'm trying to say is, ethical consumerism of this sort might allow you to force Masterfoods to avoid animal rennet, because it's not that important to them. You can only ever achieve these kinds of small, inconsequential changes to the minutae of a product with ethical consumerism.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Anyway, Masterfoods, rennet, etc.

Anybody else think that the fact that Masterfoods caved in so quickly reveals the ultimately apolitical and conservative nature of ethical consumerism as a form of political activity?

Wot?

No, I think the fact that Masterfoods caved in so quickly reveals that they had underestimated the weight of the backlash against this decision, and probably overestimated the benefits to be had from going down this route anyway.

I think the socio-demographic underpinnings of the proletarian/consumerist axis vis a vis the ongoing exigency with reference to the consumerist bloc's relationship to the manufacturing hegemony are relevant insofar as you can pull white hairs out of a badger's arse on a wednesay.

HTH.

 

[In Bloom]

Wot?

No, I think the fact that Masterfoods caved in so quickly reveals that they had underestimated the weight of the backlash against this decision, and probably overestimated the benefits to be had from going down this route anyway.

Well yes, but you can only ever achieve these sort of minor, unimportant changes this way. You're not going to, for instance, force a company to stop sacking employees for joining a union or impersonating nurses so they can flog their dodgy milk substitutes.

I think the socio-demographic underpinnings of the proletarian/consumerist axis vis a vis the ongoing exigency with reference to the consumerist bloc's relationship to the manufacturing hegemony are relevant insofar as you can pull white hairs out of a badger's arse on a wednesay.

HTH.

No sense of irony, you lot

 

[pembrokestephen]

Just curious

What I'm trying to say is, ethical consumerism of this sort might allow you to force Masterfoods to avoid animal rennet, because it's not that important to them. You can only ever achieve these kinds of small, inconsequential changes to the minutae of a product with ethical consumerism.

It certainly proves that ethical consumerism (if that's what this is - which I'm uncertain about) CAN change things. In this case, just small things, but I don't think it proves that ethical consumerism CAN'T change big things, too.

And I think there are plenty of examples of how consumer pressure, ethical or otherwise, has forced manufacturers to change. I can well remember how they were all insisting that a) tartrazine (E102) was "proved safe" for kids, and that b) "nobody'd buy orange squash that wasn't orange"...but consumer pressure means that E102 is now pretty much a pariah amongst food additives. Same goes, to some extent, for organic food - a fad, yes, but one that consumers have been able to demand and get.

Fairtrade chocolate's another one. And I'm sure there are tons of examples I haven't thought of.

 

[In Bloom]

It certainly proves that ethical consumerism (if that's what this is - which I'm uncertain about) CAN change things. In this case, just small things, but I don't think it proves that ethical consumerism CAN'T change big things, too.

And I think there are plenty of examples of how consumer pressure, ethical or otherwise, has forced manufacturers to change. I can well remember how they were all insisting that a) tartrazine (E102) was "proved safe" for kids, and that b) "nobody'd buy orange squash that wasn't orange"...but consumer pressure means that E102 is now pretty much a pariah amongst food additives. Same goes, to some extent, for organic food - a fad, yes, but one that consumers have been able to demand and get.

Fairtrade chocolate's another one. And I'm sure there are tons of examples I haven't thought of.

Yes, but those are only tiny, barely noticable changes, they mean very little in the long term. Fairtrade is bollocks, anyway, total fucking fraud.