B: So Natalie Imbruglia calls herself a strict vegetarian. How is that different than vegetarian? How would that be any different than a non-strict vegetarian? If being "non-strict" means sometimes eating meat, then you're not a vegetarian at all. All vegetarians are strict vegetarians in my opinion.

K: I disagree. I have a guy friend who considers himself a vegetarian, but he eats marshmallows and sushi (the kind with fish). I think that's sort of bs, but I guess he would be an example of non-strict vegetarian.

Z: I agree [with B], but I believe it was mainly the writer of the article [about Imbruglia] that chose that term. If not, some people find the difference in whether they consider fish meat or not ...as well as veggie's who don't use byproducts from animals but still eat dairy ...there's ungodly amounts of variations that people casually thro terms around to describe....

L: I think the phrase "strict vegetarian" is used to communicate a level of commitment to non-vegetarians. Also, there are so many people out there using terms like pesce-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian, that "strict" helps communicate it further that the person doesn't eat any animals. Again, I think this is a way to communicate one's commitment to the non-vegetarian population.

A: Maybe she means vegan.... I know that's the way my family describes me to people who don't understand the word "vegan." And I also don't agree that all vegetarians are strict. Some don't avoid gelatin and stuff like that.

P: OK lemme set the record straight- a vegetarian eats NO meat, including chicken, fish, lamb, etc., and a STRICT vegetarian eats no meat, no dairy, and no eggs! A strict vegetarian is almost the same as a vegan, but a vegan doesn't use products tested on animals or eat honey and a few other things. There is really no such thing as a non-strict vegetarian, because that would be a plain vegetarian. AND for whoever said that they 'cheat', you aren't a vegetarian! That would be like saying if I weren't a vegetarian, and I ate a salad with no meat for lunch or something, that I was a vegetarian for that meal, but no. Sorry to rant everyone.

Z: There's no getting it straight. Everyone thinks all the terms mean different things. I consider a strict vegetarian someone who eats NO MEAT, red, white, fish, lamb, anything but still eats dairy...but doesn't use animal byproducts. There's no right or wrong. You just have to specify if you really want people to know what you are, not just say "veggie, strict veggie" or whatever ...ya know?

K: I think so too, but it is a little unfair to put your foot down and say a strict vegetarian is one thing, a vegetarian is another, and everything else is bs.

R: I don't think "strict vegetarian" really needs to be defined but people do need to realize that if you eat anything with eyes you're NOT a vegetarian. There certainly are degrees of commitment to the veggie lifestyle, but pollo- and pesco-vegetarianism really is bs. Chicken and fish are still animals, still suffer, and still have to be killed before reaching your table. I know people mean well, but I don't think its fair to certain animals to distinguish them as acceptable to eat because you don't "sympathize" with them.

A: Don't agree. What about clams? No eyes. And hey, have you heard that people have began to be able to reproduce a clump of cells from a steak to produce a whole other steak...what about that? If you ate a steak that was created from one cell of a cow (and those cells don't have eyes mind you...) are you still veg?

Well, my point is who are you to decide where to draw lines. I have my opinions but I don't call them facts. I consider myself to be vegan and I don't eat meat or fish or dairy or eggs EVER, and I don't use products tested on animals, but I do eat products that contain honey on occasion, and sometimes I eat bread that has mono and diglycerides or sodium stearal lactate in it. So are you going to tell me that I'm not vegan?

B: Pollo and Pesce vegetarians are not vegetarians. Vegetarians don't eat any animals. They aren't even helping the cause. They are giving vegetarians a bad name. I tell people I'm vegan and they ask if I still eat chicken. A "vegetarian" who eats sushi is giving a real vegetarian a bad name.

A: Maybe a "vegetarian" who eats sushi is a "vegetarian" who needs to be educated, or maybe it's just a person who is doing SOMETHING for the animal rights movement. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to take any support we can get. Maybe this person is new to vegetarianism and is in a transition phase. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge people in our own movement. We are fighting more of a war against ourselves than anything else. A lot of us have forgotten the original cause in the quest to become "pure".

R: Actually I think most shellfish do have eyes, but really, when was the last time someone asked, "oh, so do you still eat clams?"

The perfect vegan is only theoretical. We can't live our lives without making a ripple in the pond, so to speak. There is so much out there that's not vegan that we can't avoid it entirely. Outside of abstaining from eggs and milk, where you draw the line is your personal decision. I would never criticize a vegan for the limits they set. However, the boundaries for vegetarianism are a little different. Just because you give up red meat doesn't make you vegetarian. Chicken and fish are just like any other animal - they fight for their lives, and they want to live.

I completely understand being in transition phase, though. I have nothing against it. My best friend gave up one item at a time (hotdog, then hamburger, then pepperoni, and so on) with 2 months in between each. Being pesco/pollo for years with no intention to make any more changes is not the same case. If you've made the commitment to give up all the rest, why not make the effort to cut out just a little bit more?

Want to read more? Want to take part in great conversations like this one? Join our email group by sending an email to vegteen-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.