FormicaLinoleum

That's all fine and good until the person using the loose definition is the person who indicates on a menu that a dish is vegan! Really, my defense of having a clear definition of vegetarian and vegan is just pragmatic... if it's loose, then I don't know what I am getting when I'm given something "vegan". It's not at all because I want to poke my nose into what other people are doing or want to judge them. Unfortunately, in order for "vegan" to have a consistent meaning and to be a useful guideline for people preparing/labeling/making decisions about food and other products, there has to be consensus and agreement about it. Which is why a 'let everyone do as they wish' approach isn't... pragmatic. If people want to simply ignore such labels and not use them, that's completely fine with me, because it doesn't fuzzy up the meaning. It's the misuse rather than the non-use of such labels that gets me a bit excited.

veggieprincess, I think you are reading into what I have said (I'm assuming it's mostly me you are reacting to as I am basically the only one who has said honey isn't vegan). This thread started because someone asked why honey was excluded from the vegan version of a bar, so the discussion here is to explain why. It's because honey isn't vegan. And it's not vegan because it's an animal product. That's just a straightforward answer to the OP's question. I think it's easy to get things all confused and apply too much meaning to what people are saying when these whole "what is vegan?" discussion get going. When the question is whether eating/buying/doing X is vegan, the issue is just whether it's vegan. Not whether X is a deadly sin, or is going to save the planet, or makes someone better than another. I disagree that the definition of vegan needs to change. To me, the idea behind veganism is pretty clear and isn't irrelevant. A vegan is one who avoids the use of animal products as much as is possible, generally because that person is opposed to the use of animals for their products, the treating of animals as belongings, etc. There is absolutely no doubt that it is good for the planet and the animals for people to cut down on their consumption of animal products and that we should encourage that. But people who cut down yet don't completely give up animal products aren't vegans. I guess my point can be summed up pretty simply. When I (or someone else) says "this person is not a vegan" that does not mean "this person is bad"! Often, the reaction to people trying to define veganism is as if we are saying that. Can't we say "if you eat fish, you aren't a vegan" without being treated as if we are somehow putting that person down? Is it really such an insult to a person to say they are not a vegan? Whether someone is vegan and whether they are good, helpful, considerate, etc. are completely separate issues. If I hold the opinion that someone is not a vegan, I in no way mean to make any implications about all the rest. They are unrelated. If I have a neighbour who is the sweetest person alive, gives time and money to all kinds of causes, cares about the environment, yet has hens and eats eggs, I can appreciate all the wonderful things about her but still hold the opinion that she ain't no vegan. If it seems offensive to some that I should see her as a non-vegan, if it seems that my refusing to go along with labeling her as a vegan means that I'm taking away from all the great things she does, I just have to ask why 'cause I don't get the connection. It's not like I'd go marching next door and tell her she's no vegan and she's not good enough!! But if someone were to start a thread on here asking "are eggs vegan?" I'd say "no they aren't" and would defend that, and I don't see how that would have anything at all to do with how much I value the great things my neighbour does. People who see labels such as "vegan" as useless and irrelevant won't give a toss whether I or anyone else thinks they or X is vegan, because they don't attach any importance to who or what is "vegan". I, myself, find the word to be useful to convey to other people what I do and don't eat and a bit about my beliefs (when I specify that I am an ethical vegan), so I do have an opinion about its meaning, which I tend to share when such discussions come up. I think that I do so in a non-judgemental manner.

A lot of different points have been made. Here are my perhaps random thoughts about them. I personally agree with the classification of honey as non-vegan. It's an animal product. I find it a little weird to hear discussions about whether honey is vegan if the bees are treated well. Are eggs vegan if the hens are treated well? Is dairy vegan if the cows are treated well? I thought the general idea is that the treatment of the animal doesn't matter--animal products aren't vegan, period. Personally, I am against the use of animals for one's own gain, and to me that's a pretty good guide for why animal products are not acceptable. If one has bees for honey, then that's using animals for one's own gain. If one is concerned about the decline of honey bees, one could get beehives and set up or encourage colonies, then simply leave them be. Let them keep their honey. Why take it from them? As for honey being OK because we kill bugs when we drive, that's the kind of excuse that omnis love to use. "What's the point of being vegan when you kill bugs when you walk and animals are killed when plants are harvested? We will always accidentally kill animals, so why bother doing anything?" The point is to cut out the things that you can. Avoid all the animal products that you reasonably can. Yeah, you'll never be able to stop contributing to harm of animals completely unless you live in a cave or kill yourself. But you can do the best you can. And we can stop using honey--it's pretty easy.

Honey is an animal product. Vegans don't eat/use animal products.

I should say that it seems that the process for submitting visa applications has now changed quite a bit. I think maybe you can't go in person any more. We had (and spent all of) tens of thousands of dollars. I can't remember exactly, but between $20 & $30K? A lot of that went to our expenses once we were over here. As I said, we were both unemployed for two months, and my partner took 10 mos to find a job (I think I said 8 previously, but it was 10). So we had to cover all or part of our living expenses for that time. The exchange rate will make a difference on how much you need, of course--I think it was about $1.85:£1.00 when we moved. If it's better, you'll get more pounds for your dollars. Most flats over here are available furnished, so it is actually better not to bring over any furniture, and you won't have to buy any. Fully furnished flats will even have bedding, towels, dishes, etc. It's kinda nice, as there's less to move when you chance flats! They have what are called charity shops here. They are generally not as big as the Sally Army ones in the US, but they are pretty easy to find. Oxfam is perhaps the most common, but many different charities have shops. I am not sure how cheap they are, though...

The Vegans bashing the Raw Food is much like Omni guys bashing Veganism. "Watch out on what he says he's one of those raw foodist" I find that the majority of people that go out of there way to bash raw foodist are people that don't have will power to follow such a diet. I don't bash cook fooders, but i do defend raw food when i see people down talking it. Just becasue you decide to heat other wise unedible foods makes doesn't make one superior I will never bash someone just for being on a raw food diet. I have absolutely no problem with people deciding to eat raw. If that's what someone wants to do, good for him/her. And I will even respect the willpower it takes to carry through with it. I considered and read about a raw food diet, but in the end decided it was not for me for two major reasons: 1) I was completely unconvinced that it is healthier than a diet containing cooked whole foods and 2) even if I had been, I am not a dietary purist and am fine with eating a less-than-ideal diet. I'm vegan for ethical reasons, not health ones. While I try not be be ridiculous and eat crap all the time, I'll always allow myself to eat some food that tastes really good but offers little health-wise. Just like I allow myself to spend time doing things that I enjoy but aren't at all productive, and don't feel guilty about it. That's just my orientation on life. Like I said, I have no problem with peole following raw diets. All I have a problem with is people saying unreasonable/illogical things. If I read something that I disagree with, I tend to respond and try to refute it. That's not limited to posts from raw foodists. Unfortunately, there does seem to be a trend that there is a certain raw food orientation that lends itself to the production of posts that I strongly disagree with. I think that if you look honestly at the so-called "bashing" posts here, you'll see that most people are like me. They are not bashing all people who eat raw, but are responding to specific statements. Many of us also note that some raw food followers have a religious-like attitude to it, having strong faith in certain ideas that are not backed by any evidence. Many of us have a problem with this characteristic. There is an important difference there.

Just because she gained 20 lbs of muscle in her first year does not mean that she could keep doing so until she was as big as a steriod-user. I already pointed this out. People make fast gains at the beginning, then their gains slow and plateau. Even if a natural builder can make fast progress at first, his/her body will plateau before he/she gets as big as a roid-user can.

http://www.water4.net/why-v-pure.htm It says that this comes from algae- could I get the same amount of EPA/DHA from Spirulina? It also doesn't list how much fat there is per pill (IE, am I looking at 115mg of n-3 fatty acids in 500 or 2000mg of oil? No clue... I don't work for them or anything. Try http://www.water4.net/contact-us.htm

http://www.water4.net/why-v-pure.htm

What was the bolded part supposed to mean, then? I don't follow bodybuilding at all, so I'm not the one to start giving examples. But DV and SydneyVegan both said they have put on that much or more. From reading this board and Vegan Fitness I read about people gaining a lot of weight all the time, so I don't see any reason to doubt DV. From the Team 200 blog, it seems Troy gained 15 lbs in 5 months. I know not all of it would be muscle, but knowing him, I'm sure much of it is. You are saying that DV and SydneyVegan are outright lying to us. That's a really serious claim and I don't see that you have much ground not to believe them. Beginners can make a lot of progress in a year. Eventually, most people plateau and then have a really hard time adding additional weight/muscle, but until someone reaches that plateau for their body, they can make pretty good progress when first starting lifting. The problem is that those beginning gains can't go on forever. But at the beginning, someone new to lifting could most likely put on 20+ lbs of muscle and a year seems long enough to do so.

Well, if you acknowledge that she gained fat along with her muscle, then why did you ask for someone to show you someone who gained 20 lbs of muscle but no fat or water?? Did you just word that poorly?

DV did not say she put on 20 lbs of muscle but no fat or water. She specifically said that she did put on some fat along with the muscle:

Whoa! I'm 5'5", so that would put my "ideal" at about 115. I'm about 150. I know I'd survive if I lost a bit, but I can't imagine getting anywhere near that low! For most of my post-pubescent life I was around 140 and that seemed pretty good on me. On the other hand, my partner is about 5'4" and barely 110. Obviously, she is much thinner than I am, but it seems pretty natural for her. I can't imagine her being close to my weight, but I also can't imagine me being close to hers. We eat and exercise pretty similarly, but have totally different body types. I tend to carry a fair amount of muscle mass even without trying, whereas she has very little muscle. So I guess it's pretty much what VE said--it varies. I figure it's more important to worry about being healthy in terms of eating and exercise.

I just use the day to get together with family and eat a lot. We don't give thanks for anything, or think about anything related to the so-called reason for the holiday.

I'm in London now, so thanksgiving is not a huge deal, obvs. But I have dinner with my brothers. Tomorrow 3 of my (British) cousins are coming as well. Around the holidays, I often hear vegans talking about whether to go to family gatherings or not, because of the meat that will be there. To be honest, I don't quite understand the impulse to boycott. Why boycott family holiday meals in particular? If one boycotts those because meat is there, does that mean that one boycotts all meals and gatherings at which non-vegan food is served? No meals out with non-vegan friends or parties at which non-vegan food is served? Eating is done only with fellow vegans (or people who are eating vegan on that occasion)? I can understand boycotting if the family meal is always contentious, like if family members give you a hard time for being vegan or refuse to accommodate you. But that's different from boycotting just because there will be meat there. Fortunately, when my partner and I take part in such family meals, all the side dishes are made vegan so that we can eat them all. So the turkey is there, but everything else is vegan. If we didn't go, they wouldn't bother making all those side dishes and desserts vegan, so by going, we are reducing the amount of animal products used in the meal.

fede35140, I imagine that it probably didn't help that this was your first post on the board. When people come and just post a video without an intro or other participation, it comes across as spam-like. If you are interested in this board, go post an intro and start participating. I am sure people will be welcoming if it's clear that you are interested in this board and being a part of this community.

Many jobs in London will include a "London weighting". So the job will be advertised with a base salary, but then also will state a London weighting, which generally seems to be about £2,000-£2,500 a year. At least this is so at all University jobs I have seen and also jobs in my field (social science research) in other sectors. So jobs here will pay about that much more. And perhaps the base is a little higher as well, but I'm not sure about that. If you apply for a visa in person (which should be easy for you as the office you would apply to is in NYC), you get the visa the same day. Once you are all set to apply, you fill everything in online, make an appointment for within the next two weeks, go in with your backing documentation, and walk away with your visa. When we got my partner's visa we had a 10am appt, but had to wait in a queue with the others with the same appt time. I think we waited maybe an hour, maybe less? We got up to the desk, where it took the officer about 10-15 min to look through everything and OK it, then we came back 1 hr after that to pick up her visa. It was pretty straightforward. One thing I am not sure about it whether you can apply for your visa and your husband's at the same time. However, if you are going for a Tier 1 visa, you may want to get it before you start applying for jobs, as it is completely different for an employer to hire someone with a visa than without. I think... the issue then is that if it takes a long time to find a job, you're still sitting in the US wasting the time on your visa. So I don't know... I guess you should get advice on that. But just telling potential employers that you intend to apply for a Tier 1 visa wouldn't be the same as saying you successfully got one already. I will say that it might be quite hard to get a job from the US. In 2005, before we had any significant savings, I applied for a number of jobs over here. I didn't hear anything back from a single one. (And I am a UK citizen and said so in all my cover letters.) So we saved up money for 2 years, moved over and applied here. I made 3 or 4 applications and got one of the jobs. It could just be coincidence that I got a job pretty quickly while living over here but was very unsuccessful in applying from the US. Could be I just found the right job in 2007. But it could be a challenge getting potential employers to consider you. But you could just try applying and at the same time be building up a fund of money to allow you to move over without a job so that if you don't get any offers you can eventually move over anyway. Like I said, it took us 2 years to save up, which did feel like a long time to be planning, but it all happened eventually!

I would agree with Dan. If you want to have some choice in where to live and not have to settle for something you don't really like, to pay all your bills, and to have money left over to save and spend on non-essentials, you should look to make £45K+ together. We are able to afford enough rent to live in nice enough places (but not really fancy/expensive areas) and pay all of our bills. We don't have any money to do more than that, though, but this is due partly to still having to pay off debts from the move. If we were debt-free we'd be putting aside some money each month. Would you apply for jobs from the US and move over only if one of you gets an offer? Or would you both leave your jobs, move over, and look for work once you are here? 'Cause how much savings you need to have in order to make the move is another thing to consider. (We used A LOT.)

There are PAYE calculators you can use to estimate your take-home for a given salary, like this one: http://listentotaxman.com/

If you own a television, you have to pay for a license. If you don't have a TV, you don't need the license. It doesn't matter whether you watch it or not, just whether you own one. For people in my earning range income tax (PAYE) and National Insurance is lower here than in the US. I paid about 33% total federal, state, and local tax in the US and pay about 26% total PAYE and NI here.

If you like exploring, you would love London! It's big, with loads of different neighborhoods. Many neighborhoods are more like their own little towns, and there are so many different types and feels of neighborhood. I've been here a year and a half and haven't put a dent in getting to know this city. It does feel quite different from NYC to me, though I don't know NYC too well. London somehow feels a bit less big even though it covers a big area... but maybe that's because there is very little in the way of tall buildings and it really does often feel like a collection of neighborhoods. (Hey--my parents live in Riverdale!) Yes, London has zones and it costs more if you travel across more zones. (It also costs more to include zone 1, so zones 2-4 is cheaper than zones 1-3.) If you were to qualify for Tier 1, your husband could just get a visa to accompany you as your spouse--he wouldn't need his own Tier1/2 visa. Yeah, my partner and I make about £50K. I would estimate that if we had comparable jobs in the US we'd be making about $85-95K, if that gives you an idea of the translation. However, the relation between US and UK salary depends on the job. I'm in academia and make less here than I could in the US, but my partner makes more here than she would in a similar job in the US (she's a library assistant). Hmm, it's hard to estimate typical prices here, because they can vary quite a bit (things can be very expensive, but you can also find deals if you look). But I'll give it a shot. It's really hard to say about flats, because it will really depend on the area and the flat itself. In our experience, the flats that we have considered have been £850+/mo with most closer to the £1000/mo mark (mostly 1 beds). But we are somewhat picky, and have looked in limited areas of London. It is definitely possible to find cheaper if you care less about where you live. (e.g., I know a couple who pays about £850 for a 2-bed, but in an area we aren't interested in.) Unfortunately, having pets knocks out a lot of flats, making it harder to find a good deal. £2.50+ for a sandwich £50ish for a monthly gym membership £4 for a commute back and forth on the tube across zones 1-2 £25+ monthly cell phone service (obvs depends how many minutes/texts you need) I don't know about suits No idea about car-related stuff but it really isn't necessary to have one here. I think it would be more annoying than useful to have one, but I do know some people (definitely a minority of the people I know) who do. There are some costs here that don't exist in the US. Council tax is one--that is like property tax, but renters have to pay it as well. It depends on the borough you live in and the value of your flat, but somewhere in the realm of £100/mo for a 1-bed is probably usual. If you have a TV, you have to pay a license fee, which is about £13/mo. There's not too much to know about health insurance. If you live here, you qualify for NHS, regardless of whether you are employed. It is also possible to get private insurance, but I don't quite see the point of it unless you feel you're at risk of having an annoying but non-urgent condition (e.g., sports injuries that don't require emergency care such as soft tissue damage). I've had good (though limited) experience with the NHS and so has my brother who had to have a bunch of tests for a non-life threatening condition. Vegan stuff... London is OK for veganism, though I don't find it amazing. It's generally possible to find places to eat. Eating out is one thing that is quite expensive here, so maybe that is what makes me less than enthusiastic about vegan choices. I feel like food should be really good for the price one has to pay for it, but most of the time I end up feeling like I could have made something just as good myself for much less.

Fair enough! London is a great place to travel from, too. It's so much easier to travel to other countries from here. (If you have the money to do it, that is!) And you get more annual leave. I have 6 weeks, though that is pretty high as a results of my being in academia. But 4 weeks is the min, and 5 weeks isn't uncommon. So you have more time to travel when you live here, too. I don't know much about gyms here, as I don't use them (I work out at home). But there's a range of options. There are commercial gyms, council-run leisure centres, and university gyms. Some common commercial gyms are Fitness First and LA Fitness. Each borough will have a number of leisure centres--quality of gym equipment will probably vary quite a bit but it might be possible to find a leisure centre that has all you need, and leisure centres will be cheaper than commercial gyms.

It's hard for me to say as far as culture shock, as my mother is English, so I have been coming here and visiting family throughout my life and also lived here for a year as a teen. So I have basically always been familiar with English culture. My partner wasn't though, and she seems to have little problem. Of course, there are things that are done differently that can be a little annoying, but my partner hasn't had any major problems with adjusting. I think it varies from person to person. I am not very familiar with Manchester or Brighton, even though my brother lived in Manchester for a number of years. Brighton is quite nice. I know a few people who have lived there--some loved it and some didn't really like it. It isn't really a city, though, so it would be a totally different feel. It is quite vegan-friendly, though!

I did a bit more reading on this (I'm nerdy and love to learn about this stuff). You could try for Tier 1 or Tier 2. Tier 1 -- highly skilled workers: You need to get a minimum number of points based on education and past earnings. With a Master's degree, you basically have to have been earning somewhere around $70K+, and you'll most likely have enough points. There is a calculator on the immigration site so you can check how many points you have. If you can qualify, it would be better to go for this rather than Tier 2 as you are not tied to a particular job. Tier 2 -- sponsored skilled worker, for if you have a job offer: You get some points for education or earnings, I think, but a large portion of the points relate to the job offer itself. You won't qualify for this unless it is a shortage occupation (there would be an official list somewhere, probably things like teaching and nursing where there aren't enough applicants to fill needs) or the employer can certify that there were no UK or EU applicants who were qualified for the job. The latter is not an easy thing to demonstrate. Hope that's helpful!

As far as places to live, I haven't lived anywhere other than London in the UK (other than Bolton in the NW 20 years ago), so I can't really recommend any other cities. I do love Edinburgh, and I have been to Glasgow a few times and like it a lot, too. Maybe Glasgow wouldn't be to everyone's tastes, but I lived in Baltimore MD for 16 years and loved it, and Glasgow has a similar feel (but much older) to me. London is expensive, but not necessarily prohibitively so. Loads of people do manage to live here, including many who are not rich! I know people with a range of jobs and incomes here. Many, many of them have flatmates, which helps the cost of living tremendously--this even includes married couples. But it is also possible for couples to afford to live on their own (it is quite hard for a single person to do so unless he/she has a very healthy income). My partner and I make about £50K together, and we live on our own in a 1-bed apt in London. We are able to pay all our bills quite comfortably, but unfortunately don't really have anything left over for fun stuff. (It doesn't help that we are still paying school loans in the US as well.) The cost of flats varies by area, obviously. You basically have to weigh flat size against location--would you rather have a smaller flat in order to live in a nicer or more central area, or live in a somewhat less desireable area to get more space? London is, unfortunately, not very pet friendly. Or at least landlords are not. We have a cat and a dog, and it has made flat-finding much harder than it otherwise would be. It would be easier with one pet, but definitely much easier with none. If you are buying, then that is not an issue. Must run off to a meeting now, but am glad to answer more questions!