What I did want to point out, however, is that based on this wording I just quoted you as saying about me, some might assume that I take a dogmatic and unquestioning view (or "approach") of veganism by blindly adopting the Vegan Societies' policies and treat my veganism as a belief system or almost a religion/cult. This would be completely incorrect. My only "approach" to veganism is an acknowledgment that the majority of all their practices are already in line with mine so I happen to fit their definition of being vegan. This could change at any moment however because I don't "follow their rules" but rather coincidentally fall under their definition of what this word they invented, "vegan", means.
Although it is true that I don't use honey and Watson and the other founders specifically outlined honey use as not part of veganism as well, my non-use of honey is based on how I feel about animal exploitation and killing bees, not because I blindly accept everything the Vegan Society says as gospel and infallible.
For instance, it turns my stomach that "for your health" and "for the environment" got tacked on to the original animal only related definition, but its their word, not mine, so only they get to define what it is all about. Since I can't think of any ways that veganism is bad for health or environment, I still, but only just barely, consider myself a vegan, however. This very well may be temporary, I suspect.
If new scientific research were to come out that showed veganism was clearly bad for one's health, as an example, yet the Vegan Society refused to accept the general scientific view and defiantly stood by their definition that "it is always good for health, without exception" then I would totally part ways with them and stop referring to myself as vegan.
P.S. Sorry to be off topic, Lentil, however I felt I was being mis-characterized and felt I had a duty to correct it.