Now your tending towards syllogism :-) We're arguing on two fronts here - firstly 'What is milk'? which we disagree on; secondly 'anything man-made should be classified by its material composition' which we agree on. I don't see the logical step from one to the other. Perhaps I'm a bit tired.

[Chalky] If milk, an animal by-product, is 'animal', what about dung? By your argument it's 'animal', but surely it's 'vegetable', since that's what the cow ate. Or possibly 'mineral', if you figure it's been broken down that far.

Yes, I hear [see] what you're saying, Riff. We had an extensive discussion when this game began, much along the lines of this little spat, ie. how far should we break things down. I can't remember whether it was on the first page of this game or in the Banter Game and I can't be arsed to search back 'cause it's way past my bedtime. But just as a parting shot, and because I'm feeling mischievous - further to your cowdung theory - would you differentiate between the solid waste products of a meat-eating human and a vegetarian?

Bloody Hell! It's hard enough when you are in the seat to attempt to answer questions in a manner which does not mislead without having each move analysed when the game is over.
Whilst I must admit the discussion has been most entertaining, Kayl, you have my sympathy. Regardless, carry on the discussion - assuming that Boolbar doesn't produce the gavel; as I said 'tis amusing to follow the arguments of logic. ... ;-)

Mainly, I would hope that none of us would choose "the contents of a vegetarian's colon" for a topic. But, yes, I would probably call the vegetarian's waste 'vegetable' and the meat-eater's 'animal and vegetable' (since the meat-eater presumably doesn't live solely on meat... although, another animal -- a cheetah, say...)

I really shouldn't have brought this up, should I?