I’m a lacto-ovo-pesco-porko-beefo-chicko-turko-vegetarian, but I usually just shorten it to vegetarian because it takes too long to say.
Indeed 
I was getting ready to go off on you, trying to figure out how you were possibly seeing a contradiction there.
Then what IS the problem? I thought you were saying that that precisely was the problem, that different people understood the word to mean different things, and that you wish everyone understood it to mean the same thing, and that furthermore you wish everyone understood it to mean the thing that you want it to mean.
For me, it’s not a problem. I’ll call myself vegetarian when it’s convenient, or when choices are limited (airlines don’t, sadly, have a category for pescovegetarian, which meant that on my honeymoon flight to Denmark I didn’t get any delicious Scandinavian smoked salmon). I’ll say that I eat fish when I’m around hardcore vegetarians and vegans. If I’m ordering soup at a non-Asian restaurant, I’ll tell them I’m vegetarian and ask if it’s made with a meat broth; at an Asian restaurant, I’ll specify that I want a vegetarian or fish broth. If someone offers me turkey at a holiday dinner, I’ll turn it down with smiling regrets and tell them I’m vegetarian, so that I don’t need to go into a complicated explanation of my diet. If the same person later catches me eating fish and decides to get all “Aha!” about it, I’ll explain my diet to them then.
I know that words mean different things in different contexts; I’ll use the language to my advantage instead of railing against it or criticizing people who use the word differently from how I might use it myself. That does mean sometimes calling myself a vegetarian, and I make no apologies for it.
Daniel
What?
You said that you were going to “continue to call yourself vegetarian,” because most people considered fish to be part of a vegetarian diet. But clearly, this is not really a most “effective” way to communicate, (partly because it’s unclear if “most” people really believe that—strictly speaking—vegetarians can eat fish) but also because you’re having to gauge when to call yourself vegetarian, and when not to call yourself vegetarian. And it seems likely that there are times when you misjudge when to call yourself vegetarian, and you’ll risk getting a glassy-eyed vegan thinking “Oh. He’s one of those.”
I am confused now. I thought I already conceded that it isn’t a problem for me if you, or Lamia, or anyone just having a “vegetarian moment” wants to masquerade (if you will) as vegetarian to a waiter, or to strangers for an evening, just so you can get something without beef in it. What I do have a problem with—and what many vegetarians have a problem with—is eating fish, or eating fish and chicken, or eating fish and chicken and “sometimes” a little beef, and saying that it all fits in with a “vegetarian diet,” and “vegetarians eat fish and chicken, you know.” When that happens—and it does, oh it does—then we get beligerent people saying, “But my cousin is vegetarian and he eats fish, so why won’t you?” Hence the reference on the Wikipedia site. It’s a problem. Pretending to be veggie for a night so you can eat in peace really isn’t. I conceded this, oh, way back several pages ago.
Would you think there was any problem with an ovo-lacto insisting that vegans can eat eggs? Could you see why vegans might “rail against” that? I can see the difference between feigning veganism to strangers, for one night, so I could get a meatless meal, and insisting that vegans sometimes do eat eggs just because I wanted to be called vegan and still eat eggs. The first thing is just a pragmatic way to get something without meat in it, the second is confusing people and messing things up for all the vegans out there.
And that’s what I think a lot of vegetarians think is happening when the “so-called” vegetarians insist that vegetarians can eat animal flesh. It would be seriously screwing things up for them. I am sure vegans don’t want to be offered eggs, and told, “But my friend yosemite is vegan, and she eats eggs!” Neither do we vegetarians (ovo lacto and vegan) want to be scolded by confused people.
That’s my main problem. That and the confusion. That’s why I think Lamia’s idea is a good one. It gets the point across (i.e. “communicates effectively”) most of the time and it doesn’t blur the definition so much and mess things up for the rest of us. Most people can grasp “semi” and know that there’s something different about a word when “semi” or “half” (or “pesco”) is attached to it.
First off, if you think I’m insisting that vegetarians can eat fish, you’re wrong. I’d need a Venn diagram to explain it to you thoroughly, but what I’m actually saying is that some vegetarians eat fish.
Second, if you can show me that a majority of folks who identify as vegans eat eggs, then there’s no problem with that ovo-lacto claiming that some vegans eat eggs.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you. It’s not “masquerading” for me to claim to be a vegetarian sometimes, because the word “vegetarian” is very often used to indicate a person who makes a deliberate effort to include less if any meat in their diet. When I claim to be vegetarian, it’s according to that definition, one which both you and I have demonstrated is in wide parlance.
The fact that some dictionaries haven’t picked up on this definition yet is irrelevant, as is the fact that some have is also irrelevant. Dictionaries that haven’t picked up on this parlance are not up-to-date, just as history books that don’t mention 9/11 are not up-to-date.
Cry me a river. Stick up for yourself, for God’s sake: if someone acts like a twit to you about your diet, cope with it, tell them that not all vegetarians are the same, and stick to your guns.
“Seriously screwing things up”? Hardly. Even if you were right, you need to take the issue up with human linguistics, not with individuals using the language naturally and effectively.
Daniel
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m with Time Magazine, that cite you quoted, Wikipedia, and a multitude of other cites, when it comes to the concept of whether “real” vegetarians eat fish or not.
I understand why you do that, and I understand that it’s a reasonable use of the word under the circumstances (i.e. you’re being pragmatic), but I’ll have to continue to use the term “masquerade” to describe it. I believe I am “communicating effectively” when I do so. 
Another thing we’ll just have to agree to disagree on, I suppose.
What is this? A cite from you? Shocking. Especially since the cite you picked doesn’t support your position (at least not with the force that you believe). Uh. I don’t get it. Did my browser skip by a definition?
I always do, but I can’t help but be annoyed with others muddying a definition, and making for confused and awkward social situations. Some of us would like to have less of those, thanks.
That’s easy for you to say, since you’re not nearly as affected as, say, the vegan or the ovo-lacto.
And I’m with linguists, who say that the concept of “real” vegetarians is incoherent.
Sure: you’re communicating that you’re being insulting, shallow, and hypocritical. Message received loud and clear.
Given your reading comprehension as demonstrated in this thread, I don’t doubt that you don’t get it; I do doubt that you read it at all. I advise you to read it carefully before dismissing the dictionary, lest you make the same egregious mistake you made earlier on this page. Or feel free to ignore it entirely: as I said, a dictionary cite is not relevant to the point I’m making, for the reasons you’ve ignored consistently through this thread.
Untrue: I’m exactly as affected. That is, since the word has multiple definitions, if I want people to be absolutely clear on my diet, I have to use another word. Ovo-lacto-vegetarians have to use the word ovolactovegetarian; I have to use the word pescovegetarian. BFD.
Daniel
I’ll stick with my multitude of cites and you stick with your linguists, then.
You really amuse me. First off, I’m just as “insulting, shallow and hypocritical” as Time Magazine, Wikipedia, that cite you quoted, the many dictionaries and encyclopedias and other sources.
Secondly, why do you care if I think that you’re “masquerading”? I should think you wouldn’t care at all. It’s just my opinion, and I’m not telling you that you’re doing anything bad or wrong or even unreasonable. (I think you’re being pragmatic.) You almost seem hurt that I (and I assume Time Magazine, etc.) don’t consider you a “real” vegetarian. That’s odd.
You ought to examine your own comprehension a little deeper there. A lot of this discussion could have been avoided if you’d read my concession way back that I thought it was understandable for fish-eaters (or even non-red-meat-eaters) to be “pragmatic” and claim to be vegetarian, just so they can get served a meatless meal.
I read it several times, but perhaps my browser did not display the words that specifically said that vegetarians ate fish. It’s entirely possible. That would be a forceful cite supporting your position. But like I said before, perhaps my browser did not display it, or perhaps I blinked (several times) and missed it. I am open to that possibility.
I can do that. And after all, I never denied the existence of cites saying that veggies do eat fish; I merely said that they appear to be overwhelmed and outnumbered by those stating the contrary.
Nope, you’re not as affected. And I’m not as affected as the vegan.
Those who eat animal flesh get less flack than those who don’t. Less, “What, surely you eat some sort of animal flesh, surely!” You don’t get that. I do. The vegan gets all that plus, “Surely you have eggs, surely at least that!” and I don’t. Those who are resistant to the whole notion of vegetarianism find NO animal flesh more difficult to believe, and will struggle and argue more with someone who will not eat any.
The easily amused have got an easy time. Since you are incapable of paying any attention to anything I say, I’m done with you.
Daniel
Yes, it’s nice to retain your sense of humor.
You’ve had the same problem, m’dear, and it cost us a whole lot of needless discussion.
And I am still confused why you are so offended by something that I’ve claimed all along (that fish is not part of a “real” vegetarian’s diet). I mean, if someone who was not vegetarian—who didn’t know or care much either way about vegetarianism—were to do web research on the subject, they’d come to exactly the same conclusion.