My message wasn't clear indeed.

A word may have different meaning depending on the usage: who, when, context... Formal language isn't the norm for better or for worse. I mostly agree with your two messages but also wanted to add a touch of pluralism: veganism origin and ideal has something to do with ethics by (more or less) avoiding unnecessary harm by avoiding animal exploitation but the goal and means to achieve it may differ.

The interpretation of "possible and practicable" you gave is aligned with my understanding but I can understand other people may include: - [as the article subject] the only food you can eat contains flesh, because you're detained in prison/stay at the hospital - The social pressure is too strong for you to possibly cope with it - Avoiding to use any toiletry that contains carmine, collagen or glycerin may be a hassle when one is away in holiday or work

Also, some people consider excluding bivalves from the list keep intact the goal of harm avoidance.

The cursor is subjective. I can grasp how someone may define themselves vegan and for whatever reason consume some animal products. However debating of the definition itself does not serve the shared cause of animal condition consideration. Instead it is far more effective to focus on shifting the laws (see the article) and bringing the questions/solutions to the public debate, which would solve most of the social pressure. Let's team up for 90% of the animal cause together and when it will be acquired we'll discuss the last 10%.

To end this message, I wish you a pleasant day and share with you a conference I had the chance to assit 2 days ago, I think it's very pertinent - but also in french, I hope the auto-translation are good. It's called "Do vegans harm the animal cause?" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLCRdLa99DE