Not sure if this really counts as a win.  Most of the books and brochures I've read about giving babies solid foods are worded like "If your family eats meat, try giving your baby ____."  I like that it implies that meat is optional, not necessary (as opposed to something like "Start giving your baby meat at __ months").  And I like that veg*nism is mainstream enough for them to word it that way in the first place.

yay, oww!!  Excellent that Mr Oww chose the meat free dish at your parents.
Although I guess it doesn't really surprise me given the conversations we've had about veggie foodz.  It does make me laugh that both N and Mr Oww seem to promote vegan / veggie diet almost as much as us, or more sometimes!

DC - that is really awesome that everyone respected your wishes about having a vegan party - really cool!  And also great that your family are reducing their meat intake - woo hoo!

Really I think you have more of a win with Mr Oww, than a lose.  Just from what I've seen / we've spoken about.  Same as me and N.  They are both really good and at least they don't eat meat (much) at home.

1) MPAGL came over the other night and was like "You're ruining me!"
When I inquired why, he said that he has barely been eating any meat since we have been spending most of our time together, and that he'd eaten some meat a few times in the last few days (I haven't been around much due to study) and it was really unappetising and made him feel sick each time.

Despite the "ruining" comments, he's not too upset about it and frequently says now that he's pleased his meat consumption has reduced dramatically.

I think thats a win!

2) For my post grad studies I had to do a formal presentation in NZSL about any topic, so I chose veganism - explained the reasons for it and the benefits and my story about choosing it. Several colleagues were like "Oh my god that's really sad about the animals" and a few more said that they could see now why I chose to be vegan. May not affect any real change but it was well received and provoked some thought :)

Not really a vegan win as much as an animal welfare win, but today in our (sorta) ethics class we had several of the faculty talk about farm animal reform (they were mostly vets of farmed animals). We have a new guy who is a large animal veterinarian, but has written a number of things about reform/welfare and was the classmate of one of our other faculty who is very conservative about these types of things. Anyway, new guy is pretty authoritative on the subject, and eventually one of the students asked him how he felt about Proposition 2 in California.
In the past, a number of the people in our class expressed displeasure at the passage of that proposition, generally the people who had worked with large animal veterinarians. Large animal veterinarians as a whole are pretty conservative about any changes, and so there wasn't too specific reasons of why they opposed it, but they were the outspoken people of the class so we have never had the other side argued.
Anyway, this guy, Mr. Cow Veterinarian, said he supported it and voted for it. He explained that he doesn't want to see pigs in gestation crates or hens in battery cages either, and that the result of the proposition meant an extra cent of cost for a dozen eggs. He was so mellow, informative, and non-confrontational, it basically took the fire out of the seriously anti-reform stance of a lot of the students. He concluded with the fact that most people voted for it, and so we as veterinarians and people in "the industry" should see it as a reflection of the public concern and take that into consideration (a lot of people have this "us" and "them" attitude regarding PETA and HSUS, as though those organizations are poisoning the public's minds about farm animal stuff). But, most people don't want to see those conditions, even though it won't affect their buying decisions and few people are able to make the connection when it comes to what they will buy and eat.
Aaand the other guy, conservative guy who was his classmate, disagreed. He said that basically if a judge decides what is and isn't allowed under the proposition, it takes the decision out of the hands of people who are familiar with the industry and know the science behind some of the practices (e.g., pigs are put into farrowing crates to prevent the sow from crushing the piglets, which can happen if they are not restrained). Also, that it's a slippery slope and (here we go) he believes that HSUS has an agenda and that first it's this and eventually they will (literally) want to ban pets as a whole, using videos of abused pets to fuel their campaign.
I then spoke up and I was like B*TCH, PLEASE! (ok, not really) but basically explained my point of view of why the situation for farmed animals is inherently different than companion animals, and how it doesn't make sense that people who came into the humane movement by having pets would then try to ban pets, and that keeping a domesticated animal as a mutual companion is inherently different than breeding and raising animals for slaughter and/or profit.
He then asked if I thought it could possibly ever happen that people would want to ban pets.
I said sure, but that will not be done by the activists of today, and if eventually the public decides that it is not ok to keep animals, that is their decision and we as scientists are not there to tell them what is ethical.

Anyway, no awesome fight broke out or anything, but a number of people came up to me after about what I said. I also like the welfare-oriented Mr. Cow Veterinarian, It gives me hope that not everyone is a d-bag.

That is great!!

woohoo oww!