Jonathan Ball wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>

>> Why did you not reply to that? I think the shortcomings of Regan's
>> thesis deserve greater discussion, especially by those who defend him
>> and his thesis. His thesis, indeed veganism as a whole, fails because
>> it's based on Ivory Tower utopianism rather than in-the-fields reality.
>
>
> Usual, Karen simply isn't smart enough to defend "St." Tom's thesis.
> She thinks she's the smartest person ever to participate here, and she
> really isn't very smart at all. She mistakes glibness for articulation.
> She also views Regan as something akin to Moses: He has brought down
> the sacred "ar" texts from the mountain, and they need no defense.
>
> Long before you began to participate here, I posted the following rude,
> snide response I got from Regan himself when I asked him to comment on
> the obvious problem that cell culture, a medical investigative technique
> that he and others refer to as "non animal", in fact isn't non animal at
> all: http://tinyurl.com/yqbb7
>
> "ar" and its goofy dietary expression of "veganism" are full of this
> kind of contradiction.

BTW, if you go to that post and then explore the
thread, you'll see one of the earliest instances of
shitbag Nash deliberately lying about what someone else
has said, THEN lying about his lies. I should have
given up on the lump-o-shit long before I did.