Always put quotes around "vegan"
On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.
>>
>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>>>> thinking people.
>>
>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.
>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?
>>
>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?
>>
>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>> suffer from this defect.
>>
>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.
>>
>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,
>>
>> You are unqualified for it.
>>
>
> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> feedback on the presentations that I give.
The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.
|