On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing
>> >
>> >How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan?
>>
>> You've got to do better
>
>The breast milk issue is DOA.

Rather, it's shown what a dodger and snipper you
become when trapped. Every time I grind you into
the ground on an issue you resort to snipping and
totally ignore the evidence which proves you wrong.
There's about three threads going at the moment
where you've simply cut and run, and this isn't the
fist time you've had to resort to that either. You're
always doing it. What we have here is a situation
where you cannot compete with me, so you simply
snip and run for cover every time instead.

[unsnip]
When agreeing with magnulus' statement where
he asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you both
logically assert that "Breast milk is vegan" when the
double negative is removed.

[In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the
Renaissance have objected to the double negative in
English. In their eagerness to make English conform
to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the
notion that

* two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.*

This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar
and writing, has become established as a fundamental
of standard usage.] *my emphasis*
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative

Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains
that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether
you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and
snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're
incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch.


How about fasting, is fasting vegan or
>non-vegan?
>
>