> wrote
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:33:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>>http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...re%20facts%20p
>>resented
>>> >19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a
>>> >variant of the 'play dumb' rule.
>>>
>>> Ignores request for facts,
>>
>>Rule 19 of disinformation, 'Demand impossible proofs'
>
> Let's take this over to sci.sketpic shall we? Then you can see
> how they will tear you to shreds over there. Whimpering over
> demds for proof just doesn't cut it. I double dare you.
>
>>
>>No it isn't, it is on me to present a reasonable case supported by
>>facts. I have done so.
>
> You have not.

Fraid so.

>>
>>> If you cannot prove it then it's just all fluff.
>>
>>Wrong, this is a debate about ethics, not a counting game.
>
> Dude, I am not a vegan. I am a vegetarian.

Dude?

>>
>>> However, that article you linked to also had the link to its own
>>> rebuttal, which did present some hard numbers.
>>
>>Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of
>>the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research.
>
> Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it
> to here, and we shall see what we shall see.....
>
> and you will end up crying in the corner.

Bring it on, "dude".


>>> In other words, the rebuttal article was solid, and the one you
>>> quoted was ridiculous.
>>
>>In other words, Davis research gores your ox. The research reveals
>>that machine harvesting decimates populations of mammals, and it
>>destroys populations of amphibians and insects. It does not even
>>discuss the effects of spraying, which are even more harmful. These
>>facts should cause any thoughtful person who has embraced the
>>"vegan ethic" to re-assess their ethical model. The curious thing is
>>that it seldom does, it causes people like dropout Matheny and you
>>to launch campaigns of denial, disinformation and strawmen.
>>
>
> The use of the term "populations" seems a bit of an overstatement,

Does it really?

> intended to maximize the lack of numbers or research you have to back
> up anyhitng you say.

Do you always whiff off this badly? When are you going to make a post to
sci.skeptics?