Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:37:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:11:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:59:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>>>>>>>>>plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>>>>>>>>>even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then why did you write;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
>>>>>>>continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
>>>>>>>collateral deaths will occur
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your quotes
>>>>
>>>>Are irrelevant.
>>>
>>>They show that you believe vegans win the counting
>>>game
>>
>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>>virtue.
>
>
> That may be so if argued correctly

It is so, as I have argued it correctly. Thanks for
the concession. **** off now.