The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
> >> > Hello Rudy,
>
> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for
> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>
> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things that
> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the last
> >> > paragraph.
>
> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>
> >> > Yours,
>
> >> > D.W.
>
> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>
> > That's because there wasn't any.
>
> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant", he
> just had no meaningful response, like you.
"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|