"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.

How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance? Substance is
the essence of argument, only it's substance can have elegance. Or, an
argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.

So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?