<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo 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?
>
> By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.
>
>>Substance is the essence of argument,
>
> Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
> argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.

No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.

>>only it's substance can have elegance.
>
> Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
> up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:

Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.

> "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
> but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
> and never an advantage." - Cicero

An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom, along
with logic and reason.

The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
decidely not elegant.

>>Or, an
>>argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.
>
> Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny.
>
>>So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?
>
> You've still got it.

I fear that you and your erstwhile buddy are leagues ahead.