On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:rsjr53pkoojf7okb3g77r0r7siu8ruuj6s@4ax .com...
> > 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
>
> egroups.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.



You clearly are a ninny Dutch.

You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.



>
> > "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.



Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
"ELEGANCE" you ****.

You're getting goofier than Goo.





>
> >>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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -