"Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.

I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable. It
never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack substance,
but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.

>> > "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 ****.

Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
away." - The Doobie Brothers

> You're getting goofier than Goo.

A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals. By
that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?