On May 31, 1:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" > wrote in ooglegroups.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?- Hide quoted text -


YOU are worse than Goo!

I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
for "livestock".

I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
animals.







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