The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
>> You cowardly son of a bitch. Every single question you raised was
>> addressed by me rationally and completely in the part you snipped away.
>> You can't deal with the argument so you throw up some ridiculous ruse of
>> an objection based on a misreading of the essay, then run for the hills
>> because *I* am supposedly not engaging in reasoned debate. You are an
>> utter and complete fraud.
>>
>
> You really are deluded, you know. Rightly or wrongly, I am extremely
> unimpressed with the quality of your argumentation. I think that the
> author of the essay would accept the criticisms of it that I am
> making, and that your failure to appreciate the force of these
> criticisms and address them adequately is due to your own limitations.
And I think you're a windbag who has a vastly overblown opinion of his
own competence.
> That is what I think, rightly or wrongly. So I'm not being cowardly,
> I'm just tiring of wasting time talking to you when I don't think that
> you're engaging with the issues seriously and we aren't getting
> anywhere. I may be wrong about that. But these speculations of yours
> that I'm not engaging with the argument in "good faith" are delusion.
> I really do believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have made some
> forceful criticisms of the essay and that you aren't engaging with
> them adequately. In fact I think that is true beyond reasonable doubt.
> You really should try to stay in touch with reality, or you might end
> up like Ball.
I sent an email to Jon Wetlesen describing your objection to the
rebuttal and inviting him to give his response or to weigh into the
discussion here. I hope he responds, maybe you'll listen to him. I give
up on you.
|