The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 28, 8:02 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> 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.
Well, that would be great.
|