Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:18 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:GPWti.39889$fJ5.24475@pd7urf1no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
>>>>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
>>>>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
>>>>>> childish display.
>>>>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
>>>> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
>>> The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.
>> Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
>> they are to be treated like ignorant children.
>
> No. They made arguments which appeared to show a lack of familiarity
> with the literature, therefore Regan remarked on that fact.

No, they made arguments which show that they don't subscribe to "the
literature" referring to books by "Animal Rights" authors like himself,
and he didn't simply "remark", he reacted in a completely inappropriate
supercilious manner. In doing so he harmed his own credibility more than
that of those towards whom he was directing his condescending attitude.
He would have left a much better impression if he had used that time to
inform rather than ridicule. The context was a formal debate in a
university forum, not a usenet slugfest.