 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
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. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
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. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > 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. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > 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. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > > On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > 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. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > 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? Substance is the essence of argument, only it's substance can have elegance. Or, an argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition. So who's the clueless ninny now, huh? |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message roups.com... >> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message >>> >>> ups.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. >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: "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 >Or, an >argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition. Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny. >So who's the clueless ninny now, huh? You've still got it. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On 29 May 2007 17:59:08 -0700, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:
>On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message >> >> ups.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 Exactly. >you clueless ninny. That's his most regular position. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Dean Wormer" > wrote in message oups.com... > Hello Rudy, > > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for... ======================== "...braindead wannbe vegans on usenet.... Anything over 3 words is too much for us..". Too bad you can't address substance.... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| "Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" | General Cooking | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
| + Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + | General Cooking | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
Hybrid Mode
