On Jul 2, 1:04*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. *I showed
> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> position of ignorance, anyway? *I guess it must have been your usual
> partisanship.

Just to comment on this one more time, Ball. As soon as you provided
actual citations to support your contention, as was your obligation, I
immediately conceded your point and congratulated you on genuinely
winning for a change, as opposed to merely deluding yourself into
thinking you had won. I personally don't see this as being in any way
weak. On the other hand, when I conclusively proved that
"axiomatisable" was a real word, you comically continued to insist
that it wasn't in sheer desperation, and then fell silent about the
issue hoping that eventually people would get tired of talking about
it. That's the difference between being a real man and being a comical
coward.

What possessed me not to concede that some people made the
"inefficiency" argument that you were talking about? I'd never seen
anyone make it before. No shame in that. It's your job to show that
some people make it.

It doesn't appear in the text Pearl posted. There's a sentence in the
first paragraph saying "growing food for animals is a waste of
resources in an overcrowded world". The principle of charity requires
you to interpret that as an environmental argument, and indeed I still
think that's most likely what was actually intended.

On Jul 2, 11:17*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. *I showed
> >> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> >> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> >> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> >> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> >> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> >> position of ignorance, anyway? *I guess it must have been your usual
> >> partisanship.
>
> > Just to comment on this one more time,
>
> [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>
> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> sufficient.

Still think "axiomatisable" is not a real word, Ball?

When you snip and evade this question, will that be just a tiny bit
lame?

You finally got around to adequately arguing your point, and when I
saw an adequate argument I agreed with you. Nothing lame there.

On Jul 2, 11:35*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. *I showed
> >>>> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> >>>> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> >>>> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> >>>> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
> >>>> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> >>>> position of ignorance, anyway? *I guess it must have been your usual
> >>>> partisanship.
> >>> Just to comment on this one more time,
> >> [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>
> >> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> >> sufficient.
>
> > Still think
>
> Yes. *You should try it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That wouldn't be just the tiniest bit lame, would it, Ball?

As soon as you *finally*, after all these years, got round to
presenting some actual evidence for your claim that some vegans make
an argument purely based on "efficiency", I conceded your point like a
real man.

Now, what's your current position on mathematical language and
dictionaries?

Watch him snip my text like the pitiful coward he is.

Clown.

On Jul 3, 4:33*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:17*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. *I showed
> > >> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> > >> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> > >> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> > >> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> > >> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> > >> position of ignorance, anyway? *I guess it must have been your usual
> > >> partisanship.
>
> > > Just to comment on this one more time,
>
> > [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>
> > Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> > sufficient.
>
> Still think "axiomatisable" is not a real word, Ball?
>
> When you snip and evade this question, will that be just a tiny bit
> lame?
>
> You finally got around to adequately arguing your point, and when I
> saw an adequate argument I agreed with you. Nothing lame there.-


Poor Boobs. He finally gets something half-assed right and you concede
that point to him and he simply can't handle it. He can't just accept
it, he has to keep on arguing because he thinks he can replay his
solitary once-in-a-lifetime victory over and over and over and over.

He's never been right about anything before you know.

On Jul 3, 10:26*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 11:35 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. *I showed
> >>>>>> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> >>>>>> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> >>>>>> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> >>>>>> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
> >>>>>> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> >>>>>> position of ignorance, anyway? *I guess it must have been your usual
> >>>>>> partisanship.
> >>>>> Just to comment on this one more time,
> >>>> [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
> >>>> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> >>>> sufficient.
> >>> Still think
> >> Yes. *You should try it.
>
> > That wouldn't be just the tiniest bit lame
>
> No.
>
> > As soon as you *finally*, after all these years, got round to
> > presenting some actual evidence for your claim that some vegans make
> > an argument purely based on "efficiency", I conceded your point like a
> > real man.
>
> Not quite. *You then went back, as the bitch you are, and responded
> again in the thread, and here we are. *You don't have anything to say,
> having conceded, but you just couldn't let the thread die with your
> concession. *Being a bitch, you just had to add something and keep going.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, make up your mind what the problem is. The problem is that I
continued to post to the thread, is it? Well, you had things to say
that I wanted to respond to, seems pretty reasonable to me. If you
think what I had to say was irrelevant you have the option of not
replying.

Could you just snip the question "Is 'axiomatisable' a real word?" for
me just one more time and *then* say I'm not a real man, so that I can
have another good laugh?

Is "axiomatisable" a real word?

On Jul 3, 7:03*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> On Jul 3, 4:33*pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 11:17*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. *I showed
> > > >> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> > > >> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> > > >> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> > > >> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> > > >> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> > > >> position of ignorance, anyway? *I guess it must have been your usual
> > > >> partisanship.
>
> > > > Just to comment on this one more time,
>
> > > [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>
> > > Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> > > sufficient.
>
> > Still think "axiomatisable" is not a real word, Ball?
>
> > When you snip and evade this question, will that be just a tiny bit
> > lame?
>
> > You finally got around to adequately arguing your point, and when I
> > saw an adequate argument I agreed with you. Nothing lame there.-
>
> Poor Boobs. He finally gets something half-assed right and you concede
> that point to him and he simply can't handle it. He can't just accept
> it, he has to keep on arguing because he thinks he can replay his
> solitary once-in-a-lifetime victory over and over and over and over.
>
> He's never been right about anything before you know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

He definitely seems very concerned to prove something or other with
all his babble. Something about me not being a real man, apparently.

On Jul 4, 9:09*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 3, 7:03*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 4:33*pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 2, 11:17*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > >> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. *I showed
> > > > >> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> > > > >> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> > > > >> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> > > > >> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> > > > >> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> > > > >> position of ignorance, anyway? *I guess it must have been your usual
> > > > >> partisanship.
>
> > > > > Just to comment on this one more time,
>
> > > > [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>
> > > > Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> > > > sufficient.
>
> > > Still think "axiomatisable" is not a real word, Ball?
>
> > > When you snip and evade this question, will that be just a tiny bit
> > > lame?
>
> > > You finally got around to adequately arguing your point, and when I
> > > saw an adequate argument I agreed with you. Nothing lame there.-
>
> > Poor Boobs. He finally gets something half-assed right and you concede
> > that point to him and he simply can't handle it. He can't just accept
> > it, he has to keep on arguing because he thinks he can replay his
> > solitary once-in-a-lifetime victory over and over and over and over.
>
> > He's never been right about anything before you know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> He definitely seems very concerned to prove something or other with
> all his babble. Something about me not being a real man, apparently.-


I think it boils down to: you have a penis and he wishes he had.

On Jul 4, 9:31*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 7:03 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >> On Jul 3, 4:33 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. *I showed
> >>>>>> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> >>>>>> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> >>>>>> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> >>>>>> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
> >>>>>> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> >>>>>> position of ignorance, anyway? *I guess it must have been your usual
> >>>>>> partisanship.
> >>>>> Just to comment on this one more time,
> >>>> [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
> >>>> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> >>>> sufficient.
> >>> Still think "axiomatisable" is not a real word, Ball?
> >>> When you snip and evade this question, will that be just a tiny bit
> >>> lame?
> >>> You finally got around to adequately arguing your point, and when I
> >>> saw an adequate argument I agreed with you. Nothing lame there.-
> >> Poor Boobs. He finally gets something half-assed right and you concede
> >> that point to him and he simply can't handle it. He can't just accept
> >> it, he has to keep on arguing because he thinks he can replay his
> >> solitary once-in-a-lifetime victory over and over and over and over.
>
> >> He's never been right about anything before you know.
>
> > He definitely seems very concerned to prove something
>
> I've proved you're a feckless, squat-to-**** bitch.-


Not even close but anything you wish to tell yourself to make yourself
feel better about yourself is O.K.