On Jul 2, 11:35=A0pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. =A0I
s=
howed
> >>>> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bull****
"inefficienc=
y"
> >>>> 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? =A0I guess it must have been your
usua=
l
> >>>> partisan****p.
> >>> Just to comment on this one more time,
> >> [snip worthless **** hemorrhage]
>
> >> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession,
was=
> >> sufficient.
>
> > Still think
>
> Yes. =A0You 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.
|
