On Jul 3, 4:33=A0pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:17=A0pm, 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 "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.
|
