Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:35 pm, 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. I
showed
>>>>>> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bull****
"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
>>>>>> 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. 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 ***** 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 *****, you just had to add something and keep going.
|
