Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 3, 10:26 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, make up your mind what the problem is.
Your fecklessness.
|
