Re: Dear Rudy Canoza, you were right, I was wrong, and until you held my feet to the fire, I was too chicken**** to admit it

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
<rupertmccallum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Dear Jonathan [the Goober] Ball,
>>
>>When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
>>you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
>>inefficiency. This is not actually sup****ted by the text. 
>
>Yes, it is.  It is comparable to the other citations I made that you 
>reference below.

    Quotes, Goo?

>>There is one
>>sentence in the first paragraph which might be taken that way but the
>>principle of charity requires you to interpret it as an environmental
>>argument.
>>
>>However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
>>some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
>>wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
>>
>>Now, is "axiomatisable" a real word, Mr. Clown [Goo]?
>
>So you can shut the **** up on the thread now, asswipe.

    Everyone's aware that it is a real word by now Goob. Everyone's
damn well aware that you were wrong too, Goo, there's no doubt
on that one. So the challenge here, Goober, is for you to demonstrate
whether or not you can admit the truth. If/When you can't bring 
youself to do it, that leaves us with the same old situation of wondering
whether YOU are hoping that people will:

a) believe you're actually too stupid to understand that it is a real and 
proper word, and that even your dishonest behavior is axiomatisable.

or

b) you do understand that it's a real word but for some reason you're
lying AGAIN.

>>Watch him snip the question, folks. This will be a real scream.