Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:11:51 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:14:29 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:56:43 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> You do accept Harrison's argument,
>> >> >
>> >> >No, I reject his argument now, as I have for two years.
>> >> >
>> >> That's clearly a lie, even though you snipped
>> >> the evidence away which proves it.
>> >
>> >There's no evidence that "proves it", it's false.
>> >
>> The evidence you keep snipping away does
>> prove you support harrison's argument because
>> it's from your own hand.
>
>It's an absurd claim that cannot be supported by objective evidence. 

I've supplied the evidence several times now,
but rather than deal with it you keep snipping
it away. You've snipped whole posts away in 
a similar cowardly fashion just to escape the
huge errors you've made in them. You're a
joke.

<unsnip>

You do accept Harrison's argument, and this is
shown in the threads you've been cutting and
running from.

[start ipse dixit]
>> >> You wrote that, "The deer benefit from 
>> >> the loss of predators, *first* because they
>> >> are able to reproduce prodigiously...", so the
>> >> benefits you're referring to are;
>> >> 1) from living
>> >> 2) from producing
>> >> after we have removed their predators, so explain
>> >> how.
>> >>
>> Well, Dutch?
>
>It's self-evident, you're an idiot.
>
Way to go ...
[end]

> [ipse dixit]
> Then explain how they benefit;
> 1) from living
> 2) from producing
[Dutch]
It's self-evident
[end]

You've also claimed, as Harrison does, that it's
a moral consideration issue.

"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
Dutch 2003-11-28

Way to go ...
<end>