I see no way this could ever backfire!

[Drich]

You said:"There is not even the slightest possibility of the farms along Nile being used to export food back to China."

By the end of the first paragraph the ny times writer says:
"Affluent countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China and India have descended on fertile plains across the African continent, acquiring huge tracts of land to produce wheat, rice and corn for consumption back home."

That looks like a contradiction to me chief.

Did you not read the quotation or was it your hope I didn't read it?

Look closer, idiot, and no, I don't think you can read, certainly not at the NYT level. But even so I, unlike whoever wrote your bible, would not stoop to stringing you with tall stories to exploit your propensity to see in what you read what you would like to believe.

You said there was no way any of the crops being produced in Africa, would ever go back to china.

At the end of the first paragraph of the New York Times article I referenced, it literally says countries like china are buying huge tracts of land, and are producing grains for the express purpose of being "consumed back home."
Which means those grain being produced in Africa are indeed being sent back to china. Which makes what you said absolutely wrong, and you a complete dumb ass for arguing the content of the nytimes article with out any proof that says otherwise.

This is intellectual dishonesty. Rather than admit your mistake and yield to the ny times article. You choose to attack the messenger. I want everyone to see this pattern of behavior not only in this instance but when ever most of you are backed against the wall topically this is a knee jerk response for the typical atheist position. To discredit the messenger rather that Address or concede the message.

In chuck's topical failure, he simply defaulted to what was natural to him when speaking to a Christian on any topic. To move to discredit the messenger when he could not discredit the message. It is my hope that the fact that there should not be any dispute here amongst the intellectually honest, that anyone who cares to read this should look for this behavior in your own works and the works of your peers, and move to raise the bar. To not default to personal attacks when you are at the end of your intellectual limits on a given topic, but to either step a side and simply not respond, or more preferably do some more research, before you foolishly spout off and paint yourself into a corner, forcing yourself to default to personal attacks as a last ditch effort to save face.