jdow wrote:
From: "Sean" <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:26:33 -0700
"Alan M. Evans" <ame1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For someone who seems to have, at least in this thread, declared
everyone who disagrees with himself somehow or another illogical or
stupid or insane or silly, you have, for your part, committed nearly
every classic logical fallacy. I believe that this one is, generally
speaking, called a genetic fallacy.
Alan,
Please look closer, what I did was lay out a fact. I didn't make
any conclusion. If you think there was an implication of something
in my statement you're wrong. It was simply an email to show an
interesting connection that might be helpful for someone googling
the thread later to know. Now which logical fallacy is it that
you just committed?
Cough, Sean, you should realize it was painfully obvious you were
trying to impeach the evidence based on a loose connection to the
father of BG. That is an open invitation to readers to make the
logical fallacy on their own part.
{^_^}
Or the key to reveal why the DOJ took no action after many lawyers
became wealthy from the "Let's pretend to prosecute Microsoft. We will
get the taxpayers' dollars, get practical experience if ever a real case
was presented."
Like anything, many whys are never answered. They remain in the "why
state" until a rational connection can release all instances of why that
are accumulated.
The connection may not be meaningful. Then again, why!
Jim
--
It is only people of small moral stature who have to stand on their dignity.
