On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:55 -0700, Alan M. Evans wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:07, Sean wrote: > > > 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? > > It matters not that what you said was factual. To an attorney, DA or a Judge, I would have to say you are correct. To the rest of "polite society", I would have to say that the facts would still carry weight. Been there, got the T-shirt! > You avoided dealing at > all with the content of the argument by pointing out that someone who > might have a part in creating the content could be biased. > > Your chain of association is exceptionally weak since Jane Winn (one of > seven listed site contributors) isn't even necessarily the author of the > article in question. Her association with the law firm does not imply > that she is a shill of one of the law firm's founding members. Interesting word, "shill". That is one who plays a game of chance (usually poker) as a player for the house and splits the winnings usually 50/50. This also negatively alters the odds of any other player winning, as you are playing not only against the house, but the shill, as well. According to the formal rules, the shill is supposed to announce their status as a shill openly to the other players, so that they may adjust their calculations in betting. I would hazard a guess that if you work for the house and take their money in the form of compensation and expect to continue to receive it, you would readily shill for your house. > There is > no evidence (at least here) that Preston Gates is using the law firm and > it's (perhaps tenuous) association with the law school at the University > of Washington as a center for propagandizing his son's business > philosophy. You wouldn't for your son, who happens to be one of the richest men in the known universe? Blood is much thicker than water. If Bill shot someone, they'd be there for him. No doubt. In this matter I wouldn't foresee that they would be less supportive of him. That's why in the trial process any bias in the form of family ties would prevent a prospective juror from becoming impaneled. So, in the above instance, any defense attorney would toss out a red flag and most certainly have the relative tossed out, with ease. > You responded to a well-placed and relevant article by drawing a > convoluted line to someone (Bill Gates) who is undoubtedly biased in his > personal opinions on the subject. You in effect attempted to reduce the > merit of the article by stating that Gates had something to do with it. > What you did not do was to deal with the content of the article. This is > a classic genetic fallacy. Genetic? Something in the DNA strands? A misplaced or injured marker? Ok, that was a typo. But, if Bill Gates had anything to do with it, keeping his historical precursory behaviors in mind, I would have to bet (and he is a very good poker player) that he would use whatever he could to gain advantage. I believe that his previous behaviors could be called public knowledge, after all the evidences presented in the numerous trials against him. <chuckles> Ric
