On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:55:15 -0700 "Alan M. Evans" <ame1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It matters not that what you said was factual. 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. So here's your first mistake. You assume that the email in question as the totality of my response. Please see other my other emails. > 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. 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. I made no comment about the strength of the association so your comments here at best irrelevant. > 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. Again, you assume that this was the totality of my response. I read that article and commented about it in another message. Had anyone raised any points made in that web page in this thread I would have responded. But since nobody did such a thing I wasn't about to post a long response here. But since nobody quoted or from what I saw raised any issues directly from that website why the hell do you think it was my responsibility to start debating that web page? You continue to invent fallacies where none exist. Perhaps all the other ones you implied were also imagined. > And, by the way, I don't believe that I committed a logical fallacy in > my previous response. If I did, please name it. Well that's why I asked you? What's the name for imagining someone else made a logical fallacy? ;o) Sean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
