Genetic Changes In Mice 'Question Evolution Speed'

Ananova ^ | 5-21-2003

[AndrewC]

And yet, you are a world class expert at producing subtle non-sequitors that are hard to untangle, such as this last bit about Clinton, so apparently it was a recently honed capacity--which only increased my admiration for your skill.

I'm glad that you at least understand skill. You still need work on what a non-sequitur is. A non-sequitur would be a conclusion such as yours about jesuits. You do that often. And yours is not hard to untangle. Yours is an overt non-sequitur.

I was hoping to be amused this morning. Thanks for the grins.

[donh]

You still need work on what a non-sequitur is. A non-sequitur would be a conclusion such as yours about jesuits

It might be introducing a subject change, it might be rude, and it might be wrong, but it is certainly not a non-sequitur--it is a relevant response to your construction of the escher-like Clinton argument in the just previous thread.

[AndrewC]

It might be introducing a subject change,

Ha! Ha! Ha! What self-incrimination.

[donh]

Ha! Ha! Ha! What self-incrimination.

...and, with this laughter, you demonstrate your (probably feigned) incorrect understanding of non-sequitur.

I'll clarify further: if the argument is responsive to something that went before, it's not a non-sequitur. As a telling example, an argument that's responsive to your suggestions about Clinton, cannot be a non-sequitur in that context.

[AndrewC]

I'll clarify further: if the argument is responsive to something that went before, it's not a non-sequitur

Save the watches, it's getting deeper. I am not a Catholic. I have never had a jesuit instructor. I have not attended a Catholic school. so your conclusion, however arrived, is false. Your nonsensical statement has nothing to do with the discussion except to distract and call names.

You have clarified nothing except that you don't know what non-sequitur means, and that you are trolling for argumentation at this point and nothing else. You have used the same "jesuit" distraction at least 4 times in different threads.

if the argument is responsive to something that went before,

Any answer by your definition would be responsive to what went before, as it would be a response. Clinton was proved a liar by evidence, not by changing the subject and calling him names. He, and read carefully, was proven a liar by his testimony. Anyone could have called him any name they wished and that would not have proven him a liar. Only the evidence did that.

As independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr put it in his referral, "That testimony is not credible. At the Jones deposition, the president could not have believed that he was telling 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' in denying a sexual relationship, sexual relations, or a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky."

Now kindly buzz off