Replies

Kev, you started this,
***umm, no. You first keyed up on my post, I didn’t key up on yours.

and you’re doing a really poor job of finishing it.
***Actually, you’re the one doing the poor job of finishing it... after all, in the previous post you wrote “Finis”. But you didn’t really mean it, did you? By the way, why do you conveniently overlook the question of just how much of a supporter you are of Sarah Palin — are you going to write her in at the top of the ticket? If not, then I’m the stronger supporter than you are.

I objected to your (possibly unintentional) slander of Sarah Palin,
***From Dictionary.com:
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
What I wrote was not malicious, false nor defamatory. Also, slander is verbal, what you really mean is Libel. And furthermore, since you agreed with what I wrote by saying she needs to make a living, then you’re once again engaging in hyperbole, exaggeration of the other side of the argument to argue against it, a.k.a. straw argumentation. It’s particularly ridiculous that you acknowledge my point but then turn around and call what I write as slander. Why isn’t it slander for you as well? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

instead of simply withdrawing that comment, you’ve now got your back up about it.
***I think it’s time you started walking back your comments and taking a simple critical thinking class so that you can avoid using so many classic fallacies when you write.

You can continue making yourself right about it for as long as you want, but that won’t change my objection.
***But maybe, just maybe, you’ll stop using classic fallacies. And now that you acknowledge my point, why do you object to it? You’ve painted yourself into a corner, your intellectual position is not defensible.

This behavior is what rubbed so many people wrong on the LENR threads. And to think, I had your back on those.
***I thought your name looked familiar. But, dude, LENR has nothing to do with Palin working for Fox. So, is it some kind of quid pro quo that you expect someone to fall in line with your fallacious reasoning on one subject just because you stood next to them on another subject?