will the US military power dominate the world

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:12:15 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:


Oh yes you were, your elaborately constructed 2nd fallacy was clearly
drawing an equivalence between the two.

Ah -- I think I understand you now. You seem to think that I'm
trying to use logic to "trap" you into disagreeing with some of your
beliefs.

I don't have to 'seem' to do anything, your use of the yes/no debating
tactics made it quite clear.

You also, subconsciously, don't think your beleifs would
stand up to the scrutiny of debaste being cast on them -- probably
you have low self esteem

Oh lovely, a usenet psychoanalyst.

, at least in your intellectual abilities --
so a defense mechanism kicks in and you evade the issue.


I haven't evaded anything, I have pointed out the clear flaws in your
rhetoric.


Oh, BTW, a question isn't a fallacy.

Oh yes it is, when they make clear use of prejudicial language and false
presumption.



greg







--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:46:10 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:

I haven't evaded anything, I have pointed out the clear flaws in your
rhetoric.

Oh for ****s sake! It wasn't rhetoric, it was inquisition[1]. Are
you always this defensive? In real life, do you assume anyone you're
having a conversation with is out to get you?


[1] but not in the Spanish sense.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 03:04:32 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:46:10 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:

I haven't evaded anything, I have pointed out the clear flaws in your
rhetoric.

Oh for ****s sake! It wasn't rhetoric, it was inquisition[1].

One example of many.

" is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician?"

Clearly a rhetorical question.


Are
you always this defensive? In real life, do you assume anyone you're
having a conversation with is out to get you?


Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.



greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:59 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 03:04:32 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:46:10 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:

I haven't evaded anything, I have pointed out the clear flaws in your
rhetoric.

Oh for ****s sake! It wasn't rhetoric, it was inquisition[1].

One example of many.

" is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician?"

Clearly a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question is one that isn't looking for an answer. I
clearly was looking for an answer to the questions I asked, so they
weren't rhetorical.

Are
you always this defensive? In real life, do you assume anyone you're
having a conversation with is out to get you?

Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.

To get you to realise how you come across (at least to me).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:34:48 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:


Clearly a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question is one that isn't looking for an answer.

That's only a partial definition.


I
clearly was looking for an answer to the questions I asked, so they
weren't rhetorical.

You weren't werent looking for any answer, you were seeking to pigeon hole
on the basis of deliberately loaded questioning.


Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.

To get you to realise how you come across (at least to me).

Ahhh, more usenet psychoanalysis.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:14:42 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:

I
clearly was looking for an answer to the questions I asked, so they
weren't rhetorical.

You weren't werent looking for any answer,

Not true

you were seeking to pigeon hole
on the basis of deliberately loaded questioning.

Not true either

Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.

To get you to realise how you come across (at least to me).

Ahhh, more usenet psychoanalysis.

Nope, not that time.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).