Malcolm Weir
11-03-2005, 21.05.14
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:46:53 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Malcolm Weir writes:
>
>> That's utter nonsense..
>
>Not to people experienced in debate.
Tsk, tsk, stupid person. You are demonstrating your inability to
follow a thought...
I say again you assertion *is* utter nonsense.
Your rebuttal takes the form of argumentum ad verecundiam, which if
you truly *were* "experienced in debate", you'd know.
Since it is evident that your are not experienced, I'll elucidate:
Rather than address the rebuttal to your initial (false) claim, you
are simply asserting that your claim is true because you c
>> They may not be *nice*, but it takes a particular brand of illogic to
>> assert the above.
>
>It takes a lack of logic to engage in personal atacks to begin with.
Not at all. Such attacks can be entirely based on logic. In this
case, the logic is that *I* felt like calling you on your stupidity,
and so I did.
I do not, of course, claim that the observation of your stupidity
advances my argument at all. But *the rest* of my post did.
>> That may be true sometimes ...
>
>It is _always_ true.
Don't lie, stupid boy.
Malc.
wrote:
>Malcolm Weir writes:
>
>> That's utter nonsense..
>
>Not to people experienced in debate.
Tsk, tsk, stupid person. You are demonstrating your inability to
follow a thought...
I say again you assertion *is* utter nonsense.
Your rebuttal takes the form of argumentum ad verecundiam, which if
you truly *were* "experienced in debate", you'd know.
Since it is evident that your are not experienced, I'll elucidate:
Rather than address the rebuttal to your initial (false) claim, you
are simply asserting that your claim is true because you c
>> They may not be *nice*, but it takes a particular brand of illogic to
>> assert the above.
>
>It takes a lack of logic to engage in personal atacks to begin with.
Not at all. Such attacks can be entirely based on logic. In this
case, the logic is that *I* felt like calling you on your stupidity,
and so I did.
I do not, of course, claim that the observation of your stupidity
advances my argument at all. But *the rest* of my post did.
>> That may be true sometimes ...
>
>It is _always_ true.
Don't lie, stupid boy.
Malc.