[tpaine]

Laz, in your efforts to appear clever, you only demonstrate your own ignorance.

Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
Therefore, Jsuati supports [the man in signing] the AW ban.

Case closed.

---

So, according to you:

Roosters crow in the morning.

In the morning, the sun comes up.

Therefore, roosters cause [in the morning] the sun to come up.

-laz-

---

According to me? - Not at all.

You're claiming your silly rooster bit has some analogy to Jsuati supporting Bush in signing the AW ban.

It appears as though you are projecting. Your ignorance in the field of logic is being quite clearly shown.
-557-

---

It is an analogous example of the form of argument you are falliciously advancing.
-laz-

---

I'll leave it to lurkers and fellow freepers to make up their own mind on who has had even a passing aquaintance with logic.

Your rooster comparision is hilarious.

[Lazamataz]

Your rooster comparision is hilarious.

Glad you think so. It is an argument that takes the form:

1. A (performs action) B
2. B (performs action) C
3. Therefore A (implies causation to) C.

Of course, I think my other comparitive argument, successfully refuting your silliness, was more instructive. It is as if you are arguing that:

1. Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
2. George W. Bush does not like Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas.
3. Therefore, Jsuati does not like Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas.

I'll leave it to lurkers and fellow freepers to make up their own mind on who has had even a passing aquaintance with logic.

Someday you'll bump into logic in the hallway. At that point -- if you introduce yourself -- you'll have a passing aquaintance with logic.

But don't forget to introduce yourself!!!

;^)