[BillF]

I went through the SPP Flu Plan language, comparing it to Schlafly's claims, in my #51.

(You ignored that by falsely claiming that I had argued that the Flu Plan was "independent and separate from the SPP plan.")

Therefore, I documented my argument with reference to the SPP Flu Plan language.

Now since no one (not even a self-described expert like you) seems to be able to show the initial SPP language of 2005 and it doesn't appear on the official site or numerous others that I checked, I need you or another to link to that original, initial SPP language of 2005 (if you really did read it) before I can further respond.

The Great Carnac: "The person who responds to this post."

After opening envelope, Carnac reads question: "Who claims to be an expert on a topic, but can't answer a simple question about it?"

[nicmarlo]

Your past dozen posts or so are all called logical fallacies, such as (and are but transparent attempts for you to continue side-stepping the repeated demands that you post something other than your opinions to back up your claims concerning Calderon, your claims that Schlafly's opinions are incorrect or misguided or over-exaggerated or in error):

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh. Description of Appeal to Ridicule The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form: 1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim). 2. Therefore claim C is false. Burden of Proof Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: 1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. 2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. Poisoning the Well This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false. Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned.

[nicmarlo]

I documented my argument with reference to the SPP Flu Plan language.

As I said, you're documenting your claims that Schlafly is wrong with...........your own opinions. Provide something other than links to your own posts and opinions that sides with your claims as to the meaning of the documents....links to the documents are not "evidence" to dispute what Schlafly herself opined about the very same documents.

[nicmarlo]

Your past dozen posts or so are all called logical fallacies, such as (and are but transparent attempts for you to continue side-stepping the repeated demands that you post something other than your opinions to back up your claims concerning Calderon, your claims that Schlafly’s opinions are incorrect or misguided or over-exaggerated or in error):

(in more legible form)

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise.

Poisoning the Well

This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.