Replies

Does that mean “forgery”, or does it mean what SHE SAID IT MEANT?
***It means it is not reliable, with the obvious implications of forgery. So, does it “mean” forgery? Hell yes. Is that what she wrote? No, she wrote in CYA legalspeak.

“Instead of arguing just to be contrary,
***BTW, that’s another fallacy... poisoning the well.

Kevmo: Why would I go down any idiotic rabbit holes that you set up?”
mlo: Oh, I don’t know.
***Then get lost.

Maybe to prove the point YOU are trying to make?
***Bull shiite. You twist it around to try to get someone to prove a negative and make it look like the point you’re trying to make.

In order to make sense?
***Why should I bother, with you? I don’t respond to try to convince you because, with all your logical fallacies and classic behaviors, you aren’t convince-able. I do it so the lurkers can judge for themselves.

You write the above and talk to me about fallacies?
***Yes.

You don’t know what you are talking about.
***Ahah. Lurkers will see here that mlo didn’t bother to go about showing any fallacies on my part. Misdirection.

You just like to label anything you don’t like a “fallacy”.
***Well, I challenged you to a debate about the credibility/legitimacy of this topic and you declined, continuing in your classic behaviors. So now i will challenge you to a debate about logical fallacies. We’ll go through your posts and my posts in the last 100 days or so and walk through any fallacies we may find. We can use, say Wikipedia as the source for the definition of fallacies. That is, unless you have a better source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I’ll leave it to you how the winner is decided and how to arbitrate this challenge. You’ll wimp out of it anyways, so I’m not going to put any more effort into this challenge.