Kevmo: 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.
lucysmom: To equate “not reliable” with “forgery” is a logical fallacy.
***Maybe, that is IF that’s what I said. You’ll note the difference between when I say... It means versus ... does it “mean”. But then again, maybe not. What fallacy would that be? Feel free to look through the list of logical fallacies and develop your strategy as to how to answer this. I doubt you will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Weren’t you the one who accused me of labelling everything you disagree with a fallacy? Well, now you are doing the same thing, unless you can come up with the specific fallacy.
The image published on the internet does not pretend to be the document; it is a reproduction of the certified copy.
***This is your entire straw argument and has been all along. The image on the internet is a forgery. The expert with the affidavit says it’s unreliable and backs up Polarik’s analysis. And yes, Polarik definitely calls it a forgery in his testimony. You keep goin’ round & round on this and never seem to learn. Oh well, it’s too late, now that there’s a president zer0bama. Good luck in your future learnings. You’re really gonna need it, based upon your continued usage of classic fallacies that seem to be embedded in your thinking process.
It's not "straw" to explain to you what the document says.
"The image on the internet is a forgery."
So says "Polarik".
"The expert with the affidavit says it’s unreliable and backs up Polarik’s analysis."
"Unreliable" does not mean "forgery". Nor does it have obvious implications of forgery. It means exactly the the expert said it meant. You're the one trying to avoid that. She does not back up the entirety of Polarik's analysis.
"And yes, Polarik definitely calls it a forgery in his testimony."
Yes he does. The expert doesn't, but he does. Remind me, what is Polarik's expertise again?
"You keep goin’ round & round on this and never seem to learn."
Somebody is having trouble, that's for sure.
***Maybe, that is IF that’s what I said. You’ll note the difference between when I say... It means versus ... does it “mean”.
So why didn't you complete your own quote, you know, where you answer your own question? Here it is:
Kevmo: 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.
Weren’t you the one who accused me of labelling everything you disagree with a fallacy?
No.
Well, now you are doing the same thing, unless you can come up with the specific fallacy.
Non Sequitur.
***This is your entire straw argument and has been all along. The image on the internet is a forgery. The expert with the affidavit says it’s unreliable and backs up Polarik’s analysis. And yes, Polarik definitely calls it a forgery in his testimony. You keep goin’ round & round on this and never seem to learn. Oh well, it’s too late, now that there’s a president zer0bama. Good luck in your future learnings. You’re really gonna need it, based upon your continued usage of classic fallacies that seem to be embedded in your thinking process.
There you go again with the "not reliable" equals "forgery" stuff - unbelievable!