Not at all. You, however, do have a strong, albeit poorly exercised and transparent, inclination towards ex post facto equivocation as a means of escaping the implications of your hastily asserted and fallacious claims from previous posts.
I didn't premise my conclusion on anything. I just laid it down.
In that case, your conclusion would be entirely gratuitous and therefore dismissable as an unsubstantiated case of vocal flatulence on your part. So either way - be it by faulty premise or lack of any premise to begin with - your argument is without merit. If you prefer the second route to the first as your official interpretation it is fine with me as result is still the same.
You are a perfect example of that.
So once again you indulge in attacks upon me over substance. I guess you can't teach a dumb dog new tricks after all.
All I have done is post ridiculously argumentative posts worded in such a way as to get a rise out of you
Now that's odd. I have yet to experience any anger or frustration towards you - the typical characteristics of what one would define as a "rise" of the nature you describe. I have found great amusement, by contrast, in observing you dance in circles to explain away what was in reality an unsophisticated shooting off of your mouth from the very beginning. It's been a great logical exercise and to that end I thank you.
I am going to stop there. But there are at least another DOZEN articles listed that have Lincoln in the title. We can safely assume that he worked old Abe into the others as well. The first 17 all dealt directly or indirectly with Lincoln. OK? So, once again, you are totally wrong.
So 17 short editorials on Lincoln surpasses the contents of 10 full length published books on entirely different subjects? Curious.
That's 17 out of 17, plus at least another dozen.Out of 30 or so articles, maybe 2 or 3 don't deal with Lincoln. That ratio of Lincoln to non-Lincoln articles is irrefutable evidence that my original post, which you hilariously mislabeled as ad hominem, was dead on accurate. That's not even debatable. 17 out of 17. What's that? Coincidence? By the way, did you know Lincoln invented ad hominem? Yeah, well, he didn't actually invent it. He discovered it while secretly studying Karl Marx, then he introduced it to America. I read that on lewrockwell.com. Guess who wrote the piece?
LOL! LOL!!!! I am just thinking about you trying to argue that DiLorenzo isn't Lincoln-obsessed. Man, that's funny. Thanks for the laugh. I stand by my original post, which is irrefutably true.