Re: OT fallacies

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:33:55 +0200
Message-ID: <44833527$0$31651$>

Patrick May wrote:

> Alfredo Novoa writes:

>>> That's an . . . interesting defense of rudeness, but avoids
>>>the real issue in the thread that spawned this one. Mr. Badour,
>>>among others, immediately accused Mr. Martin, among others, of
>>>"ignorance" and "foolishness" without responding to Mr. Martin's
>>>arguments. Further, Mr. Badour claimed to have addressed those
>>>arguments but refused to provide evidence of having done so.
>>Imagine that someone joins to a medicine group and starts to write
>>that promiscuous sex without protection is completely safe,
>>presenting evidently ridiculous and tricked arguments.
>>Which kind of responses would you expect?
>>What Martin and others write in comp.object is nearly as foolish as
>      So you keep claiming.  Backing up your claims, even once, would
> be a lot more convincing than the hot air and puerile insults that
> I've seen so far.

I've just read up on the c.o. thread that was the prelude to this little culture clash : and while I don't particularly like his style (as he well knows), Alfredo Novoa is IMO doing quite a good job at backing up his claims - especially those challenged in a clear way. Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 21:33:55 CEST

Original text of this message