30 Jan
2008
30 Jan
'08
2:52 p.m.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:11:55 -0500
Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 02:24 +0000, pete shorthose
wrote:
unfortunately for me, you are quite right. but only about that.
now, as i stand by everything else i said, and as you neither dealt with it
nor conceded anything, we don't actually seem to be arguing about anything
at all any more.
looks like we are both done.
cheers,
pete.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:18:00 -0500
Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
bull. you used the ad populum logical fallacy to defend your favoured interpretation
of a contentious term. i used that same logical fallacy against you because
it was false. obviously, as a natural consequence of refuting me, you would refute
your earlier argument.
Um. When the point being made is literally that most people think X, ad
populum is obviously not a fallacy. On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:39 +0000, pete shorthose
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500
> Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +0000, pete
> > shorthose wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500
> > > Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +0000, pete
> > > > shorthose wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500
> > > > > Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy
combination of pejoratives and craft them into
a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket
because i'm well and truly done talking to you.
i might as well be debating an ATM.
No, that's quite alright. You began the attacks, you may finish them.
I'm not sure how you can possibly justify the ridiculous argument above
given the nature of how this sub-thread began (i.e. you attacking me).