The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

Actually, I don't think too much about you at all, Tico.

You know perfectly well that I was not commenting upon the context of the circumstance of your exchange with the Englishman, when I responded to your original post.

How could I possibly have done that, based solely on the information contained in your original post ? Which is what I was commenting on, specifically in reference to the blued areas of your post below.

Your account of British provocation was only provided later (& very conveniently, I must say! ), when responding to reactions to your original post.

You don't think that gives us some rights to express our opinions as well as your rights to express yours?

I'll answer that as soon as you answer my question to you: "How vast is this conspiracy? And who is in charge of it?"

and accuse others of being unwilling to face "the truth" than it is to actually frame a description and defend it.

What evidence do you have that this is the case?

You made an incorrect assumption.

I, for one, am not biting.

poor Msolga, still unable to deal with the criticism from Tyco and me, continues to try and lure us into continued examination and rationalization of the details - all while alternating among hints of conciliation, irrelevant arguments in support of her expressed views, and more judgmentalism about our bad behavior.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Quote:

You made an incorrect assumption.

Nope, I didn't.

Something I'm rather curious about, though ...
Would you object just as strongly today, as you did in that English pub ages ago, when you felt the necessity to defend President Bush#1 ...
.... do you feel the same necessity today to defend the Obama government's policies & actions on the "war on terror" (which seem to me to be not so different to where President Bush#2 left off) as you did then?

You are operating under the illusion that I have ever shown any inclination to either debate or discuss the issues with which you have so insistently polluted a thread ostensibly dedicated to another topic.

Next time I'm in an English pub and the subject comes up, I'll let you know.

In that case, the most effective response to Ms. Olga would have been stony silence, not further pollution. You might even consider putting her on "ignore" if you feel so strongly about it.

You are prejudging my intentions

Ticomaya wrote:

Next time I'm in an English pub and the subject comes up, I'll let you know.

I can arrange that if you want.

Now there's an interesting solution, Thomas.
Why didn't George think of that?

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,