blatham wrote:Do you really wish to play? Then let's proceed as follows:
1) we'll choose 5-10 a2k members as jury who have actually studied some basic Logic.
2) I will make the argument, you can make yours, then each get an opportunity for rebuttal
3) the jury will vote on whose argument is the more compelling in its presentation of data and in its adherence to logical rules and its absence of logical fallacies
4) the one of us who that jury votes less compelling or credible in logic and in information will leave this site for one year.
Yet another irrelevant distraction. In this thread you have claimed the ability to make this sort of interpretation of Rumsfeld's resignation. I say, go ahead, but give a specific, single theory together with some evidence to show that your theory is more than just a self-indulgent conspiracy theory. My only argument herein has been that you lack such facts, and are just making things up that you cannot support with evidence.
Once again, I challenge you to present any theory of his resignation other than simple resignation, and then support it, that is lend it some degree of plausibility, with facts. At your next evasion, I will simply conclude that you cannot do what you purport to do, and move on to matters of greater moment.
