Anibal Monsalve Salazar writes: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >>Andrew Suffield writes: >>>On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: >>>>My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who >>>>thinks otherwise to present evidence. >>> >>>So far (three days) we've had one person try, and give up after I >>>explained every case. I think that says a lot for the accuracy of the >>>accusations. >> >>It says a lot more about how much you regularly misrepresent plain >>writing to put your spin on issues. You think you rebutted my >>arguments; I think you actually illustrated that I was correct from >>the start. The real reason I gave up is that it is clear that neither >>of us is convincing the other. >> >>Descending to your flawed level of rhetoric, > > What are the flaws?
The flaw is that of projection: assuming that silence means everyone agrees with you. >>it is also telling that nobody else has stepped up to argue that >>your posts were acceptable. > > Why is that? Is it because asuffield is doing a good job defending > himself? One could just as easily assume it is because asuffield has made such a spectacle of himself that no one else thinks he has a leg to stand on. Since there is no clear input, the conclusion is prone to observational bias. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
