--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> > wrote: > > > Xeno, sorry, but you are SO far from understanding what > > the issues are with Share. Facile observations about > > general vs. specific thinking styles don't begin to cut > > it. Just for starters, there are (at last count) seven > > different people on FFL who have the same criticisms of > > her. > > For starters, your starting argument is 'argumentum ad > numerum', a logical fallacy that makes the assumption that > because a number of people believe a certain proposition > to be true, it must be true.
Nope, wrong. Very sloppy reading on your part. Notice that I didn't mention the proposition you have in mind anywhere in what I wrote, much less claim it was true, much less that it was true because a number of people believe it. You made all that up yourself on the basis of no evidence and read it in. IOW, it was you who made the unwarranted assumption. Knowing all this, can you read what I wrote just a little more carefully and figure out what my point actually was? Here's a hint: It directly addressed your assertion about different thinking styles as the reason for Share's and my disagreements.
