~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
...Since you can't take a hint and your arguments are now tiresome rather than amusing I'll tell it to you straight:
But I have made no arguments. I have merely proposed a wager.
As with Rush I don't have the slightest respect for your mode of argument.
Again, no argument was offered only a wager. (Phill's respect for my "mode of arguing" is certainly irrelevant to me as I imagine it is to the bulk of readers of this list.)
You attempt to introduce "proof by wager" as a valid form of argument.
This straw man was previously addressed. No one but Phill has suggested that wagers are a form of proof. (If you can quote me as suggesting otherwise, Phill, I'd be happy to explain to you where you've gotten it wrong.)
You introduce irrelevant factors such whether Rush is richer than I am,...
Apparently, Phill has lost track of which member of his enemies list made which statements. I, of course, never mentioned Rush's wealth one way or the other.
In short your arguments
I made none. Phill should check his facts.
are remarkably similar to those of your hero Rush,
Rush is not my hero. I never said he was. Phill should check his facts.
fatuous, invalid logic, irrelevant facts and gratuitous insults. I think you are a fool,
Res ipsa loquitur.
I think that Rush is a fool and I don't consider that I need prove anything to you.
True, but without meaning to, Phill has proven quite a lot about himself right here in front of god and everybody. It ain't a pretty picture is it? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~