On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:48:17 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

[snip]

substantiate it. I am frankly curious to see how you will do that.
Just
one
little link would do nicely.

Joe Parsons


Find it yourself.

Wouldn't it be easier for you simply to admit you were...mistaken in your
original statement?

Why should I? I spoke the truth.

This is what is called "argument by assertion." It's just one small step
removed from "circular reasoning." In the simplest terms, the mere fact that
you repeat your assertion over and over does not make your statement true. It
certainly does not make for a cogent argument.

To be completely candid, I was looking forward to see just what you might
consider to be an "attack."

Then do a google search and go find out.

I'd rather see you substantiate your own claim. You see, by refusing to do
something as trivially easy as providing a link to a post from Gould to prove
your statement, you create the impression that you were either intentionally
misrepresenting (the technical term for this is "lying") or that you were
mistaken.

If the latter, it is easy to correct the misstatement. An admission of error is
viewed by many to be a sign of good character.

If it's the former, well, that's a sign of character, as well.

Joe Parsons

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:01:24 -0400, in rec.boats you wrote:

I recall you [referring to Gould] and the other libs attacking something
the Zel Miller said when
it was posted on this board.

Hypocrite.

Yep, and he is.