"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:24:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


You need to look up the logical fallacy "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"

Here, I'll do it for you:

http://www.philosophy.eku.edu/Willia...sec-web.htm#10

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html


Dave


So, after all this, are you saying you don't think a single person in
Washington presented a workable, covert idea to your leader?

It's certainly possible. You seem hell bent to deny that possibility.


Dave


No. What I'm saying is that a solution which did not involve big explosions
and troop movements suitable for good photographs would not serve his own
personal needs, even if a quieter, sneakier method was 100% successful as
planned. Of course, I can't prove this, but you've got to admit that some
people do things flashy, and some reach the same goal in more subtle ways. I
find his way disgusting, especially since he's happy to throw away so many
young lives, all in the name of an adrenaline rush.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:29:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:24:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


You need to look up the logical fallacy "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"

Here, I'll do it for you:

http://www.philosophy.eku.edu/Willia...sec-web.htm#10

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html


Dave


So, after all this, are you saying you don't think a single person in
Washington presented a workable, covert idea to your leader?

It's certainly possible. You seem hell bent to deny that possibility.


Dave


No. What I'm saying is that a solution which did not involve big explosions
and troop movements suitable for good photographs would not serve his own
personal needs, even if a quieter, sneakier method was 100% successful as
planned.

Once again, you are presupposing a premise, which is borne solely from
your personal opinion, and then assigning it as fact, and then using
it to justify your own conclusion. You don't want me to give you yet
another lesson on logical fallacies do you?


Of course, I can't prove this.....

Key statement.

, but you've got to admit that some
people do things flashy, and some reach the same goal in more subtle ways.

But there is no evidence that "flashy" is Bush's modus operandi.

I find his way disgusting, especially since he's happy to throw away so many
young lives, all in the name of an adrenaline rush.

Since your premise is speculative , your disgust is likely misplaced.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:29:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:24:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


You need to look up the logical fallacy "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"

Here, I'll do it for you:

http://www.philosophy.eku.edu/Willia...sec-web.htm#10

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html


Dave


So, after all this, are you saying you don't think a single person in
Washington presented a workable, covert idea to your leader?

It's certainly possible. You seem hell bent to deny that possibility.


Dave


No. What I'm saying is that a solution which did not involve big
explosions
and troop movements suitable for good photographs would not serve his own
personal needs, even if a quieter, sneakier method was 100% successful as
planned.

Once again, you are presupposing a premise, which is borne solely from
your personal opinion, and then assigning it as fact, and then using
it to justify your own conclusion. You don't want me to give you yet
another lesson on logical fallacies do you?


Of course, I can't prove this.....

Key statement.

, but you've got to admit that some
people do things flashy, and some reach the same goal in more subtle ways.

But there is no evidence that "flashy" is Bush's modus operandi.

There's a disease similar to Altzheimer's that can affect people as young as
you and I - can't remember the name of it. You may have it, though.

Remember the aircraft carrier nonsense? Mission accomplished? That was
flashy, Dave.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:11:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:29:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:24:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


You need to look up the logical fallacy "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"

Here, I'll do it for you:

http://www.philosophy.eku.edu/Willia...sec-web.htm#10

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html


Dave


So, after all this, are you saying you don't think a single person in
Washington presented a workable, covert idea to your leader?

It's certainly possible. You seem hell bent to deny that possibility.


Dave


No. What I'm saying is that a solution which did not involve big
explosions
and troop movements suitable for good photographs would not serve his own
personal needs, even if a quieter, sneakier method was 100% successful as
planned.

Once again, you are presupposing a premise, which is borne solely from
your personal opinion, and then assigning it as fact, and then using
it to justify your own conclusion. You don't want me to give you yet
another lesson on logical fallacies do you?


Of course, I can't prove this.....

Key statement.

, but you've got to admit that some
people do things flashy, and some reach the same goal in more subtle ways.

But there is no evidence that "flashy" is Bush's modus operandi.

There's a disease similar to Altzheimer's that can affect people as young as
you and I - can't remember the name of it. You may have it, though.

Remember the aircraft carrier nonsense? Mission accomplished? That was
flashy, Dave.

It was a moral booster, and a celebration of a single ship's mission
accomplished.

Yes, it was orchestrated as a future P.R. campaign statement, most
likely by someone other than Bush himself.

Dave