"Don White" wrote in We all have to chip in
and by Tuukie a book on acronyms. His limited
vocabulary is beating lol to death.

Sigh... make that 'buy'

"JimH" wrote in message
...


Now I could jump in and make a nasty comment to you similar to what you
recently made to me when I made a mistake, but I won't because I am a
better
man than that.


Good for you! That's a big first step.......

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...


Now I could jump in and make a nasty comment to you similar to what you
recently made to me when I made a mistake, but I won't because I am a
better
man than that.


Good for you! That's a big first step.......



One you might want to take. ;-)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Have you figured out who "Hazel" is?


I think Tuuk believes it's your wife's name.......but I could be mistaken, A
lot of things he says are off the wall and don't make sense.

" Tuuuk" wrote in message his usual verbal
crap...

We should also buy a king size bar of soap to wash his mouth out.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:18:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


But it wasn't "his" faulty information. It's the same info that the
Clinton group used before.

Dave


My house and yours are burglarized. We both think it was done by the kid
across the street and some of his JD friends. I call the cops. Before
they
arrive, you walk over there and beat the kid to within an inch of his
life.
We both had the same clues beforehand.

Who's the asshole?

The kid who broke into our houses.

I love your straw man premisses. They bare a slight resemblance to the
topic of discussion, but differ enough that the answer to one may not
fit the exact circumstances of the other.

But then, you know that.

Dave

Fortunately, you didn't choose to be a judge. Hypothetical discussions are
EXACTLY how legal issues are debated in the higher courts.

Yes, but those discussions have to be presented in an equal context to
make them valid as analogies.

Really? When's the last time you read one? Many of them are pretty far
fetched, and I'm talking about the Supreme Court. Here you go - there's some
fascinating reading he


So what's you point? Should we consider the absurd every time we
debate a position by logic?

Here's some reading for you:

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

Perhaps you'll understand why your absurdly extreme examples are not
valid and only deflect from the core debate.

Dave