XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.health, misc.rural   
   From: usenet.email@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:19:38 GMT, don'tgo@there.com (The Watcher) wrote:   
   >On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:42:03 +0100, Derek  wrote:   
   >>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:20:05 GMT, don'tgo@there.com (The Watcher) wrote:   
   >>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:24:10 +0100, Derek  wrote:   
   >>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:28:51 GMT, don'tgo@there.com (The Watcher) wrote:   
   >>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:16:13 +0100, Derek  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>(snip)   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Yes, of course you would.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>And below is where you swap from accusing me   
   >>>>>>of using circular reasoning to using the persuasive   
   >>>>>>definition fallacy AFTER being shown that your   
   >>>>>>initial accusation was wrong, and that you clearly   
   >>>>>>don't understand the term;   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>I'll explain it to you once again, and I'll type it slower this time, so   
   do try   
   >>>>>to follow along. The Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS a form of circular   
   >>>>>reasoning.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>No, it is not a form of circular reasoning,   
   >>>>dummy, as I've shown. Circular reasoning   
   >>>>is where the premise is restated as the   
   >>>>conclusion, and my argument doesn't do   
   >>>>anything like that. You're incompetent.   
   >>>   
   >>>Apparently you don't even know what the Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS.   
   >>   
   >>I've told you what it is   
   >   
   >No   
      
   Yes, I have, repeatedly, and supplied a link to   
   a page dealing with logical fallacies to support   
   the definition. IT IS NOT a form of circular   
   reasoning, as you stupidly keep insisting despite   
   that evidence, so learn it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)