🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:xdQpd.7205$cE3.2786@clgrps12...
> In article <EXPpd.193960$df2.21991@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >> >Audodidact is the angliciszed spelling of the Greek Autodidak; to be
> >> >self-taught.  No, I don't need a dictionary, and when I do, I readily
use
> >> >one.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You quoted me and I was speaking english, therefore it's a misquote, on
> >par
> >> with most of your lying.
> >>
> >So?  You knew the meaning, so it is semantics.
>
> It's semantics when you issue your own blather, when you misquote me it's
a
> lie.
>
Nope.  I have not cut an ounce of text for that very reason.  Your quotes
are all through the thread.  In fact the only text cut, except for once
above because the relevance of the argument changed so I did cut, was by
you.  That usually means that things are being taken out of context; another
fallacy my freind.

>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >  If that is the case, why are you not
> >> >> >a professor at some recognized university.
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you offering to pay my tuition and finance my quest for tenure?
> >> >>
> >> >If there is a will Danny boy, there is a way.
> >>
> >> By all means, load up my paypal account!
> >>
> >Not on your life.  I am smart enough not to waste money.
>
> Then I guess your challenge wasn't valid after all.
>
Oh the challenge is valid enough.  I just have no intention of being the one
to take the risk.  Assuming you are as clever as you think, the risk should
be well worth your taking.

> >> You keep hinting towards evidence yet all you provide is ad hominem.
> >>
> >I don't do ad hominem fallacies.  Any respect, or lack of it, I have for
you
> >has to do with your arguments.  I don't know anything esle about you, so
I
> >don't judge.  You will find no ad hominem argument in this entire thread
> >from me.
>
> Why, because of magic?
>
>
No magic about it.  I simply never wrote ad hominem arguments in this
thread.  Go read them again.  If you understand the fallacy, you'll have no
difficulty in finding them, but you will have grave difficulty in findong
one from me.

> >> >No.  It is evidence that you have no idea about the rules of an
argument,
> >> >and that you are certainly good at circular fallacies and ad hominem
> >> >arguments and not much else.
> >>
> >> Where is this evidence?  Which argument was circular?
> >>
> >Go re-read the thread. If you know anything about philosophy, you'll have
no
> >difficulty in finding them.
>
> You believe in magic.  You are a fool.
>
No magic at all.  I can read.  So can everyone else here.  Go read the
thread again.  You'll have no trouble finding the circular arguments if you
understand philosophy.  However, if you can only spell philosophy, they'll
be lost on you.  Let me know how it works out, will you?