🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <XnQpd.194039$df2.157648@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:xdQpd.7205$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.
>

Well it's not a fallacy, because you DID make a mistake.  Now you have 
clarified so that's fine. 

(Growing up can be fun!)

>> 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.

I already explained that the risk outweighs the benefit.  You haven't refuted 
that claim.



>>
>> 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.
>

When you insult or belittle or discount someone's claims without refuting them 
devoid of logical fallacy, you are engaging in ad hominem whether you want to 
or not.  Clearly you don't want to engage in ad hominem because you recognize 
that is an inferior position.  But you do not know how not to engage in ad 
hominem when it comes to defending indefensible claims.  You don't know how to 
abandon your own bullshit.  You're chained to bullshit you create to puff your 
ego.


>> 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. 

I've read the thread enough times to determine that I haven't missed anything. 
 If you think I've missed something, tell me what.