🚀 go-pugleaf

fdp@netcom.com (Ciccio) wrote:
>malloy@cris.com (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>And once again Ciccio 'reads' my post, imputes to me a position which,
>>although grossly similar on first glance to what I _did_ say, actually
>>bears no relation to the text he quoted, and then proceeds to attack
>>that position.
>
>And once again Sean 'reads' my post, imputes a nonexistent premise...
>Where in my post was it said that my statement relied on your statement?

It doesn't -- and that is the primary characteristic of the straw man
attack as performed via email or posting: quote text from another
poster, follow it with a premise which shares only enough common
ground with the quoted text to establish a _post hoc, ergo propter
hoc_ relationship in the minds of readers who don't bother to examine
the logical structure of a posting, and then take off into whatever
you want to prove. By quoting my text as a jumping-off point for your
declaration, you are imputing to me the position you are denigrating.

>I didn't need to attack your position, it was so blatantly false, I decided
>to leave it alone and post an accurate one of my own. It was on the same topic 
>of scientists. 

If you decided to post on an entirely new position, then why did you
feel it necessary to quote _my_ statement on what you _now_, after
being called on it, declare to be an unrelated position? If my
statement was so blatantly false that you didn't feel a need to
comment on it, to what purpose was it quoted? The only reason it would
be necessary to quote my statement would be to associate my position
with a premise you find easier to denigrate.


-- 
Sean R. Malloy               | American Non Sequitur
    Naval Medical Center     |       Society
    San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
malloy@cris.com              | "We may not make sense,
srmalloy@snd10.med.navy.mil  |  but we do like pizza"