[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Peter's logical fallacies

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Well, it sure seems like my "bandwagon" is a bandwagon of one, as not
>much support for my research has been evident in these ngs. Yet I do have
>friendly people writing to me privately. They tell me that they are
>intimidated from posting publicly because of fierce opponents who
>predominate in the ngs. I fully understand their concerns.
>I will not be intimidated by the gangs of dogmatists who clearly want to
>stifle all discussion of these important matters.
>Best regards,

      You don't even come close to getting it, do you. "Fierce attacks"?? 
"Gangs of dogmatists who want to stifle all discussions"?? Have you ever 
been to a real scholarly conference in your life? The criticisms and 
challenges to your ideas and propositions on these ngs pales in 
comparrison to what you'd be subjected to at a professional meeting. 

      To date, your posts have taken on an interesting polarity. 1).What 
you post is the Truth, and those you cite are Authorities. What others 
post in response, though, is a Lie, and their citations are cheap Appeals 
to Authority. 2). Challenges of other peoples' reactions/ideas on your 
part are Logical and Informative Responses, while challenges of your ideas 
are Ad Hominem Attacks by Gangs of Dogmatists.

      If you want to propose an idea and present it and your evidence on 
the ngs, fine; it spurs discussion. But, when you don't have everyone 
goose-stepping to your party line, quit whining. Challenges to your ideas, 
your research. your methodology, etc., are all a part of the game. The 
mark of surety of your ideas and research is to rise above the attacks, 
and present solid information to refute the challenges.


Randal Allison, Ph.D.
   --If you can't be happy naturally, be unnaturally happy.