Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ll-xn!nike!oliveb!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: what is a fallacy?
Message-ID: <12687@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 17:35:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: kestrel.12687
Posted: Mon Sep 22 17:35:39 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 23:46:09 EDT
References: <685@ihlpf.UUCP> <692@ihlpf.UUCP> <12466@kestrel.ARPA> <940@sunybcs.UUCP>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 19

In article <940@sunybcs.UUCP>, colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes:
> I tried to mediate this argument by posting an explanation to net.philosophy,
> but that group seems to be on its deathbed.  Here it is again:

Colonel, you really ought to republish the replies, too.

a) There is no argument
b) I don't think you have accurately thought out what a fallacy is,
and when you do, you should end up agreeing with the definition I
included.
c) Cherepov gave a definition of `fallacy' in a later article
from which it was trivial to prove that any statement whatever
is a fallacy. He's thus clearly wrong.

And may I also suggest you not be condescending twice?
Once was enough. Thanks.

Peter Ladkin
ladkin@kestrel.arpa