Lawrence Helm wrote: "No it isn't a non-sequitur." Yes it is. Lawrence goes on: "Yes, I have assumptions as everyone does who speaks or argues and you can't divest me of my assumptions for the sake of your hypothetical non-sequitur." Not interested in divesting anyone of any assumptions. Just pointing them out, and noting that they don't contribute much to an argument. After all, if someone else doesn't share those assumptions, one can hardly claim that this proves anything. And yet, that is precisely what you do, hence the non sequitur. Why not allow that there are reasonable arguments for pulling troops out of Iraq, but that you disagree with them? Why must people who disagree with you be necessarily either lacking in understanding or stupid? I am still curious as to why it matters what spin bin Laden puts on events in Iraq. Is the reality of Iraq so tenuous that if bin Laden were to claim victory, a victory it would be? Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html