[lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:23:55 -0700



I saw no point in further responding to you.  You seem unable to understand
the nature of a logical fallacy.  When I described it to you, you merely
said I was obfuscating (misspelling the word didn't help in that case) and
repeated the fallacy.  Showing your argument to be fallacious isn't to throw
scorn on it.  It is to show that it is no argument at all.  And in the note
below you continue to think you have a good argument.  I explained the
nature of your fallacy to you.  The fallacy you committed has a name.  You
can read about it.  That should be sufficient.  I shouldn't have to repeat
myself. The fact that you are insisting on your fallacious argument is
merely pitiful.





From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:34 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world


Lawrence, are you unable to deal with me directly.


Or is it that you can't deal with the argument (fallacious or not) that I
was presenting. 


Or might it be that you were so stunned that I was unable to spell
'obfuscation' that you just couldn't bring yourself to speak to me ever


Just for your predilection, let me explain the context of my use of the


Obfuscate: to darken, to obscure (it can also mean drunk but that wasn't the
intended meaning). In my experience, when Lawrence is presented with an
argument that threatens his viewpoint his typical response is either to
obfuscate, or else to leave the conversation. In this instance, having been
prevented recourse to the second option, he had to rely on the first method.
This was to throw scorn at the logic of the argument, rather than deal with
it. (On some occasions, he will merely laugh at the opposition.) When
subsquently (in the obfuscation post) I gave evidence, the response was a
distinctly stamping foot. 


This is called petulance...


I've just watched a new episode of Cracker, and I'm really in the mood for
it now. For example (says Jimmy McGovern, writer), every bullet, every bomb,
every death at the hands of IRA during the Northern Irish troubles was
bought by American Dollars, more than likely deposited into a bucket... but
after 9/11, it all paled into insignificance; that wasn't real terrorism,
they weren't real casualties...etc.


So Lawrence, can you cope, or will you carry on your indirect complaining.



Pretending to be an overweight psychologist with a bad drink problem... a
gambling addiction...woman trouble...probably a heart condition...more than
likely high blood pressure...an enviable sort of person.


----- Original Message ----- 

From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  Helm 

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:22 PM

Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world


No, but saying what Simon said, which after all was what I was talking
about, does.





From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 9:46 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world


>Why not?  A fellow Lit-Idear recently described me as 

>"Lawrence, the obfucation King." for producing evidence

> that he was guilty of a fallacy.


I don't really think saying the War on Iraq has radicalized some Muslims

(and increased the number of extremists) counts as a hasty generalization,

even it it is not true.


Judy Evans, Cardiff

Other related posts: