--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument > > > > from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new > > > > thing" is possible, so I figure we're even. > > > > > > This mischaractorization would have worked better if > > > you had not already conceded that we currently know of > > > no mechanism. > > > > Sophist trick. There's no contradiction there, sorry. > > You continue to use this term with the intellectual subtly of > "poopy pants."
sophistry = subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation Except, as I keep pointing out, your deception isn't all that subtle. > My argument has nothing to do with personal incredulity > or anytime a person stated the state of scientific > understanding in a field they could be challenged on this > basis. You're not making any sense. This isn't at all responsive. You implied I was contradicting myself, but that was a false accusation.
