From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Quibbling.  Was: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:54:03 GMT

From article <mhulsey-070193154636@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C0GzKK.9MD@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> Do you have any proof to support the claim that I was "evading" 
>> your questions?  Or, is this one of those "correct" statements 
>> that we're supposed to accept until proven otherwise?  
> 
> evade, vb
> 
> c: to avoid answering directly

My dictionary defines the word, "evasion", using descriptors like 
deceit, subterfuge, and avoidance of duty.  Is that what you had 
in mind?  If not, don't you think that you, yourself, are 
engaging in deceit when you impugn the motives of your opponents?

[Deceit, subterfuge, and avoidance of duty, would be meaningless
without the notion of intention/motive]

>> >> Modified question #3:  
>> >> 
>> >> Don't you think it might be more reasonable for you to shoulder 
>> >> the burden of proving your claims, rather than expecting your 
>> >> opponents to prove that your claims are wrong?  
>> > 
>> > A loaded question.  You are making unfounded assumptions about my
>> > intentions.
>> 
>> It's hardly an assumption.
> 
> I said that it was a loaded question.

I can't recall a single article, posted by you, that hasn't 
contained statements involving assumptions and unfounded opinions 
masquerading as facts.  And, on several occasions, you've excused 
such behavior by stating that you'd be willing to withdraw your 
statements if/when they're "soundly disproven".  Is this the sort 
of behavior that one would expect from a reasonable man or woman
who claims to be a scientist?  

>> You've demonstrated by statements and
>> by deeds that you have two standards of proof:  one for yourself
>> and one for your opponents.
> 
> You've claimed such, but it has not been demonstrated.

Are you seriously claiming that you'd be willing to tolerate the
same laxity in an opponents arguments that you tolerate in your
own propositions?

>> >> Modified question #4:
>> >> 
>> >> Is it reasonable for non-omniscient thinkers to pretend that they
>> >> understand the inner motives of their opponents?
>> > 
>> > The inner motives of my opponents are beside the point.
>> 
>> Yet, you persistently make them a point, ie your statements concerning
>> my alleged "evasion" of your "pertinent questions".
> 
> Your evasion of my pertinent questions is an action, not an "inner 
> motive."

You're evading my question, Martin.  Is this acceptable behavior?

Unanswered question #4:

Is it reasonable for non-omniscient thinkers to pretend that they
understand the inner motives of their opponents?

>>[...]
>> The point that I'm trying to get across is that it's kinda silly for you
>> to assume that your opponents are "evading" your "questions", as though 
>> your spew represented some sort of formidable challenge. 
> 
> That you are evading my questions is obvious to everyone.

Do you understand why it's fallacious for a thinker to appeal to 
the opinions of other individuals?

Do you understand why it's, not simply fallacious, but downright
foolish for a man to appeal to an alleged universal opinion?

If not, please prove your silly assertion.

>>[...]
>> How are your readers supposed to distinguish between groundless or
>> false factual statements and your "opinions"?
> 
> The same way that yours do.

You're "evading" the question, Martin.

>>[...]
>> > Because of practical limitations with deadlines, etc.  Reporters are often
>> > unable to double-check information in press releases prior to publication. 
>> > I do not in any way suggest that the WP reporter was being unethical.  He
>> > was simply mistaken.  
>> 
>> Is this a factual statement?  Or is it just another "opinion"?
> 
> The first two are facts; the second is an opinion.

Are you admitting that you don't know for certain that the WP reporter
was mistaken?

>> I'll keep my list of unanswered questions handy, Martin.
> 
> Bring them on, and, while you are at it, don't forget to answer mine.

You still haven't answered my questions, Martin.  Why are you being
so "evasive"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals