Professor Riley characterized the university president' s speech as inflammatory and argued that it was ttherefore inappropriate. However, Riley has had a long-standing feud with the president, and so we should not conclude that her speech was inflammatory solely on the basis of Riley' s testimony. Ttherefore, unless there are independent reasons to deem the president' s speech inflammatory, it is not true that her speech was inappropriate. The argument is flawed in that it ['fails to adequately address the possibility that inflammatory speeches may be appropriate for some audiences', "fails to adequately address the possibility that Riley's animosity toward the university president is well founded", "concludes that Riley's claim is false merely on the grounds that Riley has something to gain if the claim is accepted as true", 'takes for granted that the speech could not be inappropriate if it was not inflammatory']