VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678[9] ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:46
Author: Mike Drake - 12 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Taking the Discussion Further
In reply to: ketch - 12 Jun 2001 's message, "Re: Taking the Discussion Further" on 11:45

1. "This is Just Your Assumption, Nothing More."

No, it wasn't an assumption at all - it was a conclusion. If you read the note again, you will find that the argument is valid (and sound too, I think).

2. "The 'Erroneous Assumption' is Your Opinion Only."

Yes, with qualification: your "only" makes it sound as if my opinion hasn't been argued for. Anyway, I should have written something like ". . .only if you grant [what I think I have shown is the clearly] erroneous assumption that. . ."

3. Cause of Death

No (and I mean no) objective medical basis has been provided to support the claim that the cause of death could not be heart failure (as was officially pronounced), stroke, or some other natural pathology.

Nonetheless, for the sake of the present discussion (which isn't about incorruptibility), I'm entirely comfortable with setting this issue aside.

4. The Woeful Skeptic's Irrationality and Prejudice

Overall, I think I have been comparatively careful to acknowledge errors pointed out to me. Strange, then, that you would open your post by your remarks about the "prejudice and irrationality" that skeptics "often" exhibit.

If you are intimating that my contributions (in whole or in part) are irrational or prejudiced - as opposed to merely mistaken - I would ask that you expressly say so, and specify the allegedly offending remarks.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:



Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.