Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00144)

Theo Paijmans wrote:
> Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> > Theo Paijmans wrote:
> >
> > Nope. You used the presence of information on the Internet as
> > evidence of its truth. I pointed out that it is NOT evidence of its 
> > truth. You used a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum), and I
> > pointed
> > it out.
> Either way, as I pointed out previously, the matter stays unresolved.
> If, as you claim, that particular bit of information is false - your
> criteria being that: a)the bit of information must be anti-American
> propaganda b)it is on the internet and since it is a) it must be
> suspect by simply being on the internet c)it is found in sources you
> don't like for reason a)
It is not up to me to prove it false; you made the initial contention, 
therefore the burden is on you to prove it true.

> > I said radical, not terrorist. Since you will not desist from
> > putting words into my mouth and using straw many arguments, I will
> > not dignify you with any more answers until you desist.
> >
> > In other words, if you have to fabricate things that I never said
> > in order to argue with them, then perhaps you have nothing to
> > argue.
> You used the word "radical" and not "terrorist", we have no
> disagreement over that. I simply asked the question when that thin
> line between radicalism and terrorism is being crossed,
Saying that there's a thin line between radicalism and terrorism is the 
logical equivalent of saying there's a thin line between Italians and 
priests. Since that is the foundation of the rest, the rest becomes 
meaningless.

> b)humiliate me by saying that you will not "dignify" me again c)not
> convince me but force me to a certain action since you have a hard
> time having me to see it your way ("until you desist")
I am not trying to humiliate you; rather, you are trying to humiliate 
me by making up claims that I never made, and attributing them to me. 
Although there are no financial damages to speak of, that's still libel.

Bart