Rich Ahrens wrote:
on 9/7/2008 5:19 PM Jim Logajan said the following:
If there was no presumption in Jay M's question then it wasn't the
dichotomy you claimed it was. You need to make up your mind.

No, you need to try to keep up. The most common classification of
logical fallacies groups them into fallacies of relevance, of
ambiguity, and of presumption. False dichotomies fall into the group
fallacies of presumption. The presumption is that there are no options
other than the two offered. I previously explained why his question
fit this definition.

I'm impressed by your attempts at logic. But I now suspect both of us are
not exactly young, so maybe the attempts at patronization are best left
out. It's been over 30 years since I took logic and philosophy classes in
college and later managed to convince them to award me a BSc in physics.
Later I managed to arrange my life to be able to work from the comfort of
my home out in the country. All of which I like to think proves I'm not a
complete idiot. So I'm not persuaded by your arguments at all because I
know from whence they come.

Excellent: your opinion on Jay Honeck's views is clear. Now if you
can make (or point to a past posting) of a clear opinion of
Bertie's postings it will be clear whether your posts are in fact a
stealth defense of him or merely an incidental byproduct of
objective observations.
I have no obligation to do so. It is your assertion, Jay's, or both.
The burden of proof is on you.

Huh? Are you saying the burden of proof of your opinions is on me?
Sorry, I don't follow that.

Do try harder to keep up. You and Jay have both asserted or at least
strongly presumed that I am defending Bertie. I have no obligation to
prove I am not doing so. It's your burden to prove that I am. I need
not play your game or answer your questions.

I'm not playing a game. I wasn't even a target of your attack. I'm a third
party here. I simply don't see the point of attacking Jay H, who has never
cross-posted or gotten into deep threaded tit-for-tat attacks, whereas
others have done just that to the detriment of the group.

Look, I'm not asking for any obligations. I'm trying to figure out
what your opinion is of the person who posts using the "Bertie the
Bunyip" handle. You aren't shy about telling the world your opinion
of Jay Honeck's affect on this newsgroup. I'm not sure why you object
to telling the world your opinion of "Bertie's" affect on this
newsgroup.

I simply choose not to. My reasons are my own.

Too bad you couldn't have used that opaque line of "reasoning" when you
were deciding whether to post your attack on Jay H.

You'll undoubtedly draw your own conclusions.

I can't conclude anything - other than you dislike Jay H.

No. Jay M asserted that Jay H was "being ruthlessly driven away." I
simply contradicted him with an equally bald assertion.

Are you now claiming no one has been driven away, or are you
quibbling over whether there was ruthless intent involved?

No one has been driven away. Some have chosen to leave, but that's
their choice.

I see. In much the same manner that a person who is attacked by a swarm of
mosquitos is simply making a choice to vacate the area - they aren't being
driven away. Dissembling over a colloquialism.

The fact that Jay and Dudley keep coming back here to
sing the praises of other forums makes it clear they are still free to
post or lurk and in fact do so.

And you are free to complain (and complain (and complain)) about it - both
here - and on PoA if you wanted to, I bet.

And I say this as one who looked in on PoA and AOPA but decided they
weren't for me.

So bloody what? PoA has terms of use. So does your Usenet provider.
You can be bounced from your Usenet provider if you cross the line
too, you know.

So bloody what, in your own words. I choose providers who are far less
restrictive than Jay would like all to be. If he could netkopp me
successfully, I have no doubt he would.

Jay H. had been reading and posting to this group for years and never
exhibited any sign of "net kopping". Ironically his r.a.p "Rogues Gallery"
appears to have been an attempt to "flesh out" and humanize a community
here. Since he invested some time in a volunteer effort, it stands to
reason he would be reluctant to sever his ties to the group and post a
public mourning when he took it down.

And it wasn't even Jay who precipitated the exodus to PoA and the other web
forums.

I see no facts to support your Jay H. "netkopp" fears.

Look - if you don't like Jay H's opinions or the man himself - fine.
But in my opinion all you are doing is rationalizing your dislike
into a fine tantrum of your own. And I say this as someone who
doesn't agree with Jay H on a huge range of issues.

No tantrum. I'm only responding to your arguments, lame as they may
be.

I love you too! ;-)