 | | Re: Still a "Funny Girl"
|
|
(...) -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Everything in the *paragraph* was written by me and was *exactly* what I wanted to say with my first post about refuting an arguement by refuting one point--that by disputing one point of the list of evidence does not make *all* points null (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Yeah, they botched the case alright... Frankly, I don't know who did this double homicide -- nor does anyone else as aptly pointed out by Larry. O.J. looks good for it, but I can't see why a person of his apparent means would do something like (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Still a "Funny Girl"
|
|
(...) Scott, I think, has accepted that this is a bogus quote, if he ever even believe it in the first place. Sadly, some celebrities are less eager to check their sources: (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion)
|
|
(...) Was that from "The Alternative Factor?" I haven't seen much TOS in quite a while, so my memory may be faulty. The problem is that his statement as you quoted it had no boundaries, so we could only assume that it applied to the universe at (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Even worse than that--she's a nobody with a radio show and who passes herself off as an educated authority on the subject in which she pretends expertise. Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) David please do not mark up my words as you did in the next paragraph. It is confusing to the readership and extremely poor form. (...) Everything in parenthesis was added by David, and is incorrectly associated with the same inference. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Very nicely put, Larry... However, my point was outlined with the second reasoning you made--that given a list of claims, (FEF1 (blood), FEF2 (DNA), FEF3 (motive), FEF4 (whatever)... FEFn) and one of those claims was refuted, it does not mean (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I agree here. A bit of logic might help. If I assert: (-> == implies ) A -> B and B -> C and C -> D are all true , and thus A -> D is true and provide facts or evidence FAB in support of A -> B FBC in support of B -> C FCD in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
Snipped for effect. (...) "Again" as in; you previously had it figured out, seemed to have gone through a patch just now where you didn't, and now you do have it figured out "again". NOT as in; you got into it with him before... Helps? (...) As far (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
