 | | Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) The evidence has been presented here in the past and I'm not inclined to dig it up again. (...) Cites please? I'm not pro-corporate by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're anti-capitalist and don't see the distinction between (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) Because the willful choice not to support your argument is indistinguishable from forfeiting the argument, I accept this as your forfeiture. If it is not your intent to forfeit, then I invite you to support your argument, as you have demanded (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) OK, The support needed is rather different, though. You need to support with logic that my characterisations of Moore somehow falsify what I said.\ I need to support by showing that Moore isn't factual, and that his assertions don't follow (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) Why is that my task? I'm not asserting that your claim is false but rather that your assertions don't support it. (...) That, too, may be a matter of perspective. If your claim is that Moore is not factual, then you must document his (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) (much snippage) (...) Ok, fair enough. I will try to do better going forward. (...) Here's someone else that just popped up making the same, or a similar, point. (URL) (21 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
