> No I don't forget that and this ploy is idiotic, as
> idiotic as expecting a
> film to deal with 10 major ideas when the best
> you're going to deal with in
> 2 hrs. is maybe ONE.
Your argument is fallacious [1] "idiotic"
a) Appeal to Ridicule
b) Appeal to Popularity
c) Ad Hominem Abusive
d) Appeal to Emotion
[2] "expecting a film to deal with 10 major ideas when the best you're going to deal with in 2 hrs."
a) False Dilemma
b) Red Herring
c) Slippery Slope
[3] "You didn't answer my other question. Are you accusing people of red-baiting?"
a) Red Herring
b) Poisoning the Well
Just to name a few...
WB
--- snit snat <snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> At 01:35 PM 7/10/2004, Wilson Barber wrote:
> >I guess you forget that Clinton/Gore killed more
> Iraqi
> >citizens via their santions and illegal fly zone
> >bombings than both Bushes.
>
> No I don't forget that and this ploy is idiotic, as
> idiotic as expecting a
> film to deal with 10 major ideas when the best
> you're going to deal with in
> 2 hrs. is maybe ONE.
>
> The film's question was: Why did the Bush
> administration go to war with
> Iraq as a result of 9/11?
>
> The history of Saudi-u.s. relations are necessary,
> but not sufficient, to
> explain the war on Iraq.
>
> You didn't answer my other question. Are you
> accusing people of red-baiting?
>
>
> Kelley
>
> "We're in a fucking stagmire."
>
> --Little Carmine, 'The Sopranos'
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail