From: Peter Bowditch on
"john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message >
>> Oh, and trying to discredit me by citing whale.to immediately triggers
>> Scopie's Law.
>>
>
>LOL. Oh well, good to know you haven't any argument
>http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html

What has an appeal to incredulity got to do with anything?

>
>you don't have any credit in the real world, abusive, liar, and using a
>logical fallacy
>

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: john on

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:sp1gh5ddlt5lo17j102u5j0lu40fknur5e(a)4ax.com...
> "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message >
>>> Oh, and trying to discredit me by citing whale.to immediately triggers
>>> Scopie's Law.
>>>
>>
>>LOL. Oh well, good to know you haven't any argument
>>http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html
>
> What has an appeal to incredulity got to do with anything?
>

It is your main argument. Scopie's Law is based on that. Logical fallacy


From: Peter Bowditch on
"john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:sp1gh5ddlt5lo17j102u5j0lu40fknur5e(a)4ax.com...
>> "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message >
>>>> Oh, and trying to discredit me by citing whale.to immediately triggers
>>>> Scopie's Law.
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOL. Oh well, good to know you haven't any argument
>>>http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html
>>
>> What has an appeal to incredulity got to do with anything?
>>
>
>It is your main argument. Scopie's Law is based on that. Logical fallacy
>

No, Scopie's Law is not based on an appeal to incredulity, unless you
count the incredulity that anyone could believe the rubbish on the
relevant web site. Appeal to Incredibility, perhaps.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 3, 9:09 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
> "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> >"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
> >news:sp1gh5ddlt5lo17j102u5j0lu40fknur5e(a)4ax.com...
> >> "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message >
> >>>> Oh, and trying to discredit me by citing whale.to immediately triggers
> >>>> Scopie's Law.
>
> >>>LOL. Oh well, good to know you haven't any argument
> >>>http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html
>
> >> What has an appeal to incredulity got to do with anything?
>
> >It is your main argument.  Scopie's Law is based on that.  Logical fallacy
>
> No, Scopie's Law is not based on an appeal to incredulity, unless you
> count the incredulity that anyone could believe the rubbish on the
> relevant web site. Appeal to Incredibility, perhaps.

It turns out the truth is often more incredible than fiction, although
you do have your moments.



From: john on

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
> No, Scopie's Law is not based on an appeal to incredulity, unless you
> count the incredulity that anyone could believe the rubbish on the
> relevant web site. Appeal to Incredibility, perhaps.
>

Whatever, it's a logical fallacy. Perhaps you could explain Scopie's Law in
detail so we can actually get the so called logic it's based on.