From: Greegor on
Dan volunteered many statements over the years
about his bipolar ex-wife, his kids, and the
20+ child abuse investigations his family underwent.
When I posed logical follow up questions
to him, he apparently felt inadequate to
answer them directly so he tried setting
TERMS under which he would answer the
questions. The TERMS resemble two of
Kent Wills' favorite fallacies. Then Dan started
a new thread hoping to force HIS issue
while hoping to avoid scrutiny of the
"check's in the mail" and (proof held hostage)
FALLACIES themselves.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/695a1382631fa25b#

Dan's subject title pretends the subject is
the QUESTIONS when in fact the subject
he wishes to address is his absurd TERMS.

If the subject really was THE QUESTIONS,
Why did Dan snip them?


G > Whatever you do, Dan, DO NOT answer
G > these questions.   Do another hit and run.
G >
G > That will go well for you.

DJS3 > What's gonna happen, grag?

G > Proving how gutless you are, Dan?

DJS3 > I'll answer any legitimate question you mail to me, grag.

G > Does that mean that all of your questions are illegitimate. Dan?

DJS3 > The topic is the questions you are going to mail to me, grag.
DJS3 > Or are you TOO GUTLESS?

G > You think I am too gutless to mail you the
G > questions you are too gutless to answer online?

DJS3 > Yes, I think you're too gutless to mail me the questions.

Right off the Kent Wills FALLACY chart:

H3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
H4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else

Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies

F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman

Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
Flat out outright lies.

It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question
is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically
used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For
instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will
that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives,
thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a
purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the
potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find
himself an actual buyer.