Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
284 bytes added ,  11:52, December 18, 2007
→‎Intentions: So I succeeded
Line 572: Line 572:     
If you defense is that it is logically possible to be an eyewitness account, you are indeed right, it is logically possible. But also a good work of fiction is logically possible, so this is a fairly weak argument to support your position. That is why I called this kind of argument sophistry. I thought that you were claiming that you had actual evidence to support your position. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 
If you defense is that it is logically possible to be an eyewitness account, you are indeed right, it is logically possible. But also a good work of fiction is logically possible, so this is a fairly weak argument to support your position. That is why I called this kind of argument sophistry. I thought that you were claiming that you had actual evidence to support your position. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:As I said, I was merely trying to refute your claim that it could not be an eyewitness account.  It looks like I succeeded in that.  The only thing I failed in was in not doing what you thought I was doing.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)
    
===Scientific Claims===
 
===Scientific Claims===
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu