1992-93 Los Angeles Kings notes.
--------------------------------
Playoffs:
---------
*Stauber disturbed by third-man theme
by Rick Sadowski, Daily News

Barry Melrose's decision to stick Robb Stauber in the stands rather than in the
crease or even on the bench for the Stanley Cup playoffs does not sit well with
the rookie goaltender.

"I want to be a part of the team at the most crucial time of the year, the most
fun time of the year, and I'm not,"  Stauber said with some emotion Monday.  "I
think I have worked hard enough for that."

Stauber said he accepts Melrose's choice of Kelly Hrudey as the teams top goalie
in their playoff series with the Calgary Flames. Hrudey made 21 saves in Sundays
6-3 opening victory.

But Stauber clearly is upset with his sudden status as the No. 3 man behind Rick
Knickle.  Stauber had a 4-1-2 record and 2.98 goals-against average down the
stretch in the regular season and nearly wrestled the No. 1 job from Hrudey.

Knickle?  He won 2 of 3 decisions but had a bloated 5.26 average, twice was
yanked from games (once for stomach cramps) and hasn't played since March 29.

Yet, when the series resumes Wednesday, Knickle will serve as Hrudey's backup
again and Stauber will have to satisfy his playoff hunger by munching on Olympic
Saddledome popcorn.

"If I'm supposedly close to being the starter or could have been the starter...I
dropped too. 3.  What happened to No. 2?"  Stauber wondered.  "Not that I'd be
happy with No. 2, but I feel I should at least be a part of this team in the
playoffs."

Perhaps Stauber eventually will get his chance, but Melrose apparently is not
convinced the 25-year old is capable of handling playoff pressure.

While insisting he is the Kings' "goalie of the future," Melrose said Stauber
flubbed all four of the big games he was asked to win this season.  They were,
according to Melrose: a 7-2 loss to San Jose on Dec. 26; An 8-3 loss to the New
York Rangers on Jan. 23; a 6-6 tie with Detroit on Feb. 11; an 8-6 loss to
Vancouver on Thursday.

"Four times this season Robb could have emerged as the elite goalie, he could
have taken it away from Kelly Hrudey, and he didn't do it," Melrose said.  "An
elite goaltender has to carry the ball when you give it to him.  The mark of a
great goalie is that he isn't satisfied to be a backup."

"I'm not blaming Robb for the losses, but if you're going to be No. 1, you've
got to be able to walk your talk.  You've got to be able to play when everything
is on the line.  Robb Stauber has a great deal of ability, but maybe I expect
more from him than he does."

Ouch.  That remark stung Stauber.  He began the season 9-0-1, struggled when the
team hit a mid-season slump, didn't play for a month after Knickle was signed
off the San Diego Gulls roster, then came on at the end.

"I expect more from myself than anybody, including Barry Melrose," said Stauber,
a three-year star at the University of Minnesota who left school in 1989, only
to have his development hampered by a string of serious injuries.

"What I've been through the last four years - two knee operations, a herniated
disk in my back, shoulder surgery - what more can I go through?  I obviously do
expect a lot from myself, otherwise I wouldn't be here."

"Anybody who would disagree with that doesn't know me.  I'm not saying Barry
doesn't know me, but don't say I've been without expectations.  If anything, I'm
a perfectionist."

Stauber acknowledged he played poorly in the four games Melrose mentioned. "But
even though I didn't play well, I get knocked down from maybe on to three? It's
a bit of a jump," he said.  "You're almost No. 1, or if you play a good game
you're No. 1 and if you don't you're No. 3?  Why does Jack Nicklaus shoot a 67
and then a 75?  Can you explain that?  That's what barry wanted me to explain
to him, why I didn't come through when he counted on me.  I don't know. What I
do know is, it's a sport.  I'll be there."

Melrose's "goalie of the future" statement doesn't mean much to Stauber. "Before
you know it, I'll be 30 and there will be no future," he said.

------

*Game 1 of the Kings @ Flames playoff series drew a 4.2 Nielsen rating on ABC
Channel 7 here in LA.  The Kings averaged a 2.1 Nielsen rating in the 10 regular
season games aired on Channel 5.

Around the NHL:
---------------
*San Jose fired Coach George Kingston, who lead the team to a 11-71-2 mark in
their 2nd NHL season.  Kingston was 28-129-7 over the past 2 years with the
Sharks.

------

*Former Islander executive Bill Torrey was named as President of the expansion
Florida Panthers.  Bobby Clarke was named as the clubs General Manager.

*Last nights games:
-------------------
WIN  2 @ VAN  4 (VAN leads 1-0)
TOR  3 @ DET  6 (DET leads 1-0)

===============================================================================
Stan Willis (willis@empire.dnet.hac.com)
net contact: L.A. Kings


Hello Hockey fans.
Bonjour tout le monde!

Well, in Salt Lake City this past Sunday, the local ABC station decided not
to televise the hockey games.  La directrous de programme est la tete de merde!
Anyway, I have a satellite dish, and a few of my friends from hockey have invited themselves over to watch the games this coming Sunday (25 Apr), and I can
not find correct game times.  For the Calgary at LA game I have times showing
everything from 11:00 AM MDT, to 5:00 PM MDT.

I am not even sure what games are going to be played this coming Sunday, now
that ABC has mucked up the schedule.  I think I should be able to
pull in
three games (11:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 5:30 pm MDT) off the dish, but I am
not sure.

IF anybody has a schedule, pleas emial it to me.  As you can see, I have to
telent to get rec.sport.hockey, and it is sometimes difficult to get a link.

Thanks in advance
Merci d'avance

P.S.  Anglais ou francais d'accord.

Roland Behunin

behunin@oodis01.af.mil
behunin@oodis01.hill.af.mil


Sure.  Why keep using oil?  A hydrogen/electric economy would likely be
cleaner and more efficient in the long run.  The laws of supply and demand
should get the transition underway before we reach a critical stage of
shortage.


	Ok, I'll admit it.  I can't find a quote with my meager online
resources.  but i did find this little gem:

	``When the Arabs set off their volcano, there will only be Arabs in
	this part of the world.  Our people will continue to fuel the torch
	of the revolution with rivers of blood until the whole of the
	occupied homeland is liberated...''
	--- Yasser Arafat, AP, 3/12/79

	So, Ahmed is right.  There was nothing about driving Jews into
the sea, just a bit of "ethnic cleansing," and a river of blood.

	Is this an improvement?

Adam

Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu


My, this distinction seems quite arbitrary.

  Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sin is covered.
  (Ps. 32:1).

and quoted by the apostle Paul:

  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God
  imputeth righteousness without works,
  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
  are covered.
  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.  (Rom. 4:6-8)

The biblical perspective seems to be that foregiveness and covering are
parallel/equivalent concepts in both testaments.  The dispensational
distinction is unwarranted.

I'm sure Rex has Scripture to back this up.  You're suggesting Jesus is
going to travel around dealing with individual violations of His law -- for
millions perhaps billions of people.  Such activity for Moses the lawgiver
was considered unwise (cf. Ex. 18:13ff).  It makes for interesting
speculation, though.

I'll leave comments on the so-called "bema seat" vs. "throne" judgments to
someone else.  This also seems like more unnecessary divisions ala
dispensationalism.


However, this has nothing to do with motorcycling, unless you consider
the Amazona a bike.


Actually, for the Padres this year so far it's 23%.  They are 5th in
the league in HRs, and ALL have been solo shots.

Pythagorean projection puts them at .360 winning percentage
or 58-104.  Need some pitching help, fast!

Good news, though, is that Hurst has been throwing curveballs
w/o any pain.  Threw 80 pitches yesterday.  Should be back
in a couple of weeks.  Maybe we can trade him to the Yankees
for Militello.

Dave


That's the entire point!

Yes!

Natural morality is a morality that developed naturally.

Huh?


Probably would not be fatal in an adult at that dose, but could kill
a child.  Patient would be very somnolent, with dilated pupils, low
blood pressure.  Possibly cardiac arrhythmias.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."


How do you figure that??  When Bryan Murray took over the Wings they were
a pretty good team that was contending for the Stanley Cup but looked
unlikely to win it.  Now they are a pretty good team that is contending for
the Stanley Cup but looks unlikely to win it.  A truly great GM would
have been able to make the moves to push the team to the upper echelon
of the NHL and maybe win the Stanley Cup.  A good GM (like Murray) can
maintain the team's success but can't push them to the next level.

In the history of hockey there have been several better GM's than Murray-
way too many to name.  Murray isn't even the best GM in the league today.
He fails in comparison to Sinden, Sather, Savard, Caron, Fletcher and
Quinn in my estimation.

I can't imagine how Bryan Murray can be the best GM anyone has ever seen
in hockey- unless they have seen VERY few GM's.


Hello net.  I have a 386sx motherboard with the Phoenix BIOS, an on-board
IDE controller port, and two on-board serial ports.  Unfortunately, I don't
have a manual for this beast and I would like to be able to disable the IDE
controller in order to use the MFM controller I have.
The board says it is made in Korea and it uses the Chips Chipset.  If
anyone can give me a clue as to how to go about configuring the board so as
not to use the IDE controller, or how to go about finding out how to do it,
their help would be greatly appreciated.
	Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Please mail buhrow@nfbcal.org with your responses as my news feed is rather
tenuous.
Thank you very much!
-Brian <buhrow@nfbcal.org>


Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. They
certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this
was not necessarily their true position.

The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question.
The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914
and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has
considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body.

The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up
a bit too slow.

The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it
in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent
of being a check on unreasonable legislation. The veto was clearly regarded
as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to
preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.


Ok, I have a problem that I thought you guys/gals might know about....

I'm running a 286dx-25 with a 85mb hdd.  I also have windows 3.1, but
hardly any dos application will run out it.  Also, when I do a "mem"
command, it says that I have used up 58kb out of 640kb of conventional
memory, zero from upper level memory, and all 385kb of my ems memory.
And to top it off, I can't load any device drivers into upper memory.
Do I just need more memory?  Also, why would it use up ems memory instead
of upper memory?

Please reply by e-mail only to :  wes1574@tamvenus.tamu.edu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Scrivener                    |    "It's not the first time that you
Texas A&M University              |     sleep with a woman that matters,
College Station, Texas            |     but the first time
email: wes1574@tamvenus.tamu.edu  |     you wake up with her."


Anyone interesting in a mailing list for Harley-Davidson bikes, lifestyle,
politics, H.O.G. and whatever over 310 members from 14 countries make it,
may subscribe by sending a request to:

              harley-request@thinkage.on.ca
          or  uunet.ca!thinkage!harley-request

***
* Your request to join should have a signature or something giving your full
* Email address.  Do not RELY on the header "From:" field being useful to me.
*
* This is not an automated "listserv" facility. Do not expect instant
* gratification.
***

The list is a digest format scheduled for twice a day.

Members of the harley list may obtain back-issues and subject-index
    listings, pictures, etc. via an Email archive server.
Server access is restricted to list subscribers only.
FTP access "real soon".

Other motorcycle related lists i've heard of (not run by me),
   these addresses may or may not be current:

  2-stroke:     2strokes-request@microunity.com
  Dirt:         dirt-request@zygot.ati.com
  European:     listserv@frigg.isc-br.com
  Racing:       race-request@formula1.corp.sun.com
                digest-request@formula1.corp.sun.com
  Short Riding: short-request@smarmy.sun.com
  Wet Leather:  listserv@frigg.isc-br.com


I happen to take the violation of a person much more seriously than the
"violation" of a mindless clump of cells smaller than my thumb.

Your mileage may vary.


Me too! And any Yankee Stadium gifs as well, please.

Thanx in advance,


A few posts back, somebody mentioned that the Duo might crash if it has
the wrong kind (non-self refreshing) of RAM in it.  My Duo crashes
sometimes after sleep, and I am wondering if there is any software which
will tell me whether or not I have the right kind of RAM installed.  I
had thought that the problem was the battery connection.

Thanks in Advance,


The briefing documents for the raid had a notation on them about a
similar local property which had sold for $800,000 prior to the
raid, if recent TV coverage can be believed.

The Ventura County DA came to the same conclusion in the report he
released, which lambasted the Sheriff's Office.

Too bad the old man was nearly blind, and didn't take a few
goose-stepping Drug Warriors (TM) with him.


Archive-name: atheism/logic
Alt-atheism-archive-name: logic
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.4

                       Constructing a Logical Argument

Although there is much argument on Usenet, the general quality of argument
found is poor.  This article attempts to provide a gentle introduction to
logic, in the hope of improving the general level of debate.

Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise
OED].  Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning and determine whether
it is correct or not (valid or invalid).  Of course, one does not need to
study logic in order to reason correctly; nevertheless, a little basic
knowledge of logic is often helpful when constructing or analyzing an
argument.

Note that no claim is being made here about whether logic is universally
applicable.  The matter is very much open for debate.  This document merely
explains how to use logic, given that you have already decided that logic is
the right tool for the job.

Propositions (or statements) are the building blocks of a logical argument. A
proposition is a statement which is either true or false; for example, "It is
raining" or "Today is Tuesday".  Propositions may be either asserted (said to
be true) or denied (said to be false).  Note that this is a technical meaning
of "deny", not the everyday meaning.

The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular
arrangement of words used to express it.  So "God exists" and "There exists a
God" both express the same proposition.

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of
statements to establish a definite proposition".  An argument consists of
three stages.

First of all, the propositions which are necessary for the argument to
continue are stated.  These are called the premises of the argument.  They
are the evidence or reasons for accepting the argument and its conclusions.

Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because",
"since", "obviously" and so on.  (The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with
suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting suspicious
premises.  If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to
question it.  You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when
you've heard the explanation.)

Next, the premises are used to derive further propositions by a process known
as inference.  In inference, one proposition is arrived at on the basis of
one or more other propositions already accepted.  There are various forms of
valid inference.

The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further
inference.  Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or
"therefore".

Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument -- the proposition which
is affirmed on the basis of the premises and inference.  Conclusions are often
indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude"
and so on.  The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference.

For example:

Every event has a cause (premise)
The universe has a beginning (premise)
All beginnings involve an event (premise)
This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference)
Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)

Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another
argument.  A proposition can only be called a premise or a conclusion with
respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in isolation.

Sometimes an argument will not follow the order given above; for example,
the conclusions might be stated first and the premises stated
afterwards in support of the conclusion.  This is perfectly valid, if
sometimes a little confusing.

Recognizing an argument is much harder than recognizing premises or
conclusions.  Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever
producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument.  Some
statements look like arguments, but are not.  For example:

"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar,
 or the Son of God."

This is not an argument, it is a conditional statement.  It does not assert
the premises which are necessary to support what appears to be its
conclusion.  (It also suffers from a number of other logical flaws, but we'll
come to those later.)

Another example:

"God created you; therefore do your duty to God."

The phrase "do your duty to God" is not a proposition, since it is neither
true nor false.  Therefore it is not a conclusion, and the sentence is not an
argument.

Finally, causality is important.  Consider a statement of the form "A because
B".  If we're interested in establishing A and B is offered as evidence, the
statement is an argument.  If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then
it is not an argument, it is an explanation.

For example:

"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not
 start." -- This is an argument.

"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine."
 -- This is an explanation.

There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive.  A
deductive argument is one which provides conclusive proof of its conclusions
-- that is, an argument where if the premises are true, the conclusion must
also be true.  A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.  A valid
argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is true.

An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the
truth of the conclusion.  Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid;
however, we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other
arguments, and about how probable their premises are.

There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive
nor inductive.  However, we will concentrate for the moment on deductive
arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.

It is important to note that the fact that a deductive argument is valid does
not imply that its conclusion holds.  This is because of the slightly
counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more
carefully.

Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions.  However, an
argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.
For example:

   All insects have wings (premise)
   Woodlice are insects (premise)
   Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)

Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false.
If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true.
The argument is thus entirely valid.

More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises,
as in:

   All fish live in the sea (premise)
   Dolphins are fish (premise)
   Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)

However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid
inference from true premises.  We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for
implication.

The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion.
"T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.

Premise Conclusion Inference
   A        B        A=>B
----------------------------
   F        F         T      If the premises are false and the inference
   F        T         T      valid, the conclusion can be true or false.

   T        F         F      If the premises are true and the conclusion
                             false, the inference must be invalid.

   T        T         T      If the premises are true and the inference valid,
                             the conclusion must be true.

A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true.  A sound
argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion.  Be careful not to confuse
valid arguments with sound arguments.

To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require
lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy.  It is simpler and probably
more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided when constructing
an argument.  These pitfalls are known as fallacies.

In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs
as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those beliefs.  This is fair
enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of
technically incorrect argument, especially if the argument appears valid or
convincing.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical
argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect
when examined more closely.  By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being
misled by them.  The following list of fallacies is not intended to be
exhaustive.

ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (APPEAL TO FORCE)

The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the
threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion.  It
is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right".
The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.

For example:
"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible.  All those who
refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Argumentum ad hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".

The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying
to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or
people making the assertion.  This is invalid because the truth of an
assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.

For example:
"Atheism is an evil philosophy.  It is practised by Communists and murderers."

Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by
showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer.  This is a valid way of
reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and not
argumentum ad hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's
testimony is false.  To conclude otherwise is to fall victim of the
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (see elsewhere in this list).

The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person
argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an assertion because of
the opponent's particular circumstances.

For example:
"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food.  How can you argue
otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"

This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing
the opponent's argument.

This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion.  For
example:

"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing.
You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's
adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish interests, is
also known as "poisoning the well".

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM

Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance".  This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false.  Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true.  (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)

Examples:
"Of course the Bible is true.  Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist.  Nobody has
shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is
generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce
certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can
validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.  For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water
to be present on the earth.  The earth does not have a tenth as much water,
even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles.  Therefore no
such flood occurred."

In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has
not occurred.  We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred,
however.

ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading.  The fallacy is
committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a
conclusion accepted.  For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe.  Please don't find me
guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM

This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People.  To
commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by
appealing to a large group of people.  This form of fallacy is often
characterized by emotive language.  For example:

"Pornography must be banned.  It is violence against women."

"The Bible must be true.  Millions of people know that it is.  Are you trying
to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"

ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum.  It consists of
asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more
likely it is that that proposition is correct.

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM

The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win
support for an assertion.  For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference
to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a
discussion of that subject.  For example, we can distinguish quite clearly
between:

"Stephen Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and
"John Searle has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent
 computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black
hole radiation to be informed.  Searle is a linguist, so it is questionable
whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT

The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a
particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is
inapplicable.  It is the error made when one goes from the general to the
specific.  For example:

"Christians generally dislike atheists.  You are a Christian, so you must
dislike atheists."

This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide
every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general rules.

CONVERSE ACCIDENT / HASTY GENERALIZATION

This fallacy is the reverse of the fallacy of accident.  It occurs when one
forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not
representative of all possible cases.

For example:
"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian.  Therefore all Christians are
insincere."

SWEEPING GENERALIZATION / DICTO SIMPLICITER

A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a
particular situation in which the features of that particular situation
render the rule inapplicable.  A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a
hasty generalization.

NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA / POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

These are known as False Cause fallacies.

The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the
cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause.  For
example:

"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared.  So God
cured me of the headache."

The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to
be the cause of an event merely because it happened before the event.  For
example:

"The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism.  Therefore we must avoid
atheism for the same reasons."

CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc.  It asserts that
because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and leaves
no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.

PETITIO PRINCIPII

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the
conclusion reached.

CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO

This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one
wishes to reach.  Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the
fallacy appears to be a valid argument.  For example:

"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office.  Hence any
government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job.
Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open
to blackmail.  Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government
office."

Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the
conclusion.  An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason
for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees.
Another example is the classic:

"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so.  And we know that the
Bible is true because it is the word of God."

COMPLEX QUESTION / FALLACY OF INTERROGATION

This is the Fallacy of Presupposition.  One example is the classic loaded
question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not
even been asked.  This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination,
when they ask questions like:

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:

"How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?"
or
"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"

IGNORATIO ELENCHI

The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument
supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do
with that conclusion.

For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the
teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true.  If he then argues at length
that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he
argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.

Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse
emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more
favourable light.

EQUIVOCATION

Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different
meanings in the same argument.  For example:

"What could be more affordable than free software?  But to make sure that it
remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a
license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."

AMPHIBOLY

Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because
of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.

ACCENT

Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning.  In this case,
the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are
emphasized.  For example, consider:

"We should not speak ILL of our friends"
and
"We should not speak ill of our FRIENDS"

FALLACIES OF COMPOSITION

One fallacy of composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts
of something must apply to the whole.  For example:

"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very
lightweight."

The other fallacy of composition is to conclude that a property of a number
of individual items is shared by a collection of those items.  For example:

"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus.  Therefore cars
are less environmentally damaging than buses."

FALLACY OF DIVISION

The fallacy of division is the opposite of the fallacy of composition.  Like
its opposite, it exists in two varieties.  The first is to assume that a
property of some thing must apply to its parts.  For example:

"You are studying at a rich college.  Therefore you must be rich."

The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by
each item.  For example:

"Ants can destroy a tree.  Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful
events.  There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the
first event.

For example:
"If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin
and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare.  Therefore we cannot
legalize marijuana."

"A IS BASED ON B" FALLACIES / "IS A TYPE OF" FALLACIES

These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way
similar without actually specifying in what way they are similar.

Examples:
"Isn't history based upon faith?  If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of
history?"

"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a
form of Christianity?"

"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of
animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"

AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A
is true".  To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for
implication given earlier.

DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B
is false".  Again, the truth table for implication makes it clear why this is
a fallacy.

Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa; the latter has
the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does NOT in
fact imply B at all.  Here, the problem is not that the implication is
invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce
anything about B.

CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL

This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".

ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM

This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply
because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been."

ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM

This is the opposite of the argumentum ad antiquitam; it is the fallacy of
asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer
than something else.

ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM

The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those
with more money are more likely to be right.

ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM

The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or
more virtuous than one who is wealthier.  This fallacy is the opposite of the
argumentum ad crumenam.

ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the
more often it is heard.  An "argumentum ad nauseum" is one that employs
constant repetition in asserting something.

BIFURCATION

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when
one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other
alternatives exist or can exist.

PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM / MANY QUESTIONS

This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex
question.

NON SEQUITUR

A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises
which are not logically connected with it.

RED HERRING

This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue
being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the
points being made, towards a different conclusion.

REIFICATION / HYPOSTATIZATION

Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad
ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies or questions the assertion being made.  The source of the fallacy is
the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

STRAW MAN

The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it
can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position,
then to conclude that the original position has been demolished.  It is a
fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been
made.

THE EXTENDED ANALOGY

The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general
rule is being argued over.  The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two
different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a
claim that those situations are analogous to each other.

This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about
anti-cryptography legislation:

"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."

"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported
 Martin Luther King."

"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
 struggle for Black liberation?  How dare you!"

TU QUOQUE

This is the famous "you too" fallacy.  It occurs when an action is argued to
be acceptable because the other party has performed it.  For instance:

"You're just being randomly abusive."
"So?  You've been abusive too."


This appeared today in the


The xgolf program was an April Fool's joke <sigh>.


Nice try Deepak, but "tough Whaler squad" should have clued you in to the
fact that my Leaf woofing was tongue-in-cheek.

If playoff hockey is any more intense than the regular season variety then
it is because the teams are facing each other at least 4 consecutive times
in 7 days and hockey being the contact sport that it is, some things will
be carried over that might dissipate during the regular season.  But that is
only for some of the players.  Many of the rest, who have been playing with
injuries, who miss their families, or who, like Grant Fuhr, would really
rather be playing golf, don't really give a damn.  Of course I can't say this
for sure, but I believe that this is fairly typical of human nature and I
don't think that hockey players are above having what I consider typically
human attitudes.

With the recent salary escalations the key players are actually losing
money by participating in the playoffs.  The ones who regard the playoff
"take" as some kind of a bonanza are fringe players who are unlikely
to consistently be a force in the playoffs.  Now I know some of you are
going to come back with "winning spirit" and all of that crap but these
players are professionals after all.  While they may love to play the
game that love is entirely incidental to their purpose, which is, to make
a decent living.

Of course, the coach is a professional as well, and part of what he is
being paid to do is motivate the players.  So, if the coach does his
job well enough the players may respond with a winning effort.

The second season, is after all, merely an exhibition.  The true Champions
of the league are the division winners, the teams that come out on top
after the long struggle of the season.  The Stanley cup playoffs merely
accord victory to the team that has remained healthy and "hot".  The
emphasis on the playoffs, with their "sudden death" appeal has been promoted
by the media and the owners with profit purely in mind.  Even if Pittsburgh
loses the playoffs, we all know that they were really the best team in the
league over the year.  They proved it.

cordially, as always,

rm


:
: >> Please enlighten me.  How is omnipotence contradictory?
:
: >By definition, all that can occur in the universe is governed by the rules
: >of nature. Thus god cannot break them. Anything that god does must be allowed
: >in the rules somewhere. Therefore, omnipotence CANNOT exist! It contradicts
: >the rules of nature.
:
: Obviously, an omnipotent god can change the rules.

When you say, "By definition", what exactly is being defined;
certainly not omnipotence. You seem to be saying that the "rules of
nature" are pre-existant somehow, that they not only define nature but
actually cause it. If that's what you mean I'd like to hear your
further thoughts on the question.


And you know why this is? Because you've conveniently _defined_ a theist as
someone who can do no wrong, and you've _defined_ people who do wrong as
atheists. The above statement is circular (not to mention bigoting), and,
as such, has no value.


I was wondering if anyone had any information about Molluscous contagiosem.
I acquired it, and fortunately got rid of it, but the question still lingers
in my mind: Where did it come from?  The little bit of info that I have
received about it in the past states that it can be transmitted sexually, but
also occurs in small children on the hands, feet and genitalia.

Any information will be greatly appreciated.

"I grow old, I grow old;
I shall wear my trousers rolled."