In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article .com>,
> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Pixie Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Your continued snipping of my posts,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ray presented a logical fallacy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Ray did not present a logical fallacy. He did not present a dilemma,
> >>>>>>and the logical fallacy you claim he presented is the fallacy of false
> >>>>>>dilemma.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You, however, have repeatedly presented a lie.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How much time would you like me to spend on this issue, Rudy?
> >>>>
> >>>>No more time than it takes you to admit that you were
> >>>>completely in error. 15-20 seconds should do it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Anyone who can think
> >>
> >>can see that Ray did not posit a false dilemma. So
> >>what's your problem?
> >
> >
> > We can all argue that this one example was or wasn't a logical fallacy
> > for weeks, months and years.
>
> Not rationally, "we" can't: there was no dilemma AT
> ALL, so there could not have been a "false dilemma".
>
> You, being an irrational sophist/faineant, may wish to
> argue.

I have other choices that I am making.