Comments on: Randi, skepchicks, Skepticality, and me

By: Shawn S.

Shawn S. — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:08:29 +0000

Good one, ioresult.

“BA is well documented in claiming the Bad dog exists, but he also claimed that the Bad dog can fly, so the Bad dog obviously is fake.”

Strawman?

By: Graham Douglas

Graham Douglas — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:36:53 +0000

Mmmmm, randy skepchicks…

What? Sorry, don’t know what came over me, there.

I think I need a lie-down.

By: kingnor

kingnor — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:17:51 +0000

Bad Dogs are charactaristically occompanied by a rolled up news paper. No rolled up newspaper makes me think that Phil is IN FACT in possession of a Good Dog and this bad dog talk is just a cover up for his agenda.

By: ioresult

ioresult — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:54:23 +0000

I’d incline more towards the wishful thinking fallacy, Tukla. I’m not misrepresenting an argument from BA, I’m just wishing for a conclusion because the alternative scares me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:20:23 +0000

Good thing the Bad Dog isn’t in Thailand. He’s just be on a barbeque stick,,,

OHHH, Bad, BAAAAD, GAry 7!!!

Gary 7

By: Tukla in Iowa

Tukla in Iowa — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:33:19 +0000

I think that’s a strawman, ioresult, because it misrepresents the opponent’s position.

By: Sticks

Sticks — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:19:22 +0000

Any chance you could have an Amazing meeting over here in the UK.

Speaking as someone from the faith world, I value the skeptics because they keep us straight.