On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:19:28 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:18:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

From: (Dave*Hall)
snip
So which is it? If you are denying my claim

that there are illegal stations on channel 6,

then by simple inverse logic, you are claiming

that there are NO illegal stations on channel 6.

That isn't inverse logic, that's illogic invoked by yourself. Once
again, since you are displaying an uncanny sense of self-cornfusion, the
legality of stations on channel 6 was never the issue. The only issue
was the manner in which you claimed you could tell they were illegal.


That's Dave -- he grabs a logical fallacy that sounds good and won't
let go come hell or high water.

Tell me then Frank, where is the "falacy" in my logic?


I stated that there are illegal stations on channel 6 based on my own
empirical observations.

Twist claimed that my statement is "bull****". So if my statement that
there are illegal operators on channel 6 is invalid, then you are
making the statement that there are no illegal operators on channel 6.

If you are merely objecting to my method of determining the status of
those stations, I would be glad to engage in a technical discussion
with you as to these methods.

Dave
"Sandbagger"




Dave
"Sandbagger"