Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I stated that there are illegal stations on
channel 6 based on my own empirical observations. No. That is what you added and REstated after your first claim was proved bull****. Twist claimed that my statement is "bull****". And you proved it. So if my statement that there are illegal operators on channel 6 is invalid, That was not your claim, although you are very desperate to try and sell it that way. Your claim, whcih you continue to snip, was that all the "evidence" you needed was the reputation of channel as the "dregs of the society" to know they are illegal. Move on, Dave. Your beck-pedal failed. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
How to improve reception | Equipment |