Unread

I initially didn't want to share publicly, my thoughts, because there's obviously some members here who have yet to forgive Michael. I will be the first to admit, it took me a while too.

I still don't completely understand it, but I accept it and I forgive him.

I could only hope for the same.

When I OP'd this, my train of thought was simply this....he had pressure from some Alpha Beta Central federal agency to turn over information by X date. ...and couldn't tell anyone.

He refused and scattered the members of the ARK, for our own sakes and his own conscience.

Just a theory.

Am I crazy? It was 'out of character' for him. What else would cause this?

First of all I wasn't intending to "come after" either of you but rather to clarify something I feel went unseen.

As for the supposed fallacy, I understood quite well what you were trying to say, but I can see that I was not as clear. I also want to clarify again that I am not agreeing with circe's premise at all, but intend to demonstrate that her logic is not fallacious. I'm going to go slowly so I can see exactly where I went unclear.

Let me put it in formal logical form:

First a fallacy:
Some A are B,
C is A,
Therefore C is B.

With some nouns this becomes:
Some politicians are bad,
Rand is a politician,
therefore Rand is bad.

Am I correct that this is what you understand circe's argument to be? This argument is totally fallacious, but my point is that this is not the argument circe is using.

Now I will create a valid logical argument:

All A are B,
C is A,
Therefore C is B.

This is a valid logical form. With some nouns it becomes:

All government officials are bad,
Rand is a government official,
therefore Rand is bad.

Even though I disagree with the premise, the form of this argument is correct and hence not fallacious. This seems to me the argument that circe is making. Did I miss something?

for my own post...lol...can 'we' give ourselves a Bump now & then???

This will sink her fo sho!!!!