MESSAGE TO PHIL ALLISON

As you see I was not making this up. I really don't have the time or inclination to document all the stuff about him as I don't really care that much. Except I wish he would just go away and leave the human race to get on with life.

The reason why I am responding is to demonstrate one point here of how PA operates. Note I said "does not have a drivers licence" to which he responds " do not drive, but then neither does the Premier of NSW, Bob Carr". Now this makes him sound very important and the point I made trivial

*BUT* the fact is Bob Carr probably does have a driver's licence and his job makes it unnecessary where as PA does not have the licence so therefore *Cannot* drive.

I know this is being pedantic but this is his "Modus Operandi" in all discussions. He will gloss over a *very* important fact to disguise his own opinion as the correct one. Just so everyone is aware when arguing ( sorry when being insulted) with this person.

As a note of interest ask him to post his "10 debating cheats", a fine document on how to win arguments and of course his speciality #10. When he has done this I will show you where he plagiarised it from. At one stage in aus.hi-fi we arguing by numbers, it was like a Chinese take-away on a Friday night :-))

BTW he forgot to add he is also a "Latin Scholar". So to him "Fac ut vivas."

Regards TT "Furnulum pani nolo"

PS for the rest of you see

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:16:00 +1000, snipped-for-privacy@novirus.com.au put finger to keyboard and composed:

Add about 30 years.

Here is Phil's life in Phil's own words:

- Franc Zabkar

--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

"Franc Zabkar"

** There is very little about me in that.

Most of it is about an old school mate of mine.

Try to get your facts right - Frank.

Or I might use the "w" word again !!!

.......... Phil

Well, I thought Phil had made a good come-back and was winning on points, but he threw it away with a return to his usual language. Why can't you learn Phil? You could achieve so much with reasoned coolness.

Phil Allison wrote: (hardly able to contain himself)

winning on points, but

can't you learn

LIAR !!

Get the picture yet? ;-) If you really want to test my factuality post your full name and your town and you will see in the coming weeks can happen.

BTW drop by aus.legal and aus.hi-fi to se how well PA goes.

Cheers TT

Here is the 10 debate cheats by Philip Martin Allison as posted on the net. Read the link at the end to see where it was plagiarised from.

------------------------------------------------------------

----------------

There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating in a discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until the fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:

1. Argue from the particular to the general.

Reason that if a thing is true in a particular example then it is true in general. There may be little similarity between your example and the point in debate but your opponent will have to prove this unless he spots the fallacy. If he does then feign incomprehension.

1. Argue from the general to the particular.

Reason that if a thing is generally true then it must be true in the particular case in question. Refuse to agree that any special circumstances apply to the subject in debate. If your opponent points out the fallacy of generalisations then complain that he is making a generalisation.

1. Beg the question.

Make a statement that can only be true if the debate has already been resolved in your favour, ie use your opinion to prove your opinion. Totally confounds the debate if the fallacy is not spotted by your opponent. If it is, state that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

1. Change the subject.

Done nonchalantly so your opponent doesn't notice this will pull the rug out from under him. If he realises and complains, pretend your new subject is the one under debate.

1. Quote the absent expert.

Declare an absent party to be an expert who supports your case. He possibly isn't an expert or wouldn't in fact support you but your opponent cannot debate this person or yourself on the point since he is not available.

1. Argue from a position of ignorance.

This is a powerful technique that operates on the principle that ignorance is knowledge. It works like this, because you don't know a certain proposition is false then you are entitled to presume it is true. Almost anything you like can be "proved" with this technique.

1. Produce a straw man.

Propose an example or analogy to the debate that has an obvious outcome in your favour, ie a "straw man" that can easily be knocked down. The analogy can be highly flawed but your opponent may be trapped into proving the straw man has no weight.

1. Make opinions into facts.

Claim anything you like is a fact, provide no supporting evidence or arguement and pretend that your opponent must disprove it immediately or else agree it is true. Also be sure to ignore his facts no matter how well supported. This will test his patience sorely and may cause him to make errors.

1. Produce a red herring.

Make a statement of known fact that appears to be relevant and has the potential to confuse the issue. An effective red herring relies on your opponent's failure to realise that it is not relevant to the debate. If he does, then accuse him of ignoring the facts.

1. Insult your opponent.

If all else fails, your opponent is calm and rational, spots your traps and exposes your fallacies and distractions every time then resort to using sneers, derision and personal jibes. Your opponent may lose his temper and that means you win!

---------------------------------------------------------

Postscript.

It is possible to combine two or more of the above techniques for increased power to prove anything. By combining #1 and #2 you can argue from the particular to the particular, that is use one example to prove something about another unrelated one.

Better still, quote an example only you know about as this makes you the expert. If your opponent falls into the trap of asking questions about the example then you are in a position to say whatever you like.

A proficient cheat employs all the above techniques in every debate. He jumps easily from one fallacy to the next in order to keep his opponent from making any headway. He may not convince his opponent of anything that he is saying but will have the satisfaction of having done most of the talking and kept control over the discussion.

When the opponent becomes annoyed with this "barrage of bullshit" the cheat will call the debate off saying that: "we are just going around in circles" which is of course not only true but was his real aim all along. This is known as having the last word, a form of parting blow or insult. A cheat knows that you never lose a debate that YOU finish!

But most of you aready know all this.

Regards, Phil

____________________________________________________________ __________

see

for the original long version

By the way Phil 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10...... ad nauseum..................