BEST article I've read

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Tim C
Let's be clear . . .

Rich is a KING rat!

He is manipulating on an umpire board . . .

Do what y'all want . . . he is a maggot!

Let's make this clear CC . . .

Either you don't want to see the issue . . . or you are fooled.

Rich is a perfect RAT, and he has won!

Tee
[Edited by Tim C on Aug 20th, 2004 at 10:45 PM]

Gosh, Tee: There is no issue. We like him, you hate him. Would you be interested in debating him on this topic? I'm not kidding, now. I think it would make great theater.

(Off the topic: Bush won't be able to hide from Kerry, you know.)

Here's the syllogism we'll work with:

All coaches are rats.
Rich Ives is a coach.
Therefore, Rich Ives is a rat.

Now, the logic there is clear; it is a valid syllogism in that the conclusion flows correctly from the premises.

The minor premise is, a priori, true: Rich Ives is a coach; nobody disputes that.

But the major premise (All coaches are rats) is not self-evident and must be proved. As they would have put it in the subjunctive in the old days, if that premise be true, then Rich Ives IS a rat.

The gauntlet has been thrown.