Congratulations DCP

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Back up your written statement of a "consensus."

You can read. So read.

Confirming, yet again, that you have no back-up for your "consensus" statement. Thank you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Confirming, yet again, that you have no back-up for your "consensus" statement. Thank you.

It confirms nothing of the sort.

There are many good introductory logic textbooks that might help you. The late Irving Copi's has gone through many editions, and is one of the most consistently popular.

[_Mister Scratch]

Back up your written statement of a "consensus."

You can read. So read.

I *did* read the Gee article. It does not come anywhere close to demonstrating that a scholarly "consensus" exists regarding the use of the word "magic." If you have a citation that does, I'd like to see it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There are many good introductory logic textbooks that might help you. The late Irving Copi's has gone through many editions, and is one of the most consistently popular.

I wasn't asking for "introductory logic textbooks." I asked you for your source for your "consensus" statement.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I wasn't asking for "introductory logic textbooks."

I was answering the question you should have asked.

It's a technique that we lying mopologist hacks like to use.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I wasn't asking for "introductory logic textbooks."

I was answering the question you should have asked.

You should have cited the back-up for the "consensus" statement in your 1988 Sunstone review. You didn't. Now, 19 years later, you still refuse to cite the sources for your "consensus" statement. Ergo, you don't have squat, my dear bishop.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You should have cited the back-up for the "consensus" statement in your 1988 Sunstone review.

What part of the concept of two-page book review on multiple topics in a popular magazine is it that so completely eludes your comprehension?

Now, 19 years later, you still refuse to cite the sources for your "consensus" statement. Ergo, you don't have squat, my dear bishop.

I've cited them.

You're welcome, if you can, to read what I and my Borg-like associates have written on the subject. Or, as a labor-saving device, you're welcome to continue to recite your mantra over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

In fact, why don't you give your refrain a number? I think that pi would be appropriate, because it goes on forever without end. You could just say pi! And then again, pi! And then, yet again, pi! And then just pi! pi! pi! pi! pi! Forever. (I actually think that learning to use a library would be easier. But, as the saying goes, de gustibus non est disputandum.)

Incidentally, it's logically fallacious to say that, because X doesn't mention Y, Y doesn't exist. Irving Copi's book would be a good choice. On the other hand, there are several excellent handbooks on the so-called "practical fallacies," and those might be more directly relevant to your problem.

[_asbestosman]

In fact, why don't you give your refrain a number? I think that pi would be appropriate, because it goes on forever without end. You could just say pi! And then again, pi! And then, yet again, pi! And then just pi! pi! pi! pi! pi! Forever.

I disagree. Pi is fun, but aleph 1 would be a better choice as it represents uncountable infinity.

(besides, pi only goes on forever in certain radixes / bases. It is easily represented by a symbol, easily calculated, and does not represent infinity. On the other hand, the irrationality of Pi does seem rather significant to the situation at hand).

[_Mister Scratch]

You should have cited the back-up for the "consensus" statement in your 1988 Sunstone review.

What part of the concept of two-page book review on multiple topics in a popular magazine is it that so completely eludes your comprehension?

Now, 19 years later, you still refuse to cite the sources for your "consensus" statement. Ergo, you don't have squat, my dear bishop.

I've cited them.

Actually, you haven't. You cited a Gee article which you claimed had the real proof that academic commentary on this subject had reached a "consensus." Did Gee's article actually have proof that the consensus had been reached? No. No, it did not.

You're welcome, if you can, to read what I and my Borg-like associates have written on the subject. Or, as a labor-saving device, you're welcome to continue to recite your mantra over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

In fact, why don't you give your refrain a number? I think that pi would be appropriate, because it goes on forever without end. You could just say pi! And then again, pi! And then, yet again, pi! And then just pi! pi! pi! pi! pi! Forever. (I actually think that learning to use a library would be easier. But, as the saying goes, de gustibus non est disputandum.)

Incidentally, it's logically fallacious to say that, because X doesn't mention Y, Y doesn't exist. Irving Copi's book would be a good choice. On the other hand, there are several excellent handbooks on the so-called "practical fallacies," and those might be more directly relevant to your problem.

More jokes. This would be worth of your usual litany of jokes, except that this supposed "consensus" is one of the primary things you've cited in your claim that Mike Quinn's work is "untrustworthy." Since no such consensus actually exists, don't you think you ought to publicly retract your "untrustworthy" accusation?

[_asbestosman]

It does not come anywhere close to demonstrating that a scholarly "consensus" exists regarding the use of the word "magic."

I have no idea about the scholarly use of the word, "magic", but I had heard that it's Greek in origin and essentually refers to priests (mages/magi?) or priesthood originally. Funny how the same word can mean different things over time or in different places.