[Vision2020] Logic according to Joe Campbell who teaches logic for a living

[No Weatherman]

PREMISE:
Joe Campbell has not read "a single one" of No Weatherman's posts.

Premise Established:

"Dr. No. . . . I didn't really read the whole post."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-September/056676.html

"I have not read a single one of your posts. . ."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-September/056713.html

"I'm not reading this but . . . ."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/056910.html

". . . . I am not reading Dr. No's posts . . . . And since I'm not
reading Dr. No's posts . . . ."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/056949.html

THEREFORE:
Conclusion A:

1.	Joe affirms "it is hard for [him] to tell whether [No Weatherman]
is merely lacking in critical thinking skills, deliberately lying and
misleading, or merely psychotic."
2.	Joe affirms that No Weatherman's name is Chris.
3.	Joe affirms that No Weatherman is a "combination of the three." (???)
4.	Joe affirms he does not know No Weatherman's identity "for certain."
5.	Joe is "pretty damn sure about the church to which [No Weatherman]
is affiliated"

Proof A:
"Dr. No. . . . It is hard for me to tell whether you are merely
lacking in critical thinking skills, deliberately lying and
misleading, or merely psychotic. Although I don't know who you are,
Chris, if you are who I think you are, my guess is a combination of
the three. . . . For even if I don't know who you are for certain, I'm
pretty damn sure about the church to which you are affiliated."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-September/056684.html

THEREFORE:
Conclusion B:

Joe knows that No Weatherman posted a cartoon to the Courtney blog.

Proof B:

"What got under my skin was the cartoon you posted on the Courtney blog."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-September/056713.html

"I'm not sure what to say about No Wetherman's bad joke on the Courtney blog."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/056910.html


THEREFORE:
Conclusion C:
Joe and many others know the identity of No Weatherman.

Proof C:
"Just because you don't use your name, Dr. No, it does not mean that
many of us do not know who you are."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/056910.html


THEREFORE:
Conclusion D:
No Weatherman is "a narrow-minded bigot."

Proof D:
"He strikes me as a narrow-minded bigot."
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057002.html


THEREFORE:
Conclusion E:
No Weatherman's judgments about consistency are worth a whole lot.

Proof E:

"Sorry but given your inability to determine what is and is not a
fallacy, I don't think your judgments about consistency are worth a
whole lot!"
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057061.html

THEREFORE:
Conclusion F:

1.	No Weatherman's name is "Doug."
2.	Joe has addressed "all" of No Weatherman's posts.
3.	Joe has responded to No Weatherman's first post "time and time again."
4.	No Weatherman is a Neo-Nazi.

Proof F:
"Dear No Weatherman. . . .

"Can I call you Doug? . . . So I'll call you 'Doug.' . . . Doug,
you've used my name on several occasions to say that I've been evading
your posts. But I'm not evading them, in fact, I've addressed all of
them. All of your posts have been examples of ad hominem arguments —
most have been examples of guilty by association, a species of the ad
hominem fallacy. You say, in particular, that you would like me and
others to just continue the thread of your first post — yet your first
post was responded to, time an time again. It was an instance of the
ad hominem fallacy. Now I understand that you have a difficult time
recognizing the difference between arguments and non-arguments,
between fallacies and good arguments. . . . In short, why on earth do
we have to put up with this Neo-Nazi crap, and when will we get a grip
about what is going on and note that you and your Neo-Nazi friends
should take a hike? When will we figure out how to deal with this crap
that Neo-Nazi's like you, Doug, are throwing out?"
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057801.html

THEREFORE:
Conclusion G:

These facts are true because Joe Campbell teaches logic.

Proof G:
"I just teach logic for a living!"
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057061.html