Re: Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story

He even supports QuackWatch as a result, and everything QuackWatch reports is 100% true as a result.

Patently untrue, I've never said that.

Wow, I didn't think I was going to get you to ever bite.

Which parts of QuackWatch are untrue, then? I mean, when you tell people they should go read QuackWatch to get the truth about alternative medicine, you really aren't suggesting that QuackWatch might not be completely factual, are you?

You don't need to say the exact words, Corinthian. Your actions speak volumes.

QuackWatch couldn't possibly be wrong about any of them

Outright lie

Yes, it is, but when have you ever suggested to anyone that QuackWatch might not be completely factual?

None, not a single one, not possible, they're all saints

False Dilemma, Prejudicial Language

Wow! Seems that Google has served you well, but you're still wrong. If I'm wrong, then I'm simply wrong about this. It isn't a false dilemma. I didn't assert two possible choices, I asserted just one, and it could be either true or false.

Even so, your actions betray you. Or do you mean to imply that you do consider that there are government officials and leaders who could be willing to sacrifice 3,000 Americans in order to gain support for an invasion of Iraq?

Every conspiracy theorist is a complete nutcase, and every government employee, agent, and leader is positively angelic.

False Dilemma/Dichotomy

Likewise, this isn't a false dilemma. It's an assertion (actually, it's two separate assertions, if you break it up properly), which (each) may be true or false.