Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:31:21 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Of course. It's just a bizarre coincidence that every time an article on something from teh internets is deleted as unverifiable, it's always our policies which are wrong, and never the users arguing for the retention of stuff which is discussed exclusively by other people like them.
But you just used the exact same fallacy again. What does it matter what the motive is (which, BTW, you're still only making guesses at) when the argument itself is still sound?
I don't regard the argument as sound. Anything which is verifiable *only* from sources with absolutely no bar to publication is not, in my view, formally verifiable at all.
So please attack the argument, then, instead of bringing up pointless innuendo about people's possible motives for making it.