In Reply to: RE: I particularly liked and thought appropriate... posted by theaudiohobby on September 23, 2008 at 01:03:57:
>> you don't see the connection between James Boyk's listening skills and your comments? >>
> Your question does not follow from my comments hence it's a non-sequitur.>
Apparently you don't know what the phrase actually means.
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises ; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said
I suppose you don't understand the idea of threads and that threads contain context and premises for all posts contained within a thread. Or that a thread contains things "previously said."
Or maybe you do understand and are just being intelectually dishonest and you don't want to deal with your previous inferences about Boyk's listening skills.
> At any rate, he admitted to achieving positive results on some DBT which undercuts his comments.>
You never answered the important question. You claim that "Well...the comments attributed to him fly in the face of prevailing evidence."
What specific comments did he make? What is the actual specific "prevailing evidence?"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I particularly liked and thought appropriate... - Analog Scott 09:08:57 09/23/08 (2)
- RE: I particularly liked and thought appropriate... - theaudiohobby 05:34:15 09/24/08 (1)
- It took you a day to come up with that? - Analog Scott 14:03:36 09/24/08 (0)