Clary,
I doubt whether you will get a direct answer from jofjonesboro as to your question about a book. He seems to be avoiding the question.
It's been a while, but back when I was a student, Copi and Cohen was a classic introductory textbook for logic. It discussed syllogisms, fallacies, etc. - the elements of logic.

Clary was trying to be sarcastic and not doing a very good job.

You're one of anymouse's sockpuppets, aren't you?



jj

JJ, you are so naive! (and with 12 years of experience!) Well, it's a source of amusement anyway!

And it's 'jj' not 'JJ'.



jj

No, you're mistaken in your assumption that I'm a sockpuppet for anymouse. I'm just a lurker who occasionally posts on the board.

anymouse likes the word "assumption" too.

As I've said previously, you can change your user ID but not your writing style.



jj

In another thread you thought I was a web-host or web-promoter or some such thing, which is not true. Now, in this thread you think I'm anymouse, which is not true. You do like to leap to conclusions with very little evidence to back them up.

I'm just someone who sometimes points out that a poster on a particular thread is not being responsive to a question, or has not supported an opinion or assumption with well-researched information.

You often choose to avoid substantiating your opinions/assumptions with credible facts or information, by trying to attack the challenger instead. Note, however, that attacking a challenger does not provide support for a poorly researched statement. You might distract a few people along the way, but the opinion will still remains as it was - poorly supported.

What you actually do is ignore statements to which you have no rejoinder and try to cherry-pick statements to dispute.

Please point out the "poorly researched statement" that I have made.

I made it clear that my statements on the subject of pro/am are based on personal experience. If you wish to counter that proposition then you would need to provide either contrary examples or proof that I'm lying about my experiences.

As for "well-researched" topics, please show me any published research which documents the efficacy of instruction in a pro/am situation in comparison to that of teaching amateur couples.

When you can demonstrate that such research exists and that it refutes my claims and that I wilfully ignored that research then you will have a complaint.

As for the evidence of your identity, it's in your writing style as I pointed out.



jj

Your most recent poorly researched statement is that I am anymouse. I am not anymouse.
(Just because someone paints in Rembrandt's style, doesn't make them Rembrandt.)

And, just because no one bothers to present evidence to "prove" your statements wrong, doesn't mean that your statement can't be wrong anyway.

You made the claim that I have made "poorly researched" arguments but cannot substantiate that claim.

My statement may indeed be wrong but you have failed to show that it is. Beause you have "challenged" the integrity of my position, it is incumbent upon you to back up your own argument.

If one team in a formal debate simply takes the podium and claims that their opponents'statements may be wrong without providing reasonable evidence to that effect then they're going to lose that round.



jj