Re: Perth Group reasoning 12 March 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Murali Mohan C.G.,

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Perth Group reasoning

On 2nd March 2004,Peter Flegg wrote, "..As an example of a non- sequitur, this statement takes some beating. I have seldom seen such a good example of circuitous logic."

The logic used by the Perth group is flawless in this context with respect to their assertions about the Rakai project team report and the Padian study. There is absolutely no circuitous logic involved in the Perth group's reasoning that I could see here.

This only means that either,

-Peter Flegg does not know what circuitous logic is supposed to mean , or,

- He is deliberately and wrongly accusing the Perth group of something they are not guilty of , i.e., using circuitous logic to prove a point.

Competing interests: None declared