Editing Talk:1456: On the Moon
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
I assumed Megan was preemting Cueball from making a logical fallacy (a bad analogy a.k.a. [[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/36-appeal-to-the-moon Appeal to the moon]]), by suggesting the only thing that logically follows: that it's possible to land a man on the moon. --[[User:Strindhaug|Strindhaug]] ([[User talk:Strindhaug|talk]]) 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | I assumed Megan was preemting Cueball from making a logical fallacy (a bad analogy a.k.a. [[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/36-appeal-to-the-moon Appeal to the moon]]), by suggesting the only thing that logically follows: that it's possible to land a man on the moon. --[[User:Strindhaug|Strindhaug]] ([[User talk:Strindhaug|talk]]) 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
β | + | == T-38 and F-104 crashes are immaterial. "8:12" ratio is invalid. == | |
There's a major ''apples vs. oranges'' comparison being made here. | There's a major ''apples vs. oranges'' comparison being made here. |