PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

For the record, I have never disputed Malachias' assertion. What I
have disputed is your assertion that your insults are not "lines of
attack."

It is that simple.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zeOdnZVY3tzPN8ffRVn-jA@comcast.com...

> No, one does not live in an insular world. One cannot create a lawful
> cocoon within a chaotic society and expect it to hold up.

That is simply nonsense. What about family groups, community organizations,
clubs?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113749218.603705.207780@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "Jeff Heikkinen" <no.way@jose.org> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ccb2575132c478d98a110@news.easynews.com...
>>
>> > For what it's worth I suspect the majority view would be MSB's.
>>
>> Although I think the pissing match here has become tedious beyond
> belief, I
>> am on the side of your "majority view".
>>
>> > The workbook being used by the prof I'm currently working for, for
> example
>> > (quick - what fallacy am I committing, given that this is the only
>> > evidence I'll be giving in this post? 🙂,
>>
>> Cute.
>>
>> > says:
>> >
>> > When such a counter-argument is made by means of bringing up some
> fact,
>> > not about the original argument itself, but about the person making
> it,
>> > the counter-argument attacks the person. For such an argument to be
>> > fallacious is for the facts mentioned about the person not to be
>> > relevant to evaluating the person's claim or argument. Such an
> argument
>> > is not fallacious when the facts about the person genuinely *are*
>> > relevant to evaluating the person's claim or argument.
>>
>> This is pretty much exactly the definition of ad hominem I was
> taught.
>
> I must admit, this is much further than I would have gone. I have
> never considered mere insults to be ad hominem fallacies ("by means of
> bringing up some fact") -- I always presumed you needed to actually use
> the facts *as a way to divert attention from the argument*. Doesn't
> the above imply that Bradd's position (an insult is an ad hominem
> attack) is correct?

No, not really. According to the definition above, it has to be the means
by which the counter-argument is made. If a non-fallacious counter-argument
is made, *and* insults are thrown in, provided the insults are not a form of
counter-argument, there is no ad hominem.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QqSdnZuJkOQpMMPfRVn-og@comcast.com...
> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:425dd972.53887632@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:47:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
>> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> You can hamfist a good idea by making it stupid, like ragemonsters.
>> >> Delicacy makes for a more interesting experience, and better
> roleplaying.
>> >
>> >If the berries bring forth the most nastiest monster ever to walk the
> earth
>> >or if it's something innocuously stupid, it's *STILL* hamfisted, because
>> >they have ALWAYS been referred to as BERRIES, not EGGS.
>>
>> So what? A wide variety of things have been misnamed by people who
>> didn't know or didn't care what they really were.
>
> Well, knowing that the DM has control over the world, that qualifies it
> SQUARELY in the hamfisted realm, UNLESS the DM previously set up these
> "berries" to actually be eggs,

Nonsense. A competent GM can improvise without hamfistedness. I have had
mook villains turn into archvillains precisely because said mook luckily
escaped the party through remarkable happenstance, pissing the entire group
off in the process. The *plan* was "just another goblin". The
improvisation was to have him return later, much more powerful than I had
originally written him. He became interesting through chance, and I
followed up on it. The same can be done with items, or anything else.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:115tbvlqpi1r0fc@corp.supernews.com...

> I *do* plan to turn the berries into Rage Monsters at some point. We're
> in the middle of the other DMs adventure, so I can't do much more at this
> point than insert foreshadowings for my upcoming sessions.
>
> Which is perfect. I think step one will be that the Ranger's dog will
> begin sniffing at the barbarian, then bare its teeth. None of the PCs has
> Speak with Animal abilities at this point, but it'll give the message that
> the dog doesn't like something about the barbarian... the berries he's
> carrying.
>
> I will also include a chance to notice that the berries seem slightly
> discolored at this point.
>
> From that point on, if anyone uses a rage berry, I'll increase its
> effectiveness, but decrease its duration.
>
> Stage two, I think, will be a cracked open berry, and a slight sulferous
> odor coming from the pouch in which they are kept. (One has hatched).
>
> I haven't decided what should happen if anyone takes a berry.
>
> Is that still hamfisted? Or, at least, less hamfisted?

It is not at all hamfisted. It looks good.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5tufi.u90.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Well, knowing that the DM has control over the world, that qualifies it
>> SQUARELY in the hamfisted realm, UNLESS the DM previously set up these
>> "berries" to actually be eggs, in which case they could easily be
>> telegraphed as such without the feeling of hamfistedness. Since that is
>> not
>> the case here, HAMFISTED IT IS.
>
> You're just jealous that you didn't think of it.

No, he is just overly-enamored of the word I introduced him to.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i92dndM2SZ8tL8PfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:5mhs51d02pnkrppses8o4888hcbg8uatoj@4ax.com...
>> That aside, you're claiming it's hamfisted of nature if I hand you an
>> egg and tell you it's a rock, and you believe me, and then it hatches
>> into a chicken.
>
> Let's just say that any observant individual could easily detect what's
> going on. See the embryo, etc. But if they look like berries, taste like
> berries, well, they must be berries.
>
> The PC's would undoubtedly have some frame of reference for determining
> what
> is a berry and what is an egg, even relatively obscure and unknown eggs
> would have something in common with each other.

....because, of course, they characters are all xenobiologists/xenobotanists,
and they live in a world where all knowledge in those fields have been
thoroughly explored and categorized.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_OednW1Eqr01tP_fRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> > Sort of. Many arguments have multiple lines of attack. When a line of
> > attack relies on irrelevant personal details rather than reason, that
> > line is logically invalid (ad hominem fallacy).
>
> Sure.
>
> > Essentially, any irrelevant personal detail is ad hominem fallacy.
>
> ...*if* used as part of the "line of attack" of the argument. If it is
> thrown in as an aside to the argument, it is not.

And that is all there is to it. It boggles the mind that this is even
under dispute, given that it can be demonstrated so trivially, YOU HANDSOME
MAN, YOU.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In news:1113695521.263159.118520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> typed:
> The books I can't stand are those with characters who meet all comers
> with an almost bored detachment, as if they've already read their own
> story and know full well they'll come out ahead. IIRC, Eddings is
> guilty of this in some of his stuff.

Although with Eddings, the overabundance of selfconfidance is usually
appropriate in the context of the characters and the story. Demigods
gathering Prophesied Champions to battle a god is a setting that doesn't
really call for doubt when facing a few bandits. Not that Eddings' style
doesn't have it's shortcomings (a large dose of fairytale where no
characters die and things go a bit too smoothly etc.) but IMO the characters
response to challenges is mostly fitting. Bored when underwhelmed but faced
with real threat often enough.

--
T. Koivula

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In news:1113746711.402836.299050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> typed:
> A fair point. I'm not so much talking about the minor challenges, but
> the idea that the protagonist is pretty much destined to win out at
> the end. The Tamuli, in particular, seemed like Eddings was getting
> tired of his own style and just wanted to be done with it. Just my
> impression.

Jup. Eddings does Epic stuff and either likes or can't shake the fairytale
flavor. I agree that Elenium is his most "realistic" work.

Check out the Rivan Codex. It has a chapter of Eddings explaining how he
created the Belgariad and how he writes in general. He puts some of the
kiddie flavor of Belgariad and Malloreon on his editors head and although
that can be seen as exuses, it would explain why Elenium and Tamuli are a
darker and more realistic remake of many of the same themes.

--
T. Koivula

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn chris.spol@gmail.com just
said...

(This may show up as a reply to Mal instead of Chris. If so, I
apologize.)

> > I must admit, this is much further than I would have gone. I have
> > never considered mere insults to be ad hominem fallacies ("by means of
> > bringing up some fact") -- I always presumed you needed to actually use
> > the facts *as a way to divert attention from the argument*. Doesn't
> > the above imply that Bradd's position (an insult is an ad hominem
> > attack) is correct?

I think you may not have read the passage I quoted with sufficient care.
It specifically confines itself to things used as a counter-argument,
thus excluding the case you are bringing up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chipacabra wrote:
> No, Michael's right on this one. The important thing to remember is
> that ad hominem only exists as a fallacy when it is used AS an
> argument, not ALONGSIDE an argument.

That is the very claim I'm disputing. Some sources claim that it's only
ad hominem fallacy if a personal attack replaces all reasoning; others
claim that it's ad hominem fallacy even if the personal attack merely
bolsters the argument (i.e., even when it appears alongside valid
reasoning). My wife is currently taking a critical thinking class, and
her course materials include both definitions.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd65gli.t28.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Chipacabra wrote:
>> No, Michael's right on this one. The important thing to remember is
>> that ad hominem only exists as a fallacy when it is used AS an
>> argument, not ALONGSIDE an argument.
>
> That is the very claim I'm disputing. Some sources claim that it's only
> ad hominem fallacy if a personal attack replaces all reasoning; others
> claim that it's ad hominem fallacy even if the personal attack merely
> bolsters the argument (i.e., even when it appears alongside valid
> reasoning).

You can stretch the latter to include almost anything, though. I do not
believe the personal attack needs to replace *all* reasoning (that is
stretching as well). However, it must be part of the argument, rather than
an insulting aside. Note that I am not claiming Michael is entirely
unambiguous in this regard.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
news:slrnd65gli.t28.bradd+news@szonye.com:

> Chipacabra wrote:
>> No, Michael's right on this one. The important thing to remember is
>> that ad hominem only exists as a fallacy when it is used AS an
>> argument, not ALONGSIDE an argument.
>
> That is the very claim I'm disputing. Some sources claim that it's only
> ad hominem fallacy if a personal attack replaces all reasoning; others
> claim that it's ad hominem fallacy even if the personal attack merely
> bolsters the argument (i.e., even when it appears alongside valid
> reasoning).

It still has to bolster the argument! That's the point you're not
getting. Michael's insults are not replacing his argument, they're not
bolstering his argument. Half of them are just pure vitriol as
punctuation, which is logically neutral, and the other half are
CONCLUSIONS. "You are wrong, therefore you are stupid."

The only argument Michael ever makes that involves personal attacks in
its CONSTRUCTION, and thus needs to be inspected for Ad Hominem Fallacy,
essentially boils down to "You are stupid, therefore you must be mocked."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

MSB wrote:
>>> BULLSHIT. "Many logicians"? You can't find a single one with the
>>> balls to make that claim except yourself, jackass ....

Bradd wrote:
>> I quoted an encyclopedia that makes the claim. Jeff Heikkinen, who
>> teaches the subject, backed it up. You're out of your league.

Chipacabra wrote:
> Uh, Jeff sided with Michael.

No, he stated that expert definitions differ, which was /my/ claim.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

MSB wrote:
>>> It's very simple.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>> You are a moron.
>>>
>>> The second sentence there is not a logical fallacy.
>>> I *dare* you to prove otherwise.

Bradd wrote:
>> First: What a poor dodge. You dared me to produce evidence, and I did.
>>
>> Second: The second sentence /is/ a fallacy, specifically ad hominem
>> fallacy, even if it does not invalidate the whole argument.

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> How is that so?

The simple argument quoted above has two lines of attack: one against
the argument, one against the interlocuter. The second line is ad
hominem fallacy, and therefore adds nothing to the argument overall.

If the first line is valid and sound, then the whole argument is valid
and sound -- but the second line of attack is still ad hominem fallacy.
The same would be true if the second line of attack relied on a hasty
generalization, a straw man, or any other logical fallacy.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd65guj.t28.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> MSB wrote:
>>>> It's very simple.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong.
>>>> You are a moron.
>>>>
>>>> The second sentence there is not a logical fallacy.
>>>> I *dare* you to prove otherwise.
>
> Bradd wrote:
>>> First: What a poor dodge. You dared me to produce evidence, and I did.
>>>
>>> Second: The second sentence /is/ a fallacy, specifically ad hominem
>>> fallacy, even if it does not invalidate the whole argument.
>
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> How is that so?
>
> The simple argument quoted above has two lines of attack: one against
> the argument, one against the interlocuter.

I do not see the latter as part of the argument. Rather, it is an
irrelevant aside. I see nothing that indicates it is meant to support the
argument "you are wrong".

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:KaadneH5TqdMQ__fRVn-vg@comcast.com:

>
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd65guj.t28.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>> MSB wrote:
>>>>> It's very simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>> You are a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second sentence there is not a logical fallacy.
>>>>> I *dare* you to prove otherwise.
>>
>> Bradd wrote:
>>>> First: What a poor dodge. You dared me to produce evidence, and I
>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>> Second: The second sentence /is/ a fallacy, specifically ad hominem
>>>> fallacy, even if it does not invalidate the whole argument.
>>
>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> How is that so?
>>
>> The simple argument quoted above has two lines of attack: one against
>> the argument, one against the interlocuter.
>
> I do not see the latter as part of the argument. Rather, it is an
> irrelevant aside. I see nothing that indicates it is meant to support
> the argument "you are wrong".
>

It's either an irrelevant aside or, more likely, it's a conclusion. You
are wrong, therefore you are stupid is definately not an ad hominem
fallacy. That, of course, doesn't immunize it from being a false
conclusion or some other fallacy, but that's another issue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> [Suppose] that you cite five pieces of evidence in support of a
>> claim. One of them turns out to attack the wrong target (a straw
>> man), but the other four are valid and sufficient to establish your
>> claim. The one invalid piece of evidence is /still/ a straw man
>> fallacy, even though it turns out not to matter.

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> That is correct, certainly.

>> The same is true for all fallacies, including ad hominem fallacy.

> This is true as well, provided the fallacy comes in a form like
> "Attack on X, therefore Y."

That includes all statements of the form "X is not credible," unless
credibility is relevant to the argument (i.e., discrediting witnesses).
Such statements always have an implicit consequent: "therefore, you
should not trust X's claims."

> A simple insult, before, after, or during a valid argument, does not
> in and of itself invalidate the argument or otherwise become
> fallacious.

It doesn't invalidate the whole argument so long as there are other
lines of attack. But it does invalidate that particular line of attack,
and is therefore fallacious.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd65has.t28.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
>>> [Suppose] that you cite five pieces of evidence in support of a
>>> claim. One of them turns out to attack the wrong target (a straw
>>> man), but the other four are valid and sufficient to establish your
>>> claim. The one invalid piece of evidence is /still/ a straw man
>>> fallacy, even though it turns out not to matter.
>
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> That is correct, certainly.
>
>>> The same is true for all fallacies, including ad hominem fallacy.
>
>> This is true as well, provided the fallacy comes in a form like
>> "Attack on X, therefore Y."
>
> That includes all statements of the form "X is not credible," unless
> credibility is relevant to the argument (i.e., discrediting witnesses).
> Such statements always have an implicit consequent: "therefore, you
> should not trust X's claims."

I do not agree with your claim of implication. I think the "therefore"
above needs to be explicit.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> For the record, I have never disputed Malachias' assertion. What I
> have disputed is your assertion that your [MSB's] insults are not
> "lines of attack."

Bingo!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> The same is true for all fallacies, including ad hominem fallacy. If you
>> make one good argument and four irrelevant personal attacks, you've
>> committed ad hominem fallacy four times, even if the final argument is
>> valid and sound. Michael "Juicebag" Brown doesn't want to admit that.

MSB wrote:
> Bradd, you are wasting everyone's time here with your fundamental
> conceit that *everything* in a post is somehow part of an argument
> (much less reinforcement of one) ....

Not /everything/ -- just attacks on the interlocutor's credibility.

Define irony:

> Consequently, you are railing at a man of straw.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
>>> (Okay, seriously, the idea is this. "Taking the place of argument"
>>> can mean "no argument is present, only personal attacks". But it can
>>> also mean "serving to distract from the argument", most often from
>>> weaknesses in same. I'm not attached to either usage and thus, not
>>> about to argue that one is right and the other is wrong, but I can
>>> see both as being legitimate.

Bradd wrote:
>> Bingo!

> Uh... that part doesn't really support you OR Michael, Bradd ....

My claim was that many experts favor the second definition, not that all
of them do. I personally favor it because then it works the same way as
all other fallacies. If you attack a straw man, it invalidates that line
of attack, but the overall argument may still be valid if you have other
lines of attack. Likewise, if you attack irrelevant personal details, it
invalidates that part of the argument, but not necessarily the whole
thing.

> For what it's worth I suspect the majority view would be MSB's.

If you're referring to the view that a personal attack does not
necessarily invalidate an argument, then I suspect that any competent
expert would agree, as do I. However, that is not the claim I am
disputing.

Instead, I claim that any part of an argument that relies on an
irrelevant personal attack is invalid. Whether you want to call that "ad
hominem fallacy" or "red herring" or something else, it's still a
fallacy -- a rose by any other name still fails to support the argument.

MSB clearly feels that it's fine to attack irrelevant personal details,
so long as the rest of his argument is sound. I claim that doing so is
poor rhetoric. MSB also claims that the irrelevant personal details are
not fallacies. I insist that this claim is not only intellectually
dishonest, but that it's also the variety of dishonesty that smells like
lemon juice.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd65ia1.t28.bradd+news@szonye.com...

> MSB clearly feels that it's fine to attack irrelevant personal details,
> so long as the rest of his argument is sound. I claim that doing so is
> poor rhetoric.

That is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. However, I fail to see the need
to manufacture a fallacy out of said rhetoric.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> If your ARGUMENTS go to the speaker rather than what he said, then
> this is a fallacy. If you make STATEMENTS about the speaker AND
> address what he says, THERE IS NO FALLACY.

Irrelevant personal attacks carry no logical weight and therefore cannot
support a conclusion. Therefore, they are fallacious premises. You might
convince me that "ad hominem fallacy" is the wrong name for that brand
of illogic, but it's a fallacy nonetheless.

At the very least, you're guilty of introducing prejudicial red herrings
into your arguments. That's poor form. Furthermore, your insistence that
they are not fallacious is intellectually dishonest. At best, it's
intellectual dishonesty of the self-deluding kind.

Tell us, are you a scumbag, or just a juicebag?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd