Talk:Strawman theory/Archive1

Note
Note, we have a Straw man as well. --En attendant Godot 14:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted in the lead Ydam (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nods. I added a disambiguation like thingy at the top, so it stands out more. Good article, had no idea about all this stuff.  I just thought it was a few kooks with no argument. (not that i think this is a valid argument, but it's at least something besides what i thought was just "hell no i'm not paying, so there".  ;-)--[[Image:sun mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

citations?-- 15:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Altered name bit
"No defence which relied on a misspelt or slightly altered name has ever been recognised by the courts—neither, we hope, would any sane person presume that they would."

Not true. See this - search for "not guilty, legally" in the text. Not a great source, but it's the best I can find online. I'd read this on dead trees which was why I tried to find a ref. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think in 'certain courts of the Dark Ages and Middle Ages' exact descriptions were necessary for legal actions' - so 'X's billy goat ate my crops' would fail if X's goat was a jenny goat.

Surely the best way of dealing with the proponents is 'reversing the polarity' - so they become the butt of the strawman activity. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)