"William Lane Craig" article - logical fallacy
I saw you reverted my change to the Craig article. The argument that "looks like a logical fallacy" to you is in fact a valid application of modus tollens or "denying the consequent", not an application of the (fallacious) inference pattern affirming the consequent.
I'm not going to revert it or reply again about this. Leave the article in whatever state you like. (Sorry if it's bad form to bring this up here, I'm not familiar with wiki etiquette.)— Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
Please, see 
Iran nuking the United States of America ?
- I don't know what you're talking about. Spud (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Bait and Switch
I'm really interested to hear your reasons for undoing the edit to the Bait and Switch page. Another mod said I should make the suggestions by starting a discussion on the Talk page, so I did. No one came back to me to explain why my example wasn't valid. It seems that people don't like it much, perhaps because they feel implicated, but they can't explain why it isn't an example. So I reasonably concluded that it had passed muster, so I added it again only for a different mod to become challenged and revoke it without explanation. If it helps calm your defensiveness, I am an atheist myself. But this is a valid example of bait and switch, isn't it? Star Gazer (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)