FC4 or FC5

[Alan M. Evans]

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:07, Sean wrote:

> Please look closer, what I did was lay out a fact.  I didn't make
> any conclusion.  If you think there was an implication of something
> in my statement you're wrong.  It was simply an email to show an
> interesting connection that might be helpful for someone googling
> the thread later to know.   Now which logical fallacy is it that
> you just committed?

It matters not that what you said was factual. You avoided dealing at
all with the content of the argument by pointing out that someone who
might have a part in creating the content could be biased.

Your chain of association is exceptionally weak since Jane Winn (one of
seven listed site contributors) isn't even necessarily the author of the
article in question. Her association with the law firm does not imply
that she is a shill of one of the law firm's founding members. There is
no evidence (at least here) that Preston Gates is using the law firm and
it's (perhaps tenuous) association with the law school at the University
of Washington as a center for propagandizing his son's business
philosophy.

You responded to a well-placed and relevant article by drawing a
convoluted line to someone (Bill Gates) who is undoubtedly biased in his
personal opinions on the subject. You in effect attempted to reduce the
merit of the article by stating that Gates had something to do with it.
What you did not do was to deal with the content of the article. This is
a classic genetic fallacy.

And, by the way, I don't believe that I committed a logical fallacy in
my previous response. If I did, please name it.