> It touches a matter, but not the matter of the article he thinks he is arguing against. So what? He still can have some good points, which you seem to refuse

> It touches a matter, but not the matter of the article he thinks he is arguing against. So what? He still can have some good points, which you seem to refuse to consider as he "broke" your rule of being strictly consistent. Btw, with your last sentence you clearly put yourself on a side of a policeman.. [edit] I forgot to mention that this 'good intention' vs 'policeman' was about you not the OP. You falsely assumed that I want to attribute everything right to the OP and everything wrong to you, making another fallacy btw. Not at all. I hoped you with your comments want to make it all better and not just be a nazi here. Please also don't underestimate the power of motivation. I personally find Shaw's famous cite intellectually witty but not wise. Motivation is a primary source of what we do.