4 ms·
I can't disagree more. The first page alone defines what a eurodollar is(n't) in clear terms.
by caminante 5y ago
I can't disagree more. The first page alone defines what a eurodollar is(n't) in clear terms.
- epgui 5y agoI don’t have a problem with the definition. I’m not sure who or what you’re disagreeing with.
- caminante 5y agoYou said > this document is barely coherent. Then say > I don’t have a problem with the definition To a reasonable person, these two statements are not consistent. edit: I just get a feeling that you're relying on logical fallacy [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- epgui 5y agoCoherence: the quality of being logical and consistent. Note that "coherence" and "definition" are two different concepts. Definition may be required, but is not sufficient, to achieve coherence. Also note that the definition of eurodollar is only a small part of the document. I was commenting about the overall document, and never said anything about the definition of eurodollar.
- caminante 5y ago> I was commenting about the overall document, and never said anything about the definition of eurodollar. And what, specifically, was not "logical" or "consistent" in the rest of the article? To my other point, and fundamentally where you're coming from, how is your statement here not guilty of committing an appeal to purity fallacy?[0] > It definitely doesn't have the decorum I'd expect from a serious expert.