> I was commenting about the overall document, and never said anything about the definition of eurodollar. And what, specifically, was not "logical" or "consis

> 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.