I personally find the 'Non sequitur' more obvious: "If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them [applications written in C#] too." It's obviously possible to p

I personally find the 'Non sequitur' more obvious: "If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them [applications written in C#] too." It's obviously possible to port C# applications to other programming languages. One example is Tomboy, which was ported to C++ (the port is called gNote). Also, a GNOME developer once tried to port a C# application to Java: His conclusion was, IIRC, that it's rather easy since both languages are very similar. This shows that even if the community looses all free C# implementations, it would not loose all the C# applications. Anyway, what I find more interesting: You seem to say that Stallman usually argues his case properly. I find this hard to believe. Could you show me any important argument made by him that does not rest on a logical fallacy? I'd be deeply grateful.