Of course, you won't really engage me, will you?

Don't look now but we're all bozos on this bus.

the double negative in the last sentence, please.

I'm sorry but I still can't see what was wrong with what Robertson said. Maybe you can help me out here.

First, as far as we know, Haitians did make a pact with Satan; Second, we also know that things have gone badly for that half of the island throughout its history. Robertson made a link between the two things we know to infer something we do not necessarily know empirically.

However, there is much Biblical precedent for making such a linkage, so I tend to consider Christian apologists who dismiss his statement as not being the ones not on solid Biblical grounds rather than Robertson.

I've got laundry to do. Later.

I was using YOUR defintion.

A word of caution.

One first must display a willingness to consider your points before you make them.

Other than for entertainment or mental exercise, it is fruitless to deal seriously with one who is not.

"but there's no rational reason to believe he does."

Or doesn't.

your attempt at illustrating logical fallacy fails.

If I were presenting my point as argument for the validity of Christianity then you might have a case, but since I merely used it to illustrate the irony in your post, it does not fall into the category of a logical fallacy.

Try again.

"There was only one tower mentioned: the tower of Siloam. When people speak of "the towers" here in "Duct-Tape Land," it is most often a reference to 9/11."

Alright, Jack, I'll give you a pass on that one, considering my previous comments on 9/11.

However, you're still missing the point of the Tower of Siloam.