On Apr 24, 2:40*pm, help bot wrote:

* Larry Evans and his ratpack have chronic troubles
with such elementary logic.

* Not only that, the whole issue was a red herring,
intended to divert attention away from the unfairness
of Bobby Fischer's "demands". *The argument runs
something like this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*1) The demands made by BF may have been unfair,
but they were less unfair than X.

*2) FIDE has given X to somebody "we" don't even
like.

*3) So then, giving in to BF's unfair demands was
the correct action for FIDE; they messed up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, they're almost right.

If the premises are true, they support the conclusion:

They messed up even worse than they would have done had they done what
*we* wanted.

Of course, you are right that the conclusion that giving in to no
unfair demands is even better follows forcefully from the premises as
well; but perhaps they also claim that RJF's demands _weren't_ unfair,
at least not really.

John Savard