If your opponents get tired and go home it doesn't mean you've won.

So I stumbled onto this. It angers me in ways that are hard to express. I'm not going to argue his points because he doesn't read my blog so I'd more or less be jacking off. But I am going to critique his style.

1. He sites authority constantly. If an argument is bullshit saying it's a famous person's bullshit doesn't improve the smell. Also I'm no expert in the field but it looks like most of his authorities are of the 'person who wrote a book that agrees with me' variety.
2. It's true because it's true. He characterizes his opponents with six points. His counters range from "It is by universal definition" to "it can't." If you want to take something as given your opponents have to agree not your handpicked third parties.
3. Words don't work that way. While I support making up new words as appropriate (I quite like bioinformatics which he or his people made up) but his "Mathematical theory of communication" (which has no numbers) is a real wallbanger.

Some time I should write up my arguments against the existance of god and see if I can avoid a similar catastrifuck of fallacies.