SRS:

"Tia made no claims of any sort. You're putting your garbled words in her mouth. She posted a lucid description of how rhetoric works and the fallacy of your argument. "

She said
"BB's item 4 is an example of the Post Hoc Fallacy "

I quoted the definition of same. IF she claims my statement as being that fallacy, then the PROOF ststed in HER link applies:

"Proof:
Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that: (i)
the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not
occur, or (ii) that the effect was caused by something other
than the suggested cause."

THUS, my statement:

"So, GUEST Tia, you claim that (i)the US would have withdrawn even without the anti-war protests? seems like they all wasted a lot of time and energy, then. Or is it (ii) Th US withdrew because of some other reason than the anti-war protest? Again, you are stating that the entire anti-war effort was pointless, and had no effect on what happened."


I fail to see where I have made a logical error.Or is there no requirement for her to "prove" what she believes, since you agree with it?