I explained why his analogy is not apt in the previous comment. Repeated here for your convenience. [quote]I'm not prepared to drop $35K in your lap for a product, sight unseen. I am, however, prepared to drop $20 to reserve 2 copies of the Limited Edition disc, and pay the rest when I pick them up. Your analogy is not apt. The risk/reward equation is substantially different in those two cases. It's the difference between buying a $2 lottery ticket and betting $1000 on a hand of poker. I'll buy a lottery ticket from time to time, but unless I have a royal flush (in spades) I'm not risking the money on the card game.[/quote] There's no such thing as a "supposed" logical fallacy; logic is LOGIC or else it is a fallacy. Making a deliberately absurd comparison, such as comparing purchasing a $35,000 car sight unseen to ordering a $60 video game, is such a fallacy. OBVIOUSLY I would not buy a car sight unseen, but it doesn't logically follow that I wouldn't make a substantially lesser purchase on a pre-order; yet the fallacious "logic" assumes that if one would not blindly purchase a car, one shouldn't pre-order a video game either. The comparison does not stand up. And in case you missed it? Jayne of Canton called HIMSELF out for using this Reductio ad Absurdem; so, you're saying he is "pathetic" for having actually named his own logical fallacy, or what?