It's called "Straw Man Rhetoric", Skip...
BeeP's a master of it. It works like this. Rhetorician A, wishing to demean the position of Rhetorician B that A doesn't particularly agree with, creates an absurd argument that our A claims is what B's original point "really "means" or "is reduced to" or some other such sweeping generalization. Then our intrepid A proceeds to attack viciously and with finality that point, hoping against hope that the rest of the audience doesn't notice that the attack in no way diminishes or even addresses the original point made by B.
Recognize anything there, Skip? You should...it describes BeePS argument here to a tee (not to mention a goodly sum of his other "arguments" to date).
