OK then let's look at a concrete example. The other day, we had that thread on Eduardo Galeano and his supposed recantation (too smashed to look up the link right now). I complained that all of the sources quoting him were secondary sources (all referring to the same NYT article), and there was no direct evidence of what he actually said to see if it jived with what the articles were claiming. Rich One in turn accused me of being a Camporista for imputing the source.
In this case, are you saying I was making a straw man argument? If so, I would have to say what you define as straw men arguments are not only valid, but they are about as good of an argument as one can get-- rightfully attacking an opponent's fallacious sources.
