Disproving a mathematical proof
Snit
its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
thread).
--------------------------------
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
> Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
> proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
> refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
> what a refutation feels like.
Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
I said:
"your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
in itself constitutes a valid refutation"
You responded with:
"Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"
So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
... constitutes a valid refutation", then you claim "You stated that your
evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
friend... is what a refutation feels like"
So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
In a different notation, you are claiming:
Lack of proof = Doubt
Doubt = Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
your argument looks like:
A = B
B = C
A <> C
I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my comments
there ... you will need to refute the idea that A = C in the math, above.
And even then, you will have refuted those comments, not the argument in
question."
I did not mean that as a challenge. Let me be clear, you will not be able
to prove that A <> C. It is hilarious to see you try, and it will be just
as fun to watch you try to weasel out of this one.
Please Steve, treat me to more of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit
picking, semantic games, etc. They are really funny, and you keep digging
your hole deeper. And the funniest part is you *seem* to be serious!
>> No argument you make that does not comment on my conclusion or evidence is a
>> real attempt at a refutation, no matter how hard you try to repeatedly spin
>> it in different and self-contradictory ways.
>
> Yup... and I commented on your evidence. Remember? I used the fact that
> it offered 0% proof to refute your legal argument :)
As shown above, your attempt at a refutation is absurd, but *even if* you
refuted my comments about my argument, and even if I denounced my argument
(which I have not), that would not matter. You have yourself so twisted in
your own lack of logic that you are not even commenting on the very thing
you are trying to refute! I must say, even for you this was really off
base, I mean, did you really think you could refute a mathematical proof?
As I said, nothing new, nothing resembling a refutation of my argument,
nothing worthy in any meaningful way of comment, but, damn, this was fun.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
> its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
> thread).
>
> --------------------------------
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
>
> > Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
> > proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> > 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
> > refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
> > what a refutation feels like.
>
> Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
>
With the exception of you, it's completely irrelevant what I, or anyone
else has EVER said about your argument or your evidence other than to
refute it by pointing out that, with respect to your evidecne, you
flatly stated "It does not offer proof". Why is this a problem for you?
Because you have an argument that bears the burden of proving it.
Someone is either guilty or he is not. As you are trying to suggest,
there is not a state of limbo in a such an argument. How do we decide
guilt? By looking at the evidence. You start off by having to prove your
argument is true... in other words, by bearing a burden of proof:
"In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example,
in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty
(hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution).
AND
"As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the
affirmative team."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
--------------------------------------------------
We ARE engaged in a debate:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=debate
--------------------------------------------------
AND... the 'affirmative team' mentioned in the above 'debate' quote is
YOU... and that same link(www.nizkor.org) also proves that the only
RELEVANT logical fallacy being engaged in here is yours.
And... once again... below, is where you said your evidence "does not
offer proof":
***********************************************************************
Steve Carroll wrote:
"Your argument asserted that a sitting President is a war criminal. You
agreed (a few paragraphs above) that the evidence you used to support
this was 'based on legalities' (based on the breaking, or not, of a
law)."
To which Snit answered:
"Yes. Very good."
Steve Carroll wrote:
"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this
assertion."
To which Snit answered:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=evidence+%2B+argument+insubject:Scary+i
nsubject:Article+author:Snit&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=BBFBA53B.34
A2D%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=9&filter=0
***********************************************************************
You now have two logical courses of action and one illogical, irrelevant
course:
1 - show why your argument does not bear the burden of proof:
"As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the
affirmative team."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
OR
2 - admit that your argument has been refuted on the grouds you told us
your evidence "does not offer proof".
OR
3 - You can do what you are doing, that is... continue displaying you
have little understanding how a logical argument is conducted by
addressing everything OTHER than the substance that refuted your
argument.
You have chosen course 3 for the simple reason that you CANNOT logically
address course 1 and you WILL NOT engage in course 2. Unfortunately, for
you, you are unable to effectively hide these facts.
Something extremely basic you are overlooking here, and I believe is the
source of your confusion, is the fact that the only thing that makes
this YOUR argument,(and YOUR challenge to refute it) is the fact that
YOU argued it. Why is this important? Simple. A COMPETENT person would
not have made the logical mistakes you made during the process of
arguing the very same evidence YOU presented. IOW, your evidence MAY, in
fact, offer proof that Bush is guilty of what you claimed in your
argument, but it did NOT offer proof of that claim as presented by YOU.
That's why YOUR argument, utilizing this same evidence, has been
refuted. I know... it's a tough pill to swallow and that's why you're SO
pissed off. I can't say I blame you but belaboring this obvious fact
doesn't do much for your credibility to conduct logical arguments in a
forum that is designed to do just that. How you claim to be having 'fun'
during these facts are beyond me ;-)
Steve
Snit
> In article <BC22BFDC.398D4%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
>> its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
>> thread).
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
>>
>>> Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
>>> proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
>>> 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
>>> refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
>>> what a refutation feels like.
>>
>> Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
>>
> With the exception of you, it's completely irrelevant what I, or anyone
> else has EVER said about your argument or your evidence other than to
> refute it by pointing out that, with respect to your evidecne, you
> flatly stated "It does not offer proof". Why is this a problem for you?
This is funny, too, though not as funny as your disproof of mathematics:
I said:
"your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
in itself constitutes a valid refutation"
You responded with:
"Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"
Now you are arguing for what you were previously calling my straw man!
Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?
Anyway, back to the point of this thread (which you completely snipped) your
attempt to disprove mathematical proofs...
Come on Steve, in retrospect do you not find it the least bit funny that you
misunderstood my example, took it as a challenge, and tried to prove that if
A = B and B = C then A <> C. (Or did you attempt the mathematical disproof
for another reason?)
Here is your argument (since you snipped it) for your disproof of a
mathematical proof. Now tell me this is not funny.
******
So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
... constitutes a valid refutation", then you claim "You stated that your
evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
friend... is what a refutation feels like"
So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
In a different notation, you are claiming:
Lack of proof = Doubt
Doubt = Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
your argument looks like:
A = B
B = C
A <> C
*****
Come on now, tell me Steve, isn't your pretzel logic funny, even to you.
Your response in this post to simply argue for what you previously called my
straw man pales in comparison, don't you think?
Steve Carroll
Note that I am answering this post the second time for the express
purpose of pointing out that Snit does not comprehend what he reads.
Also, in evidence is the fact that none of what he has written here
attempts to knock down my refutation of his argument... it's all a giant
smokescreen designed to make the presenter of the refutation look bad.
As we have all seen too many times, this is a pretty common device when
one realizes all hope for his argument is lost. That he chose to do it
in a new thread,(after agreeing with me to stick to one thread for this
stupid argument) illuminates this better than anything I could ever do.
> It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
> its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
> thread).
Who made the suggestion? Sigmond?
> --------------------------------
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
>
> > Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
> > proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> > 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
> > refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
> > what a refutation feels like.
>
> Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
Yeah... as it was only your strawman and wasn't relevant to refuting
your argument... I snipped it. I figured you've been given enough fuel
for your insanity joyride. I don't think anyone on the NG would disagree.
> I said:
> "your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
> proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
> in itself constitutes a valid refutation"
>
> You responded with:
> "Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"
>
> So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
> ... constitutes a valid refutation"
Of course I disagreed, that was your strawman. What? You thought I
didn't recognize it as a strawman?
> , then you claim "You stated that your
> evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
> friend... is what a refutation feels like"
Yup... and I still contend that you stated that your evidence offered 0%
proof, thereby, giving MORE than reasonable doubt,(all that's required
to refute your argument) it gives 100% doubt.
> So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
> but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
date :) As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
still mean that 99.999% proof exists. That's *WHY* I pointed out that
you had 0% proof... so you wouldn't get confused over this... but you
did anyway!!! LOL! I think you're broken again... :)
Snit's newest lumpit:
A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof
I will say that it APPEARS you aren't even aware you created a
strawman... it MAY have happened by accident when you applied 'lumpit
logic'. Because of this, I forgive you, but... even though I was taught
to be compassionate to those that have mental deficiencies, I can't help
but feel you deserve much of what you are getting right now.
> In a different notation, you are claiming:
>
> Lack of proof = Doubt
> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>
> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
> your argument looks like:
>
> A = B
> B = C
> A <> C
>
> I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my comments
> there ... you will need to refute the idea that A = C in the math, above.
> And even then, you will have refuted those comments, not the argument in
> question."
Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
> I did not mean that as a challenge. Let me be clear, you will not be able
> to prove that A <> C. It is hilarious to see you try, and it will be just
> as fun to watch you try to weasel out of this one.
Boing!!!! Oops... your mainspring just flew across the floor of your
cell(padded, of course). As I've just shown, your analysis doesn't fit
what you claim for MY position and it uses a generous dose of lumpit
logic in its creation. It only fits your 'lumpit logic' strawman, argued
on my behalf. At this point, I'd be more shocked if you DIDN'T come at
me with a feeble strawman. But keep trying... I'm sure your strawman
will improve over time... they just suck right now:)
> Please Steve, treat me to more of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit
> picking, semantic games, etc. They are really funny, and you keep digging
> your hole deeper. And the funniest part is you *seem* to be serious!
Yeah... I have a really deep hole I'm working on. If it wasn't in your
head... you might just be able to see it.
> >> No argument you make that does not comment on my conclusion or evidence is
> >> a
> >> real attempt at a refutation, no matter how hard you try to repeatedly
> >> spin
> >> it in different and self-contradictory ways.
> >
> > Yup... and I commented on your evidence. Remember? I used the fact that
> > it offered 0% proof to refute your legal argument :)
>
> As shown above, your attempt at a refutation is absurd,
Only if one cannot comprehend what one reads... and you pass that test
with flying colors.
> but *even if* you
> refuted my comments about my argument, and even if I denounced my argument
> (which I have not), that would not matter. You have yourself so twisted in
> your own lack of logic that you are not even commenting on the very thing
> you are trying to refute! I must say, even for you this was really off
> base, I mean, did you really think you could refute a mathematical proof?
Uh... sure, Snit... whatever you say (shaking head in TOTAL disbelief)
> As I said, nothing new, nothing resembling a refutation of my argument,
> nothing worthy in any meaningful way of comment, but, damn, this was fun.
Glad you enjoyed yourself... from what I'm told, masochists usually do :)
Steve
Elizabot
> In article <BC22BFDC.398D4%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
> Note that I am answering this post the second time for the express
> purpose of pointing out that Snit does not comprehend what he reads.
> Also, in evidence is the fact that none of what he has written here
> attempts to knock down my refutation of his argument... it's all a giant
> smokescreen designed to make the presenter of the refutation look bad.
> As we have all seen too many times, this is a pretty common device when
> one realizes all hope for his argument is lost. That he chose to do it
> in a new thread,(after agreeing with me to stick to one thread for this
> stupid argument) illuminates this better than anything I could ever do.
>
>
>>It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
>>its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
>>thread).
>
>
> Who made the suggestion? Sigmond?
You beat me to it!
I don't believe I have ever seen Snit acknowledge the difference between the
two. Each time you've brought up "100% lack of proof," it seems as though he
reads it to mean "lack of 100% proof." Poor Snit.
The only thing Snit has proven is that *his* gross mischaracterizations of your
argument do not make sense, and that he takes delight in pointing out his own
stupendous, babbling misinformation.
>>Please Steve, treat me to more of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit
>>picking, semantic games, etc. They are really funny, and you keep digging
>>your hole deeper. And the funniest part is you *seem* to be serious!
>
>
> Yeah... I have a really deep hole I'm working on. If it wasn't in your
> head... you might just be able to see it.
>
>
>>>>No argument you make that does not comment on my conclusion or evidence is
>>>>a
>>>>real attempt at a refutation, no matter how hard you try to repeatedly
>>>>spin
>>>>it in different and self-contradictory ways.
>>>
>>>Yup... and I commented on your evidence. Remember? I used the fact that
>>>it offered 0% proof to refute your legal argument :)
>>
>>As shown above, your attempt at a refutation is absurd,
>
>
> Only if one cannot comprehend what one reads... and you pass that test
> with flying colors.
>
>
>>but *even if* you
>>refuted my comments about my argument, and even if I denounced my argument
>>(which I have not), that would not matter. You have yourself so twisted in
>>your own lack of logic that you are not even commenting on the very thing
>>you are trying to refute! I must say, even for you this was really off
>>base, I mean, did you really think you could refute a mathematical proof?
>
>
> Uh... sure, Snit... whatever you say (shaking head in TOTAL disbelief)
Well, Snit needs to learn how to define variables properly. He has jumped way in
advance of his capabilities by attempting proofs.
>>As I said, nothing new, nothing resembling a refutation of my argument,
>>nothing worthy in any meaningful way of comment, but, damn, this was fun.
>
>
> Glad you enjoyed yourself... from what I'm told, masochists usually do :)
>
> Steve
--
Snit: "Really - I have no clue." 1/4/04
Snit
You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my support for my conclusion.
That leaves us with:
My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do nothing but try to
explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical fallacies,
side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
---------------------------
And you did not even comment on how funny your attempt to disprove a
mathematical proof was. All you did was try to flip flip and deny it. Sad.
Nothing new in this post is even funny.
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 10:10 AM:
>> So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
>> but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
>
> Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
> date :) As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
> of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
> deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
> still mean that 99.999% proof exists.
Depends on how you use the word proof. In a mathematical or logical sense,
something is either proven or it is not. You cannot have a partial proof in
that sense.
In an argumentative or legal sense, though, you can; such as "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt".
In which sense do you use the word "proof". Seems you go back and forth to
suite your needs. Care to clarify here?
> That's *WHY* I pointed out that you had 0% proof...
If you mean "proof" as an absolute, then you saying I have 0% proof is
accurate, but shows *nothing*, as it does not refute my support. It just
states that my argument is not proven 100% beyond all theoretical disproofs.
No argument here, but it leaves us at:
My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
--------------
If you mean "proof" in an argumentative, or even legal, sense, then my
argument does have partial "proof", or support. It can be found here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
Nowhere do you even mention my support (or partial proof, if you prefer).
Since you do not even mention my support, no argument here, but it leaves us
at:
My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
>> In a different notation, you are claiming:
>>
>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>
>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
>> your argument looks like:
>>
>> A = B
>> B = C
>> A <> C
>
> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
Which step do you claim is spin?
Elizabot
> You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my conclusion.
> You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my support for my conclusion.
>
> That leaves us with:
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
>
> Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do nothing but try to
> explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical fallacies,
> side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
You make a poor student, Snit.
Find your errors and I will consider changing your grade from a 0.
You can start here. Find your errors. I have already given you hints in a
previous post.
Elizabot
I'm sorry for butting in. I really should let you be teacher on this one. I can
share. ;-)
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
I already told you how you blew it. Why you insist in me rubbing your
nose in your own shit is beyond me. Furthermore, trying to attach simple
math to a legal argument is ridiculous. It doesn't work. Where is the
mathematical representation of your burden of proof? Yeah... it's
non-existent... just like your brain:)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my conclusion.
Translation:
You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my conclusion that I am
willing to recognize.
> You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my support for my conclusion.
I have no need, you have done the work for me.
> That leaves us with:
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
Only in your mind...
> Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do nothing but try to
> explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical fallacies,
> side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
And what of your burden of proof? You seem to never talk about that. Why
is that, Snit? :)
> ---------------------------
>
> And you did not even comment on how funny your attempt to disprove a
> mathematical proof was. All you did was try to flip flip and deny it. Sad.
> Nothing new in this post is even funny.
Deny? Like in 'denying a burden of proof'?
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 10:10 AM:
>
> >> So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a
> >> refutation,
> >> but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
> >
> > Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
> > date :) As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
> > of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
> > deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
> > still mean that 99.999% proof exists.
>
> Depends on how you use the word proof. In a mathematical or logical sense,
> something is either proven or it is not. You cannot have a partial proof in
> that sense.
Irrelevant to the lumpit you used. Anyway, I guess I COULD always go
back to where you pointed out that your evidence offers no proof(0%)
even in a LOGICAL sense:)
Steve Carroll wrote:
"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this
assertion."
To which Snit answered:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=evidence+%2B+argument+insubject:Scary+i
nsubject:Article+author:Snit&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=BBFBA53B.34
A2D%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=9&filter=0
... but personally... I don't find that particular statement all that
logical. LOL!
> In an argumentative or legal sense, though, you can; such as "proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt".
>
> In which sense do you use the word "proof". Seems you go back and forth to
> suite your needs. Care to clarify here?
How can you even tell where I am? You have repeatedly shown you don't
know where YOU are. You've tried to use SO many words in SO many ways
you can't keep track :) BTW... why'd you snip out the newest toy here?
It really was a fine lumpit, you know...
A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof
Yeah... you really understood what you were saying there, didn't you?
> > That's *WHY* I pointed out that you had 0% proof...
>
> If you mean "proof" as an absolute, then you saying I have 0% proof is
> accurate, but shows *nothing*, as it does not refute my support. It just
> states that my argument is not proven 100% beyond all theoretical disproofs.
> No argument here, but it leaves us at:
>
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
Except you STILL fail to address the little matter that the burden of
proof belongs to you. Do you EVER intend on addressing it?
> --------------
>
> If you mean "proof" in an argumentative, or even legal, sense, then my
> argument does have partial "proof", or support. It can be found here:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
>
> Nowhere do you even mention my support (or partial proof, if you prefer).
It's not ANY kind of proof. You made that VERY clear.
> Since you do not even mention my support, no argument here, but it leaves us
> at:
>
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
There's a little thing called the burden of proof that says differently:)
> >> In a different notation, you are claiming:
> >>
> >> Lack of proof = Doubt
> >> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> >> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>
> >> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
> >> C,
> >> your argument looks like:
> >>
> >> A = B
> >> B = C
> >> A <> C
> >
> > Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>
> Which step do you claim is spin?
The step where you refuse to talk about your burden of proof.
Steve
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
And I don't believe he will, he's too embarrassed. It's gotta be tough
on him, ya know... he created a special thread just for the purpose of
making me look foolish and it blew up on him. Now, he just keeps
spinning in place.
I truly wonder if he actually believes the stuff he's spouting or not.
So it would seem...
> >>As I said, nothing new, nothing resembling a refutation of my argument,
> >>nothing worthy in any meaningful way of comment, but, damn, this was fun.
> >
> >
> > Glad you enjoyed yourself... from what I'm told, masochists usually do :)
> >
> > Steve
Steve
Snit
it, you did not even mention that. Here is what you have done:
Level I: Avoided the argument in question (side issues)
You keep trying to refute my comments about my argument, and fail to mention
the argument itself. The closest you have done is to mention the
conclusion, but you fail to show the converse of the conclusion.
In order to have a chance at refuting my argument you need to actually
refute my argument. If you are not going to mention the support in the
argument, then you need to refute the conclusion (that Bush broke US and
International law by using force against Iraq). You have yet to mention why
Bush has not broken the law. [1]
But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
clearly have been. Let us say that you somehow show where you can refute an
argument without commenting on it. Do that, and then we can discuss level
II.
Level II: Use of logical fallacies
You continually jump back to the "Argument from Ignorance" where you assume
if something is not proven then it must be false (or refuted). Your whole
line of "reasoning" is based on this. Nothing more. [2]
But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
clearly have been. Let us say that you somehow show where logically what you
were arguing for was accurate, *without* the use of this or other fallacies.
Do that, and then we can discuss level III.
Level III: Word games. [3]
You mangle language or try to "trick" people into contradicting themselves.
You failed, of course, but you keep trying. And in doing so, you end up
contradicting yourself - repeatedly. I used these contradictions to show
how you were arguing against a mathematical proof. Your "pretzel logic" was
quite funny.
But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
clearly have been. You can show I am wrong by differentiating and defining
the words I show in the footnote. Do that, and stop playing your level I
and II games, and you might have a chance at a refutation.
This leaves us where we have been for a long, long, tiresome, time:
Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument.
You do nothing but try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued
use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games,
etc.).
My argument *still* stands with support and has not been successfully
refuted. [4]
----------------
Ok, back to where I was before - this is getting nowhere. All you will do
is deny deny deny. Much like Elizabot.
If you want to present some sort of argument that does not rely on your III
levels of game playing, let me know. Other than that, do not expect a
response. I tried once to humor you by letting you just ask questions. I
trusted that you would eventually get to an attempt at a refutation. You
did not, instead, you used at least three levels of games. You broke the
trust (which, face it, was a gift even then).
Footnotes:
[1] I think I know your games by now. You will claim: *What, the burden of
proof is on you! I do not need to show this." No, you do not need to show
why my conclusion is faulty *if* you show how my support does not lead to
this. You have not done so. If you want to support *your* argument, the
burden of proof (as in support, not mathematical "proof") is on you!
----
[2] In the following exchange I point out very clearly where you are wrong.
You say it is spin. I ask you which part, and you do not even refer to my
comments! Hmmmm, is this more side issues or poor logic on your part? What
do you think?
>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>>
>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
>>>> C,
>>>> your argument looks like:
>>>>
>>>> A = B
>>>> B = C
>>>> A <> C
>>>
>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>>
>> Which step do you claim is spin?
>
> The step where you refuse to talk about your burden of proof.
----
[3] Words and phrases you have "accidentally" used in different ways or
completely misused, and the ways you have used them include, but are
probably not limited to:
* being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
* an argument AND a statement
* an argument AND a proof
* a judgment AND a adjudication
* a defendant AND a defender
* what an argument is AND what an argument is about
* proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
in a trial)
* an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
* a legal system AND a judicial system
* an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
that can only be categorized as a legal argument
* defense of an argument AND an argument
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
* Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
* an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
* a lack of proof AND a disproof
* evidence AND proof
* an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
system
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
* order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument
----
[4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
decision.
Snit:
It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
Elizabot:
I do not agree with that statement at all.
Snit:
Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
seem to agree to that statement.
Elizabot:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
Snit:
So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
argue with it.
Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> I presented an argument that included a conclusion and support. To refute
> it, you did not even mention that. Here is what you have done:
What you are now calling your 'support', you once called your 'evidence
'. Since I've been continually bringing up the point that you stated
your 'evidence' offered NOTHING in the way of actually proving your
claim, you now only use the word 'support'. Just thought I'd point that
out :) In a LEGAL argument that purports guilt, your 'support' must
prove, beyond reasonable doubt, your claim of guilt. If, what you are
now calling your 'support'. is the exact same material you used to refer
to as your 'evidence'... (and it HAS to be because I KNOW you would
never change anything without telling anyone, right?) then you have
already told us, with respect to proving your argument beyond a
reasonable doubt (the burden an argument like yours DOES bear)... that
your 'support' is no better than what you used to call your 'evidence'.
IOW, it doesn't prove your claim beyond a reasonable doubt either.
>
> Level I: Avoided the argument in question (side issues)
>
> You keep trying to refute my comments about my argument, and fail to mention
> the argument itself. The closest you have done is to mention the
> conclusion, but you fail to show the converse of the conclusion.
So you've said... And here's my tapeloop: You NEVER address it but you
are still faced with that little burden of proving your argument beyond
reasonable doubt. Well, you can't do it when you have told us yourself
that the material you presented with the intention of proving your
claim, in fact, offered NO proof at all. Couple this with the fact that
your argument bears the burden of proof,(a thing you have YET to comment
on) and we have your argument solidly refuted.
> In order to have a chance at refuting my argument you need to actually
> refute my argument.
You're in error here,(wow... who woulda guessed:) Any argument can be
refuted if it isn't presented properly.
> If you are not going to mention the support in the
> argument, then you need to refute the conclusion (that Bush broke US and
> International law by using force against Iraq). You have yet to mention why
> Bush has not broken the law. [1]
And THIS is where you've got it all assbackwards, showing, once again,
that you simply don't understand your position when making an assertion,
especially a guilt assertion in an argument based on the law. When
making such an assertion, YOU bear the burden of proof. I don't have to
mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to mention why he
has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must PROVE
it beyond a reasonable doubt. Like I've said about 8000 times now, you
can't do it when you have told us yourself that the material you
presented with the intention of proving your claim beyond reasonable
doubt, in fact, offered NO proof at all.
> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
> clearly have been.
The only pretending going on here is being done by you. You're
pretending you are still in your argument... reality shows you are not.
You are not even attempting to address the fact that the burden of proof
belongs to you. That is the ONLY logical way you can proceed at this
point. I've instructed you as to this fact over and over, yet, you run
away from it. You run because you know it's the truth. If it wasn't, you
could easily knock it down. You don't come near it and it's obvious as
hell why you don't.
> Let us say that you somehow show where you can refute an
> argument without commenting on it. Do that, and then we can discuss level
> II.
>
>
>
> Level II: Use of logical fallacies
>
> You continually jump back to the "Argument from Ignorance" where you assume
> if something is not proven then it must be false (or refuted). Your whole
> line of "reasoning" is based on this. Nothing more. [2]
>
> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
> clearly have been. Let us say that you somehow show where logically what you
> were arguing for was accurate, *without* the use of this or other fallacies.
> Do that, and then we can discuss level III.
As I have already shown, only the opposing side has the ability to
assert the proposing side is making an Argumentum ad ignorantiam. WHY?
Because the side making the proposition bears the burden of proof in
most any logical argument, but ALWAYS bears it in any argument that
purports guilt based on the law. You are using this fallacy out of
context because you are ignoring that you have the burden of proof.
> Level III: Word games. [3]
>
> You mangle language or try to "trick" people into contradicting themselves.
> You failed, of course, but you keep trying. And in doing so, you end up
> contradicting yourself - repeatedly. I used these contradictions to show
> how you were arguing against a mathematical proof. Your "pretzel logic" was
> quite funny.
>
> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
> clearly have been. You can show I am wrong by differentiating and defining
> the words I show in the footnote. Do that, and stop playing your level I
> and II games, and you might have a chance at a refutation.
YOU are accusing ME of word games? LOL!! I don't think there can be a
larger example of projection. You have sought to redefine almost every
word you have used at some point or other. You have also changed words
out over and over in an attempt to save yourself... it hasn't worked
yet. I don't need a chance at refutation... it has already been
accomplished.
>
> This leaves us where we have been for a long, long, tiresome, time:
>
> Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument.
And that's exactly what you are now choking on, my refutation. You don't
like the WAY I refuted you because it points out how poorly you
presented your argument.
> You do nothing but try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued
> use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games,
> etc.).
More projection. How about that burden of proof issue?... Still won't
touch it, eh? :)
> My argument *still* stands with support and has not been successfully
> refuted. [4]
Keep repeating it... :)
> ----------------
>
> Ok, back to where I was before - this is getting nowhere. All you will do
> is deny deny deny. Much like Elizabot.
I'm not denying anything. I'm still waiting for you to address the
burden of proof issue you keep avoiding. Gee... I wonder why you won't
address it... ;-)
> If you want to present some sort of argument that does not rely on your III
> levels of game playing, let me know. Other than that, do not expect a
> response. I tried once to humor you by letting you just ask questions. I
> trusted that you would eventually get to an attempt at a refutation. You
> did not, instead, you used at least three levels of games. You broke the
> trust (which, face it, was a gift even then).
You talking about trust? You must be joking! LOL! You are engaged in an
endless cycle of spin and project... spin and project...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [1] I think I know your games by now. You will claim: *What, the burden of
> proof is on you! I do not need to show this." No, you do not need to show
> why my conclusion is faulty *if* you show how my support does not lead to
> this. You have not done so. If you want to support *your* argument, the
> burden of proof (as in support, not mathematical "proof") is on you!
Well this certainly doesn't address the fact that the burden of proof is
on the person making the guilt assertion.
> ----
>
> [2] In the following exchange I point out very clearly where you are wrong.
> You say it is spin. I ask you which part, and you do not even refer to my
> comments! Hmmmm, is this more side issues or poor logic on your part? What
> do you think?
Hmmm... this doesn't address the fact that the burden of proof is on the
person making the guilt assertion, either. All it shows is that you
don't understand that your argument bears the burden of proof and you're
TRYING,(unsuccessfully) to project that onto the opposing side. Due to
your inability to understand your position in your own argument, you're
using an argumentum ad ignorantiam out of ignorance(as well as out of
context). Oh... the irony:)
> >>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
> >>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> >>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>>>
> >>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
> >>>> C,
> >>>> your argument looks like:
> >>>>
> >>>> A = B
> >>>> B = C
> >>>> A <> C
> >>>
> >>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
> >>
> >> Which step do you claim is spin?
> >
> > The step where you refuse to talk about your burden of proof.
Still no answer to this? Still not going to address it, I see... :)
Those are all your lumpits, projected onto me. Just like everything else
you are doing, all along the way ... projecting your deficiencies onto
others. You are only bothering with this weak tactic because you cannot
address the actual refutation of your argument and you somehow figure it
will be obscured with this dimestore smokescreen. It may be all you have
left but it's not working... :)
> ----
>
> [4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
> she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
> fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
> decision.
This is just another in a long line of smokescreens that doesn't
actually address the refutation based on the fact that you bear the
burden of proving your argument beyond reasonable doubt.
> Snit:
> It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
> the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
> have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>
> Elizabot:
> I do not agree with that statement at all.
>
> Snit:
> Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
> seem to agree to that statement.
>
> Elizabot:
> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>
> Snit:
> So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
> the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
> accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
> argue with it.
>
> Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
> may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.
Because you have shown it so very often, I think your ability to analyze
is completely riddled with lumpit logic. I would wait for the bot to
respond before I believed a word you say because you are a bold faced
liar who will stop at nothing to save what is left of his face.
Steve
Snit
refutation. Very little in your long list of repeated mistakes interesting,
but a couple points do jump out. Nothing comes close to an attempt at a
refutation, but the following amused me.
-----
> I don't have to mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to mention
> why he has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must PROVE
> it beyond a reasonable doubt.
OK. Here is my evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
Care to actually comment on my argument? Please note that my support has
not changed at all since the start of this silliness. It still is there.
It still is unrefuted, and, in your case, hardly if at all mentioned.
> Like I've said about 8000 times now, you can't do it when you have told us
> yourself that the material you presented with the intention of proving your
> claim beyond reasonable doubt, in fact, offered NO proof at all.
It does not offer proof as in a mathematical proof (and therefore it is not
a proof), but I think it can be clearly stated that it offers proof beyond
any reasonable doubt. See, if you want to create some reasonable doubt for
the argument, you will have to state why you doubt it. The fact that it is
not a mathematical proof does not count. Though, then again, you have tried
to disprove a mathematical proof at least once.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC22BFDC.398D4%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
That was really funny. You failed at that, too, by the way. Look below for
the references - you have yet to even state why you *think* my
representation is incorrect!
------
>>>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
>>>>>> C, your argument looks like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A = B
>>>>>> B = C
>>>>>> A <> C
>>>>>
>>>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
So here you claim that I am spinning the idea that your argument is an
attempt to disprove a mathematical proof. You called it spin, but when I
asked about which step was spin, you failed to state where I am wrong.
Twice now I have asked you about this, and twice you have gone onto side
issues. If my claim is spin, certainly you can tell me where it is wrong.
Can you now, or will you just jump to another issue again?
I would place good money on the idea that you will not point out which step
of mine you see as spin and then comment on why they are spin. Let us see
if my prediction is correct. (You *are* so predictably evasive in defending
yourself and in such deep denial that I would make this bet even knowing you
want me to lose it and could make me lose with by simply explaining what
step you think I am spinning!)
-------------
I have been asking for definitions of these things you keep confusing for a
long time. You have not done so. You will never define these terms - to do
so would show how much you have been playing word games. Plain and simple.
Again, I could make the same type bet as above; and I would just as surely
win.
------
> You talking about trust? You must be joking! LOL! You are engaged in an
> endless cycle of spin and project... spin and project...
Remember it was you who stated: Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna
give a shit about breaking my word to a deviant like yourself... "
You also said "That was why I decided to try and trick you ..." At least
there you noted it was just an attempt, other places you claim to have done
so.
You have stated both that your word means nothing and that you are trying to
"trick" me. You are not trying to use honesty or show integrity, as I am.
Why should I, or anyone really, trust anything you ever say?
-------
I left the rest intact to reduce your chances of saying I snipped something
important, but nowhere below do you even comment on my argument. You yet
again fail to do anything that even comes close to an attempt at a
refutation.
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 7:18 PM:
Elizabot
Wrong, Snit. I disagreed with the statement as a whole. You have made the error
known as the Fallacy of Division. Quit spreading your lies.
Here is your statement broken down into 3 parts.
Snit appears to be right.
There are no clear refutation to Snit's argument.
There is the logical possibility that Snit are wrong.
I have said that I did not agree to the statement AS A WHOLE. That does not mean
that I disagree with each individual part.
You have earned 0 points on this lesson.
> [4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
> she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
> fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
> decision.
>
> Snit:
> It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
> the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
> have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>
> Elizabot:
> I do not agree with that statement at all.
>
> Snit:
> Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
> seem to agree to that statement.
>
> Elizabot:
> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>
> Snit:
> So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
> the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
> accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
> argue with it.
>
> Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
> may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.
>
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
> Wrong, Snit. I disagreed with the statement as a whole. You have made the
> error known as the Fallacy of Division. Quit spreading your lies.
>
> Here is your statement broken down into 3 parts.
>
> Snit appears to be right.
>
> There are no clear refutation to Snit's argument.
>
> There is the logical possibility that Snit are wrong.
>
>
> I have said that I did not agree to the statement AS A WHOLE. That does not
> mean that I disagree with each individual part.
Nice back peddle attempt, but not at all accurate. I presented those three
"parts" of my statement (which, by the way, you messed up on in your
assessment of), you stated in a rather rude tone:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
Now, had you meant that you disagreed with a specific part, you would have
stated so. You did not say that you do not agree with some of its parts,
but you did not agree with the statement "at all".
You are now trying to claim that you agreed with some parts of it, but
disagreed with other.
So which is it? Do you not agree with the statement "at all", or do you
agree with some parts of the statement but not others.
Hmmm, funny how you and Steve make so many mistakes; oh yes, you admitted
you were the same person.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> Well, again you completely fail to mention my argument in your attempt at a
> refutation. Very little in your long list of repeated mistakes interesting,
> but a couple points do jump out. Nothing comes close to an attempt at a
> refutation, but the following amused me.
Sigh... as I've already said many, many times now... I have no need.
> -----
>
> > I don't have to mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to
> > mention
> > why he has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must
> > PROVE
> > it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> OK. Here is my evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
ROTFLMAO!!! Totally unacceptable (but down below, I'll even address the
use of this evidence for this purpose... just to be sporting). Your
website can change from day to day and probably has every damned day.
Your ORIGINAL legal argument is any material you presented prior to the
posting of the following discussion:
A poster wrote:
> and? i said it's *more* about what it can't do, versus what it can't, not
> *exclusively* about what it can't do.
To which Snit replied:
"My point was that the Constitution allows declaring war for the sake of
self defense. The combat in Iraq is neither a war *nor* for self
defense."
>
>> Pre-emptive strikes on other countries for the sake of oil (and
revenge) does
>> not constitute "defense",
The poster continued with:
> yeah, see, there's those unsupported assumptions of yours again. care to
> support that the strike was just for oil and revenge? didn't think so.
______________________________________________________________________
And the very next line, (below), Snit mentions that his evidence for
the SAME argument has been already presented:
"The evidence has been provided in this thread and in other places. If
you have one shred of counter evidence, I would love to hear it. Do
you?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1224108615d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=1
&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=2003&selm=BBF1683F.331B7%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
&rnum=213
It's important to note that when I subsequently asked you to tell me
exactly what your legal argument was, you changed what you HAD been
arguing to the following:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d
&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=3&as_maxm=12&as_maxy
=2003&selm=BBF40FD3.33995%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=221
NOW, you have AGAIN attempted to change your legal argument... to the
content on your website, content that is obviously different than what
you told me it was when I asked you... and WAYYYYYYyyyyyy different
than the content presented prior to that.
IOW... yours is a moving target replete with lies and deceit, just like
I, and many others, have pointed out for over a month now. You are a
disingenuous, bald faced liar and the above attempt proves it, AGAIN:)
> Care to actually comment on my argument? Please note that my support has
> not changed at all since the start of this silliness. It still is there.
> It still is unrefuted, and, in your case, hardly if at all mentioned.
Flip flop...let's get it straight, is it merely 'support' that your
claim he is legally guilty MAY be true... OR is it 'evidence' that your
claim he is legally guilty IS true. TODAY, (which, I suspect will be
different than tomorrow:) directly above your link, you stated the
latter. Realize you will be answering this question under an atmosphere
where your argument bears the burden of proof and you have ALREADY
stated this material,(whatever you are calling it today) offered no
proof of anything, in a legal OR a logical sense,(yes, you've said
both). Of course, you also said it never changed and THAT was a lie,(as
I've just shown up top). NOW, you seem to be asserting that it IS
evidence and that it DOES offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
Bush IS legally guilt of breaking the laws you claim. OR .. wait a
minute... is he only MORALLY guilty of doing all that? No, you
definitely told us that it was in a LEGAL sense that you are making your
claim and that such moral arguments, "don't count". Also, you definitely
said your claim was in a REAL and not a THEORETICAL sense, so your claim
*MUST* be what I just said it was.
What we now have is... along with the fact that you previously stated
the material you ORIGINALLY presented as your 'evidence' offered NO
proof of your ORIGINAL claim, you are NOW claiming that what you
presented (on your website) IS evidence (as opposed to support) and that
it DOES offer proof, in a legal sense, (as opposed to logical, moral or
mathematical sense) beyond reasonable doubt that Bush REALLY (as opposed
to theoretically) *IS* (as opposed to 'is not') legally (as opposed to
logically, morally or mathematically) guilty of breaking the laws you
claim. No question of that. See your problem yet? You still don't get
it, do you? LOL!
> > Like I've said about 8000 times now, you can't do it when you have told us
> > yourself that the material you presented with the intention of proving your
> > claim beyond reasonable doubt, in fact, offered NO proof at all.
>
> It does not offer proof as in a mathematical proof (and therefore it is not
> a proof), but I think it can be clearly stated that it offers proof beyond
> any reasonable doubt. See, if you want to create some reasonable doubt for
> the argument, you will have to state why you doubt it.
Read above. Anyway... no, I don't... because YOU already stated that
you doubted it was proof, in fact, you clearly stated it was NOT proof.
All I need is to refer to your text as support of that. It's a major
misstep in the presentation of your argument. You're still missing it...
coming out the gate, YOU needed to prove something... I didn't need to
disprove anything. You stated your evidence offered no proof. Now, you
are trying to change THAT, too (though it still won't get you anywhere
with respect to what your argument is actually arguing...as I've just
shown above). All you do in spin in any direction you think will keep
you alive. This is just one way I can refute it. If you've been paying
attention, you've just seen that I refuted it another way up above.
> The fact that it is
> not a mathematical proof does not count. Though, then again, you have tried
> to disprove a mathematical proof at least once.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
> =off&selm=BC22BFDC.398D4%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
>
> That was really funny. You failed at that, too, by the way. Look below for
> the references - you have yet to even state why you *think* my
> representation is incorrect!
Actually, what was funny was that your analysis creating your
'mathematical proof' was created on your use of lumpit logic :) That you
are still even mentioning it shows how clueless your are. If I were in
your shoes, I'd never want to see that post again because, it proves,
beyond ALL doubt, that you cannot differentiate between things ordinary
people have no trouble differentiating between. Additionally,(not that
anything NEEDS to added to show how ridiculous your position is) your
'mathematical proof' fails to take into account YOUR burden of proof.
Guess WHY?
I'm sorry, I realize this may seem cruel... but I've just GOT to look at
what caused your inaccuracy again...
A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof
Wow... and you claim to TEACH people things... astounding!
> ------
>
> >>>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
> >>>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> >>>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation"
> >>>>>> =
> >>>>>> C, your argument looks like:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A = B
> >>>>>> B = C
> >>>>>> A <> C
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>
> So here you claim that I am spinning the idea that your argument is an
> attempt to disprove a mathematical proof. You called it spin, but when I
> asked about which step was spin, you failed to state where I am wrong.
> Twice now I have asked you about this, and twice you have gone onto side
> issues. If my claim is spin, certainly you can tell me where it is wrong.
> Can you now, or will you just jump to another issue again?
Same issue. Where is your burden of proof mathematically represented?
> I would place good money on the idea that you will not point out which step
> of mine you see as spin and then comment on why they are spin.
Strawman. Your analysis does not reflect the actual conditions of the
argument and, as I pointed out again... was based on your inability to
distinguish between the following two items:
A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof
It's like a good song... I just can't seem to play it enough :)
Your above list of projected lumpits are irrelevant... which is why you
are attempting to use them... to obscure the fact that you cannot
address the real refutation. You made an argument that purports Bush IS
legally guilty of breaking laws. Reality shows that has not yet been
proven... which is why, depsite your protests to the contrary that your
argument is REAL, I've told you all along, it's ONLY theoretical.
Because of the nature of the argument and what is implicit, you aren't
aware of what your own argument is actually arguing and it's frustrating
the hell out of you. You started off by saying Bush IS a terrorist and a
war criminal and you bolstered those statements by creating a legal
position for them. The only problem is, while what you said MAY be true
in a moral sense, it's definitely NOT true in a legal sense, to date. It
may someday be true... but not today. That's why it's called a
THEORETICAL legal argument... something I've tried to convince you of
for a long time now. Given enough time you, will eventually change your
argument to something that you feel will provide you with a win,(you
could care less about your argument, the win is the important thing for
you). Reality will show that it won't remotely resemble your original
argument. It will HAVE to be reworded within the confines of HOW you
presented it because your original has been refuted on at least two
grounds within the confines of your presentation.
> ------
>
> > You talking about trust? You must be joking! LOL! You are engaged in an
> > endless cycle of spin and project... spin and project...
>
> Remember it was you who stated: Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna
> give a shit about breaking my word to a deviant like yourself... "
LOL! I STILL don't give a shit and there's no reason I should. In going
back through the 'Scary Article' thread I saw an unbelievable amount of
outright lies, gross misrepresentations, and word redefinitions on your
part... and several people pointed them out all along the way. Do you
seriously expect others to play fair with you when you conduct yourself
like that? The real world doesn't work that way, pal... you forced
others to trick you with your own words because your actions were so
disingenuous (and stupid, thereby, enabling others to trick you).
> You also said "That was why I decided to try and trick you ..." At least
> there you noted it was just an attempt, other places you claim to have done
> so.
>
> You have stated both that your word means nothing and that you are trying to
> "trick" me. You are not trying to use honesty or show integrity, as I am.
> Why should I, or anyone really, trust anything you ever say?
How COULD I trick you if you didn't give me the ammo in the form of
making mistakes presenting your argument? Look, Snit... even a non-legal
logical debate has a judge... do you honestly think he would have let
you continually move the goalposts like you have? Believe me... that's a
fantasy that belongs all to you :)
> -------
>
> I left the rest intact to reduce your chances of saying I snipped something
> important, but nowhere below do you even comment on my argument. You yet
> again fail to do anything that even comes close to an attempt at a
> refutation.
I'll snip... it's still sits on google for retrieval :)
Steve
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/8/04 10:51 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>Wrong, Snit. I disagreed with the statement as a whole. You have made the
>>error known as the Fallacy of Division. Quit spreading your lies.
>>
>>Here is your statement broken down into 3 parts.
>>
>>Snit appears to be right.
>>
>>There are no clear refutation to Snit's argument.
>>
>>There is the logical possibility that Snit are wrong.
>>
>>
>>I have said that I did not agree to the statement AS A WHOLE. That does not
>>mean that I disagree with each individual part.
>
>
> Nice back peddle attempt, but not at all accurate. I presented those three
> "parts" of my statement (which, by the way, you messed up on in your
> assessment of), you stated in a rather rude tone:
>
> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>
> Now, had you meant that you disagreed with a specific part, you would have
> stated so.
Nope.
> You did not say that you do not agree with some of its parts,
> but you did not agree with the statement "at all".
Correct.
> You are now trying to claim that you agreed with some parts of it, but
> disagreed with other.
Nope.
> So which is it? Do you not agree with the statement "at all", or do you
> agree with some parts of the statement but not others.
I disagree with the statement as you have written it. I would have written "I
don't agree with any part of that statement" if that is what I had meant.
> Hmmm, funny how you and Steve make so many mistakes; oh yes, you admitted
> you were the same person.
Nope. Your confusing myself with Steve demonstrates your reading comprehension
problem.
>
>
>>You have earned 0 points on this lesson.
>>
>>
>>>[4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
>>>she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
>>>fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
>>>decision.
>>>
>>>Snit:
>>>It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
>>>the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
>>>have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>>>
>>>Elizabot:
>>>I do not agree with that statement at all.
>>>
>>>Snit:
>>>Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
>>>seem to agree to that statement.
>>>
>>>Elizabot:
>>>Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>>>
>>>Snit:
>>>So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
>>>the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
>>>accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
>>>argue with it.
>>>
>>>Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
>>>may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.
>>>
>>
>
Snit
1) You do not need to reference an argument to refute it.
2) You do not even need to know an argument to refute it.
After close to 150 references or quoting of my argument, you *still* admit
to not even knowing what my argument is.
Just what is it you think you have refuted? If you have refuted some other
argument other than the one begins with "Based on the US Constitution" (and
can be found at:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case) then not even
you claim to be refuting my argument.
Do you or do you not claim to have refuted that argument?
Oh, and in both the hypothetical bets that I mentioned, I would have won.
No doubt.
Recently Elizabot claimed you and she were the same person; I doubt it, you
are clearly not in her league. Why she was following you around like a lost
puppy I have no idea.
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/9/04 10:42 AM:
> In article <BC236757.39AFB%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, again you completely fail to mention my argument in your attempt at a
>> refutation. Very little in your long list of repeated mistakes interesting,
>> but a couple points do jump out. Nothing comes close to an attempt at a
>> refutation, but the following amused me.
>
> Sigh... as I've already said many, many times now... I have no need.
Let me make sure I understand this, you believe you have no need to even
mention my argument in an attempt to refute it.
>>> I don't have to mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to
>>> mention
>>> why he has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must
>>> PROVE
>>> it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>> OK. Here is my evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! Totally unacceptable (but down below, I'll even address the
> use of this evidence for this purpose... just to be sporting). Your
> website can change from day to day and probably has every damned day.
Let's seem I have at least 80 posts where I have stated or quoted the
argument, and most of those times were when I was directly talking with you:
http://www.google.com/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1
&safe=off&scoring=d&q=+%22Based+on+the+US+Constitution%22+author%3ASnit&btnG
=Google+Search
You even have at least 19 posts where it is quoted:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22Based+on+the+US+Constitution%22+author:St
eve+author:Carroll&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&
scoring=d&filter=0
Now, granted, some of those are surely in quotes from previous articles, but
you have about 100 examples from the two of us... if you combine other
people it is closer to 150 times that quotes from my argument have been
posted:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22Based+on+the+US+Constitution%22+Snit&num=
100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&scoring=d&filter=0
How many times do you need it referenced? Will 150 do? We are getting
close. Do you need 200 times? 500?
>> Care to actually comment on my argument? Please note that my support has
>> not changed at all since the start of this silliness. It still is there.
>> It still is unrefuted, and, in your case, hardly if at all mentioned.
>
> Flip flop...let's get it straight, is it merely 'support' that your
> claim he is legally guilty MAY be true... OR is it 'evidence' that your
> claim he is legally guilty IS true.
See if this helps you (definitions from Google)
Support:
"Establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts..."
"Support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm ..."
Hmmm, those definitions of "support" use the word "evidence".
Evidence:
"Information in the form of personal testimony, documents or objects filed
in support of the issue in question."
"That which tends to support something or show that something is the case."
And those definitions of "evidence" use the word "support"
Unless you are being very nit picky, AND playing semantic games (gee, you
would never do that!), seems they are darn near the same. You still are
ignoring my argument that has been referenced almost 150 times *without
changing* while claiming to refute it.
>>>>>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>>>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation"
>>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>> C, your argument looks like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A = B
>>>>>>>> B = C
>>>>>>>> A <> C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>>
>> So here you claim that I am spinning the idea that your argument is an
>> attempt to disprove a mathematical proof. You called it spin, but when I
>> asked about which step was spin, you failed to state where I am wrong.
>> Twice now I have asked you about this, and twice you have gone onto side
>> issues. If my claim is spin, certainly you can tell me where it is wrong.
>> Can you now, or will you just jump to another issue again?
>
> Same issue. Where is your burden of proof mathematically represented?
Yup. My prediction was correct. You fail to state what part of my
representation is not accurate. It is accurate. 100% Well, let's test
it...
Do you claim:
1) My lack of Proof is equal to or necessarily leads to your doubt?
2) That doubt is equal to a refutation
3) That my lack of proof is *not* equal to (or does not necessarily lead to)
your doubt?
Can you answer those questions? If that is your argument, which it seems to
be, would you claim that *you* have the burden of proof, especially after I
have shown it to be so absurd?
If defining and differentiating them would hurt my case, then why would I
want *you* to define and differentiate them?
Again. I would have won another bet.
>> You have stated both that your word means nothing and that you are trying to
>> "trick" me. You are not trying to use honesty or show integrity, as I am.
>> Why should I, or anyone really, trust anything you ever say?
>
> How COULD I trick you if you didn't give me the ammo in the form of
> making mistakes presenting your argument?
Right - that is why you failed to trick me.
> I'll snip... it's still sits on google for retrieval :)
Sounds good.
John
Looks like Snit has met Steve Carroll who along with Alan Baker believes in
the round and round method of argument doing and saying anything over 100
times to try and secure "a win".
Mayor of R'lyeh
<fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
Steve, why are you doing this? Snit is an idiot. Its quite plain to
anybody who reads his posts. You're never going to convince him he's
wrong because he doesn't have the brain power to figure that much out.
All you're doing is wasting your time replying to him. I'm sure you
could spend that time doing more productive things. Quit pounding your
head against the pile of bricks that is Snit's 'thought' process and
go play with your kids or something. You won't regret it.
--
I got a sweater for Christmas last year. I wanted
a screamer or a moaner, but I got a sweater.
-Steven Wright
Steve Carroll
I know you're right and I've just been wasting time. I'm done arguing
with him. You're right about one other thing, too... I won't regret it.
Thanks for pointing out what I DO know is all too obvious... but I just
get caught up into shit sometimes... ya know :)
Steve
Snit
> I'm done arguing with [snit]. You're right about one other thing, too... I
> won't regret it. Thanks for pointing out what I DO know is all too obvious...
> but I just get caught up into shit sometimes... ya know :)
Good to hear you are done arguing with me. Then I can clarify things for
everyone who is reading this (nobody) and make sure that people understand
what this whole silliness has been about.
You keep going back to the concept of burden of proof, which really has very
little if anything to directly do with my argument, but I suppose I should
explain the concept of burden of proof to you, just to help you out. Then
again, I will bet that you will fail to understand much of the following,
but it will be fun to watch you try to argue against it (even though you
have stated that you will not).
Assuming you keep your word, perhaps this truly will be the end of our silly
argument. Then again, you are the one who has said "Like I'm really gonna
give a shit about breaking my word ..."
Just remember that despite all of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit
picking, semantic games, etc., my argument *still* stands with support and
has not been successfully refuted.
--------
If I were to claim that A = C then it would be my burden to show why A = C.
My proof would be that A = B and B = C.
In this case this is a real mathematical proof[1]. The support must show
100% proof, and it can do so since it is based on concepts and not the
world. Anything less than this in such a mathematical proof is not a valid
proof (what you have called 0% proof, I suppose).
In the real world, very little if anything is provable to that level. In a
real-world argument the level of proof is never 100%. This level of lesser
proof is often, and perhaps more accurately, referred to as "support" or
"evidence", but the word "proof" is often used as well.
An example where the burden of proof has fallen on me: I made the claim that
Bush broke US and international law by using illegal force against Iraq.
When I first made this claim, I did not support it well, I simply stated
it[2]. I was asked to support this claim, and I did[3]. I did this long
ago, near the beginning of this whole silliness.
Did I offer 100% proof, as would be required in a mathematical proof? No,
of course not. If you want to be technical about it, I can not prove 100%
that Bush even exists, or Iraq, or the war, or even this stupid argument.
It is theoretically *possible* that none of those things exist. The real
world does not work like a mathematical proof.
What I did do, however, was offer support and evidence. My support starts
with "Based on the US Constitution" and has been quoted in whole or in part
about 150 times in this ongoing discussion. The support has not changed at
all.
Until or unless someone shows how my support is faulty (or shows how the
converse of my conclusion must be true), then I have met my burden of proof.
This is true *even if* I ever chose to denounce my support for my argument.
If I wanted to denounce it, even I would have to offer a refutation[4].
Your erroneous claims about some trick you performed does not change that.
You have claimed that you do not need to reference or even know my argument
in order to successfully refute it. Your claim is absurd, at best.
-------
Now let's look at your argument.
Lack of proof = Doubt
Doubt = Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
or
If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
your argument looks like:
A = B
B = C
A <> C
You have claimed that A <> C. In this example, since it is your argument,
you have the burden of proving that A <> C. Your "proof" has been that A =
B and B = C.
So, in this example, *you* have the burden of proof, and your proof is
faulty.
You have claimed that I am characterizing your argument. If so, please tell
me where. Do you not claim that A <> C? Or perhaps I misunderstood one of
your premises, that A = B or that B = C. Or, worded more clearly:
1) Do you believe my lack of Proof is equal to (or necessarily leads to)
your doubt?
Yes or No (with explanation if needed)
2) Do you believe your doubt is equal to a refutation?
Yes or No (with explanation if needed)
3) Do you believe my lack of proof is *not* equal to (or does not
necessarily lead to) a refutation?
Yes or No (with explanation if needed)
-----
[1] You have been confused by the word "case" before. To help you out here,
I do not mean to imply that the example here is a legal case or a court
case.
[2] At one point you and Elizabot were claiming the fact that I did not show
my support before I stated my conclusion was enough to refute my argument.
I see that you both have backed off of that absurd claim. I do not believe
either of you ever acknowledged your mistake there. Gee, what a surprise.
[3]
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BBF22A6
6.3326C%25snit...@cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
[4] I mention this only because you have tried to erroneously claim I have
denounced it, as though this would help in a refutation.
Elizabot
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/9/04 5:59 PM:
>
>
>>I'm done arguing with [snit]. You're right about one other thing, too... I
>>won't regret it. Thanks for pointing out what I DO know is all too obvious...
>>but I just get caught up into shit sometimes... ya know :)
>
>
> Good to hear you are done arguing with me. Then I can clarify things for
> everyone who is reading this (nobody) and make sure that people understand
> what this whole silliness has been about.
LOL! Ready to try the quiz again? Steve has abandoned you. I will wipe out the
-30 pts I have given you and restart your score again, from 0, if you conduct
yourself properly. Here is your quiz again:
I didn't refute your conclusion that "John does not like tomatoes." It is
acceptable to point out faults in the premises, as well as the conclusion.
I know you're having a difficult time with all of this. I have a couple of
questions for you. I will give you 10 pts per correct answer so that it is
possible for you to raise your score from a 0 to a 20. Certain questions are
structured so that you may earn partial credit. In addition to your earning
points, your answers will help me to evaluate your skill level. You are still
failing, but there may be more opportunities for you to raise your score,
depending on how you conduct yourself. I have included a fruity argument, as you
seem to like them so.
1) Is it true that pointing out faults in premises constitutes a valid refutation?
Yes or No.
2) Example argument
Premises:
Snit has a case of sour grapes.
Snit makes a Bad Wine from those grapes.
Snit consumes the Bad Wine and thus filled with Piss and Vinegar.
Conclusion:
Snit is a douche bag.
Is this a valid argument? (choose from one of the answers below)
a) If you believe it is valid, please refute it with a valid refutation.
b) If you believe it is not valid, please refute it with a valid refutation.
c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word over the
limit.
I eagerly await your responses.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/9/04 5:59 PM:
>>
>>
>>> I'm done arguing with [snit]. You're right about one other thing, too... I
>>> won't regret it. Thanks for pointing out what I DO know is all too
>>> obvious...
>>> but I just get caught up into shit sometimes... ya know :)
>>
>>
>> Good to hear you are done arguing with me. Then I can clarify things for
>> everyone who is reading this (nobody) and make sure that people understand
>> what this whole silliness has been about.
>
>
> LOL! Ready to try the quiz again? Steve has abandoned you. I will wipe out the
> -30 pts I have given you and restart your score again, from 0, if you conduct
> yourself properly. Here is your quiz again:
Oh look, how cute. You snipped the entire "meat" of my post. Oh, so clever
of you. Here you claim that Steve "abandoned" me, but still you post. Why
is that, Stevabot (did you think I had forgotten how you had claimed to be
the same person)? Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to
refute it (it very strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well
supported and not refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw
around insults.
> I didn't refute your conclusion that "John does not like tomatoes."
Agreed.
> It is acceptable to point out faults in the premises, as well as the
conclusion.
Hmmm, had you done so in a reasoned and accurate way, you may have been able
to refute the show how the argument was wrong and refute it. Above, even
you state that the conclusion was not refuted; the only way that is possible
is if their is still valid support.
Here apparently you remember that you found one way to show your attempt was
faulty (being that it was merely a lesson for you, you did well - finally).
There is another way to show how your attempt was faulty, one that you have
yet to find, that does so even better. It is my challenge to you to find
it. You *still* have not (though before I was just challenging you to find
one - you did so after I gave you the big hints. Good job).
You seem bitter. Not sure why when you finally did get complete the
assignment.
> I know you're having a difficult time with all of this. I have a couple of
> questions for you. I will give you 10 pts per correct answer so that it is
> possible for you to raise your score from a 0 to a 20. Certain questions are
> structured so that you may earn partial credit. In addition to your earning
> points, your answers will help me to evaluate your skill level. You are still
> failing, but there may be more opportunities for you to raise your score,
> depending on how you conduct yourself. I have included a fruity argument, as
> you seem to like them so.
Here you seem so desperate to make a valid point you are willing to set up
games so you can try to take some from me. Well, why not. It is the only
way you ever make a point.
I am sure you will rate these to take points from me, as you seem to
admittedly be desperate to get a point now and then (apparently valid or
not), I will play your game. For now. In no way should it be seen as any
type of admission that I agree with your point system, just find it funny to
show you wrong - again. And if you think you earn a few points here, maybe,
just maybe, you will make a valid point someday. I can always hope.
> 1) Is it true that pointing out faults in premises constitutes a valid
> refutation?
>
> Yes or No.
No. Not at all. You would have to *accurately* point out a fault in a
premise to have a valid refutation, and even then if there is more than one
line of reasoning, it would only invalidate the line or lines of reasoning
based on the premises shown to be faulty (this would be a compound argument,
or one with multiple lines of support).
> 2) Example argument
>
> Premises:
> Snit has a case of sour grapes.
> Snit makes a Bad Wine from those grapes.
> Snit consumes the Bad Wine and thus filled with Piss and Vinegar.
> Conclusion:
> Snit is a douche bag.
>
> Is this a valid argument? (choose from one of the answers below)
>
> a) If you believe it is valid, please refute it with a valid refutation.
>
> b) If you believe it is not valid, please refute it with a valid refutation.
Not a single premise is true, and the conclusion does not follow from the
flawed premises. It fails as a reasoned argument on many levels. I would
have hoped you would do better, but it appears in your frustration you are
sinking to your habit of just throwing out insults instead of trying to make
a point.
> c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word over
> the limit.
Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop to
juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is the
best you can do to get a point.
> I eagerly await your responses.
Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
"points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever make a
point in most discussions.
Snit
> I already told you how you blew it. Why you insist in me rubbing your
> nose in your own shit is beyond me. Furthermore, trying to attach simple
> math to a legal argument is ridiculous. It doesn't work. Where is the
> mathematical representation of your burden of proof? Yeah... it's
> non-existent... just like your brain:
You keep going back to the concept of burden of proof, which really has very
little if anything to directly do with my argument (while I have the burden
of proof for my argument, my argument is not *about* the burden of proof, as
your side issue seems to be).
However, I suppose I should explain the concept of burden of proof to you,
just to help you out. Then again, I will bet that you will fail to
understand much of the following, but I suppose I should try.
--------
If I were to claim that A = C then it would be my burden to show why A = C.
My proof would be that A = B and B = C.
In this case this is a real mathematical proof[1]. The support must show
100% proof, and it can do so since it is based on concepts and not the
world. If you accept the premises, the conclusion *must* follow, with
absolutely no doubt. Anything less than this in such a mathematical proof
is not a valid proof (what you have called 0% proof, I suppose).
In the real world, very little if anything is provable to that level. In a
real-world argument the level of proof is never 100%. This level of lesser
proof is often, and perhaps more accurately, referred to as "support" or
"evidence", but the word "proof" is often used as well.
An example where the burden of proof has fallen on me: I made the claim that
Bush broke US and international law by using illegal force against Iraq.
When I first made this claim, I did not support it well, I simply stated
it[2]. I was asked to support this claim, and I did[3]. I did this long
ago, near the beginning of this whole silliness. You even attempted to
refute the argument by mentioning UN Resolution 1441. When I asked you why
you felt 1441 refuted my argument, you failed to give a meaningful reply.
In any case, the real question is: Did I offer 100% proof, as would be
required in a mathematical proof? No, of course not. If you want to be
technical about it, one can not prove 100% that Bush even exists, or Iraq,
or the war, or even this stupid argument. It is theoretically *possible*
(though perhaps silly to claim) that none of those things exist. The real
world does not work like a mathematical proof.
What I did do, however, was offer support and evidence. My support starts
with "Based on the US Constitution" and has been quoted in whole or in part
about 150 times in this ongoing discussion. The support has not changed at
all.
Until or unless someone shows how my support is faulty (or shows how the
converse of my conclusion must be true), then I have met my burden of proof.
This is true *even if* I ever chose to denounce my support for my argument.
If I wanted to denounce it, even I would have to offer a refutation[4].
Your erroneous claims about some trick you performed does not change that.
You have claimed that you do not need to reference or even know my argument
in order to successfully refute it. Your claim is absurd, at best.
-------
Now let's look at your argument.
Lack of proof = Doubt
Doubt = Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
or
If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
your argument looks like:
A = B
B = C
A <> C
You have claimed that A <> C. In this example, since it is your argument,
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:<BC25D0A0.39DBB%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>...
> I notice both Steve and elizabot have both turned up missing recently.
> i think you are right. They are the same person.
Shortly after I pointed this out, "Steve" decided to not speak to me.
Elizabot still does, though not as often. Hmmmm....
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/10/04 12:40 AM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/9/04 5:59 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm done arguing with [snit]. You're right about one other thing, too... I
>>>>won't regret it. Thanks for pointing out what I DO know is all too
>>>>obvious...
>>>>but I just get caught up into shit sometimes... ya know :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Good to hear you are done arguing with me. Then I can clarify things for
>>>everyone who is reading this (nobody) and make sure that people understand
>>>what this whole silliness has been about.
>>
>>
>>LOL! Ready to try the quiz again? Steve has abandoned you. I will wipe out the
>>-30 pts I have given you and restart your score again, from 0, if you conduct
>>yourself properly. Here is your quiz again:
>
>
> Oh look, how cute. You snipped the entire "meat" of my post.
Considering your post was in response to Steve Carroll, I took the liberty of
snipping out points that I did not care to discuss.
> Oh, so clever
> of you. Here you claim that Steve "abandoned" me, but still you post.
Steve abandoning you and my posting are not mutually exclusive. But considering
your have drawn the erroneous conclusion that Steve and I are the same person, I
can understand why you are confused.
> Why
> is that, Stevabot (did you think I had forgotten how you had claimed to be
> the same person)?
Gee. I'm not Stevabot, so I suppose this point does not apply to me.
> Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to
> refute it (it very strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well
> supported and not refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw
> around insults.
As I mentioned before, considering your post was in response to Steve Carroll, I
took the liberty of snipping out points that I did not care to discuss.
>
>>I didn't refute your conclusion that "John does not like tomatoes."
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>It is acceptable to point out faults in the premises, as well as the
>
> conclusion.
>
> Hmmm, had you done so in a reasoned and accurate way, you may have been able
> to refute the show how the argument was wrong and refute it. Above, even
> you state that the conclusion was not refuted; the only way that is possible
> is if their is still valid support.
>
> Here apparently you remember that you found one way to show your attempt was
> faulty (being that it was merely a lesson for you, you did well - finally).
>
> There is another way to show how your attempt was faulty, one that you have
> yet to find, that does so even better. It is my challenge to you to find
> it. You *still* have not (though before I was just challenging you to find
> one - you did so after I gave you the big hints. Good job).
>
> You seem bitter. Not sure why when you finally did get complete the
> assignment.
You seem to be under the impression that it is my duty to answer to your whims.
>>I know you're having a difficult time with all of this. I have a couple of
>>questions for you. I will give you 10 pts per correct answer so that it is
>>possible for you to raise your score from a 0 to a 20. Certain questions are
>>structured so that you may earn partial credit. In addition to your earning
>>points, your answers will help me to evaluate your skill level. You are still
>>failing, but there may be more opportunities for you to raise your score,
>>depending on how you conduct yourself. I have included a fruity argument, as
>>you seem to like them so.
>
>
> Here you seem so desperate to make a valid point you are willing to set up
> games so you can try to take some from me. Well, why not. It is the only
> way you ever make a point.
LOL! If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You started the silliness of
assigning "lessons" and giving points. I'm just giving you a dose of your own
medicine, and I see that you don't like it *at all.*
> I am sure you will rate these to take points from me, as you seem to
> admittedly be desperate to get a point now and then (apparently valid or
> not), I will play your game. For now. In no way should it be seen as any
> type of admission that I agree with your point system, just find it funny to
> show you wrong - again. And if you think you earn a few points here, maybe,
> just maybe, you will make a valid point someday. I can always hope.
PMBYMHMMFSWGAD.
>>1) Is it true that pointing out faults in premises constitutes a valid
>>refutation?
>>
>>Yes or No.
>
>
> No. Not at all. You would have to *accurately* point out a fault in a
> premise to have a valid refutation, and even then if there is more than one
> line of reasoning, it would only invalidate the line or lines of reasoning
> based on the premises shown to be faulty (this would be a compound argument,
> or one with multiple lines of support).
That wasn't quite correct, but I'll give you 10 pts anyway. I'm feeling charitable.
>
>>2) Example argument
>>
>>Premises:
>>Snit has a case of sour grapes.
>>Snit makes a Bad Wine from those grapes.
>>Snit consumes the Bad Wine and thus filled with Piss and Vinegar.
>>Conclusion:
>>Snit is a douche bag.
>>
>>Is this a valid argument? (choose from one of the answers below)
>>
>>a) If you believe it is valid, please refute it with a valid refutation.
>>
>>b) If you believe it is not valid, please refute it with a valid refutation.
>
>
> Not a single premise is true, and the conclusion does not follow from the
> flawed premises. It fails as a reasoned argument on many levels. I would
> have hoped you would do better, but it appears in your frustration you are
> sinking to your habit of just throwing out insults instead of trying to make
> a point.
Good enough.
I will give you 9 points as you failed to see the associations grapes -> wine ->
vinegar -> douche.
>>c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word over
>>the limit.
>
>
> Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop to
> juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is the
> best you can do to get a point.
MO is the abbreviation for "method of operation," so you get -2 pts for going
over the 35 word limit. Nice try.
>>I eagerly await your responses.
>
>
> Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
> "points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever make a
> point in most discussions.
You seem bitter. Sigh.
You did very well and have successfully raised your score to a 17 (in this
thread.) You *should* be pleased. I may even considering lowering the bottom end
of my grading scale in order to pass you. Of course, you could always do extra
credit work.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/10/04 12:40 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/9/04 5:59 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm done arguing with [snit]. You're right about one other thing, too... I
>>>>> won't regret it. Thanks for pointing out what I DO know is all too
>>>>> obvious...
>>>>> but I just get caught up into shit sometimes... ya know :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good to hear you are done arguing with me. Then I can clarify things for
>>>> everyone who is reading this (nobody) and make sure that people understand
>>>> what this whole silliness has been about.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL! Ready to try the quiz again? Steve has abandoned you. I will wipe out
>>> the -30 pts I have given you and restart your score again, from 0, if you
>>> conduct yourself properly. Here is your quiz again:
>>>
>>
>> Oh look, how cute. You snipped the entire "meat" of my post.
>>
> Considering your post was in response to Steve Carroll, I took the liberty of
> snipping out points that I did not care to discuss.
And not respond to anything the post was about... LOL
>
>> Oh, so clever of you. Here you claim that Steve "abandoned" me, but still
>> you post.
>>
> Steve abandoning you and my posting are not mutually exclusive. But
> considering your have drawn the erroneous conclusion that Steve and I are the
> same person, I can understand why you are confused.
I am basing my belief on your words - or was your logic incorrect in the
following (from previous post):
----------
>> Don't forget the other people that Steve and / or Elizabot have claimed I
>> am... I am many people to them.
>
> Quit spreading your lies. I have only claimed that you are Snit and perhaps
> "Sigmond." You would like to believe I have called you someone named Josh.
>
> Sir, you are no Josh.
Now you claim that you and Steve are the same person. You just admitted it!
I said you and / or Steve have said something, and you said I was lying
solely based on your claim that *you* never said it. The only possible way
you are not lying is to say that you two are one and the same.
Bad form. I just caught you in your lie.
At least now I know why you two use so many of the same logical fallacies,
side issues, nit picking, semantic games, etc.
PS: I did not mention Josh. What made you think of him?
-----------
>> Why is that, Stevabot (did you think I had forgotten how you had claimed to
>> be the same person)?
>>
> Gee. I'm not Stevabot, so I suppose this point does not apply to me.
Are you wrong now or then? Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic
games with you that you have not tried on me. Well, accept mine make
logical sense. :)
>> Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to refute it (it very
>> strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well supported and not
>> refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw around insults.
>>
> As I mentioned before, considering your post was in response to Steve Carroll,
> I took the liberty of snipping out points that I did not care to discuss.
Then what is your post about again? Oh yeah, you desperately wanting to get
some points from me.
>>
>>> I didn't refute your conclusion that "John does not like tomatoes."
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> It is acceptable to point out faults in the premises, as well as the
>>> conclusion.
>>
>> Hmmm, had you done so in a reasoned and accurate way, you may have been able
>> to refute the show how the argument was wrong and refute it. Above, even
>> you state that the conclusion was not refuted; the only way that is possible
>> is if their is still valid support.
>>
>> Here apparently you remember that you found one way to show your attempt was
>> faulty (being that it was merely a lesson for you, you did well - finally).
>>
>> There is another way to show how your attempt was faulty, one that you have
>> yet to find, that does so even better. It is my challenge to you to find
>> it. You *still* have not (though before I was just challenging you to find
>> one - you did so after I gave you the big hints. Good job).
>>
>> You seem bitter. Not sure why when you finally did get complete the
>> assignment.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that it is my duty to answer to your
> whims.
You have now tried and succeeded with one of the two refutations I know -
now that you cannot get the other it is not your duty? LOL. OK. You may
give up whenever you want - just do not try to hold that against me.
>>> I know you're having a difficult time with all of this. I have a couple of
>>> questions for you. I will give you 10 pts per correct answer so that it is
>>> possible for you to raise your score from a 0 to a 20. Certain questions are
>>> structured so that you may earn partial credit. In addition to your earning
>>> points, your answers will help me to evaluate your skill level. You are
>>> still
>>> failing, but there may be more opportunities for you to raise your score,
>>> depending on how you conduct yourself. I have included a fruity argument, as
>>> you seem to like them so.
>>
>> Here you seem so desperate to make a valid point you are willing to set up
>> games so you can try to take some from me. Well, why not. It is the only
>> way you ever make a point.
>
> LOL! If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You started the silliness of
> assigning "lessons" and giving points. I'm just giving you a dose of your own
> medicine, and I see that you don't like it *at all.*
No - I like it. I love seeing you want to get a point somehow, in any
possible way. Here, have 100. That puts me at -140 or whatever your scorig
system is.
>
>> I am sure you will rate these to take points from me, as you seem to
>> admittedly be desperate to get a point now and then (apparently valid or
>> not), I will play your game. For now. In no way should it be seen as any
>> type of admission that I agree with your point system, just find it funny to
>> show you wrong - again. And if you think you earn a few points here, maybe,
>> just maybe, you will make a valid point someday. I can always hope.
>
> PMBYMHMMFSWGAD.
If you do not care, why set up a game where you think you can get points?
OK, I must say, not only is that funny, I did miss it. See, you can not be
Steve, he simply is not smart enough to set something like that up, and
would have been far more insulting in pointing it out.
>
>>> c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word over
>>> the limit.
>>
>> Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop to
>> juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is the
>> best you can do to get a point.
>
> MO is the abbreviation for "method of operation," so you get -2 pts for going
> over the 35 word limit. Nice try.
Well, really it stands for "Modus Operandi", so you should only take one,
but I will grant you another point for actually counting my words to see if
I hit the 35 limit.
>>> I eagerly await your responses.
>>
>> Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
>> "points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever make a
>> point in most discussions.
>
> You seem bitter. Sigh.
>
> You did very well and have successfully raised your score to a 17 (in this
> thread.) You *should* be pleased. I may even considering lowering the bottom
> end of my grading scale in order to pass you. Of course, you could always do
> extra credit work.
I have to say, in this post you seem damn near likable. How can I vilify
you if you are gonna act cool every now and then?
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/12/04 3:02 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/10/04 12:40 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/9/04 5:59 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm done arguing with [snit]. You're right about one other thing, too... I
>>>>>>won't regret it. Thanks for pointing out what I DO know is all too
>>>>>>obvious...
>>>>>>but I just get caught up into shit sometimes... ya know :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Good to hear you are done arguing with me. Then I can clarify things for
>>>>>everyone who is reading this (nobody) and make sure that people understand
>>>>>what this whole silliness has been about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOL! Ready to try the quiz again? Steve has abandoned you. I will wipe out
>>>>the -30 pts I have given you and restart your score again, from 0, if you
>>>>conduct yourself properly. Here is your quiz again:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh look, how cute. You snipped the entire "meat" of my post.
>>>
>>
>>Considering your post was in response to Steve Carroll, I took the liberty of
>>snipping out points that I did not care to discuss.
>
>
> And not respond to anything the post was about... LOL
It was about Steve abandoning you. Don't be silly! I was letting you now that I
have not abandoned you. I gave you a new quiz to keep you happy and entertained!
Gee, I am *so* under appreciated.
>>>Oh, so clever of you. Here you claim that Steve "abandoned" me, but still
>>>you post.
>>>
>>
>>Steve abandoning you and my posting are not mutually exclusive. But
>>considering your have drawn the erroneous conclusion that Steve and I are the
>>same person, I can understand why you are confused.
>
>
> I am basing my belief on your words - or was your logic incorrect in the
> following (from previous post):
Your reading comprehension is poor.
> ----------
>
>>>Don't forget the other people that Steve and / or Elizabot have claimed I
>>>am... I am many people to them.
>>
>>Quit spreading your lies. I have only claimed that you are Snit and perhaps
>>"Sigmond." You would like to believe I have called you someone named Josh.
>>
>>Sir, you are no Josh.
>
>
> Now you claim that you and Steve are the same person. You just admitted it!
>
> I said you and / or Steve have said something, and you said I was lying
> solely based on your claim that *you* never said it. The only possible way
> you are not lying is to say that you two are one and the same.
>
> Bad form. I just caught you in your lie.
>
> At least now I know why you two use so many of the same logical fallacies,
> side issues, nit picking, semantic games, etc.
>
> PS: I did not mention Josh. What made you think of him?
> -----------
>
>
>>>Why is that, Stevabot (did you think I had forgotten how you had claimed to
>>>be the same person)?
>>>
>>
>>Gee. I'm not Stevabot, so I suppose this point does not apply to me.
>
>
> Are you wrong now or then?
Neither. I have never claimed to be Stevabot.
> Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic
> games with you that you have not tried on me. Well, accept mine make
> logical sense. :)
I disagree.
>>>Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to refute it (it very
>>>strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well supported and not
>>>refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw around insults.
>>>
>>
>>As I mentioned before, considering your post was in response to Steve Carroll,
>>I took the liberty of snipping out points that I did not care to discuss.
>
>
> Then what is your post about again? Oh yeah, you desperately wanting to get
> some points from me.
It was about Steve abandoning you. Don't be silly! I was letting you now that I
have not abandoned you. I gave you a new quiz to keep you happy and entertained!
Gee, I am *so* under appreciated.
>>>>I didn't refute your conclusion that "John does not like tomatoes."
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is acceptable to point out faults in the premises, as well as the
>>>>conclusion.
>>>
>>>Hmmm, had you done so in a reasoned and accurate way, you may have been able
>>>to refute the show how the argument was wrong and refute it. Above, even
>>>you state that the conclusion was not refuted; the only way that is possible
>>>is if their is still valid support.
>>>
>>>Here apparently you remember that you found one way to show your attempt was
>>>faulty (being that it was merely a lesson for you, you did well - finally).
>>>
>>>There is another way to show how your attempt was faulty, one that you have
>>>yet to find, that does so even better. It is my challenge to you to find
>>>it. You *still* have not (though before I was just challenging you to find
>>>one - you did so after I gave you the big hints. Good job).
>>>
>>>You seem bitter. Not sure why when you finally did get complete the
>>>assignment.
>>
>>You seem to be under the impression that it is my duty to answer to your
>>whims.
>
>
> You have now tried and succeeded with one of the two refutations I know -
> now that you cannot get the other it is not your duty? LOL. OK. You may
> give up whenever you want - just do not try to hold that against me.
I wouldn't hold *anything* against you, if you get my drift.
>>>>I know you're having a difficult time with all of this. I have a couple of
>>>>questions for you. I will give you 10 pts per correct answer so that it is
>>>>possible for you to raise your score from a 0 to a 20. Certain questions are
>>>>structured so that you may earn partial credit. In addition to your earning
>>>>points, your answers will help me to evaluate your skill level. You are
>>>>still
>>>>failing, but there may be more opportunities for you to raise your score,
>>>>depending on how you conduct yourself. I have included a fruity argument, as
>>>>you seem to like them so.
>>>
>>>Here you seem so desperate to make a valid point you are willing to set up
>>>games so you can try to take some from me. Well, why not. It is the only
>>>way you ever make a point.
>>
>>LOL! If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You started the silliness of
>>assigning "lessons" and giving points. I'm just giving you a dose of your own
>>medicine, and I see that you don't like it *at all.*
>
>
> No - I like it. I love seeing you want to get a point somehow, in any
> possible way. Here, have 100. That puts me at -140 or whatever your scorig
> system is.
How charitable of you.
>>>I am sure you will rate these to take points from me, as you seem to
>>>admittedly be desperate to get a point now and then (apparently valid or
>>>not), I will play your game. For now. In no way should it be seen as any
>>>type of admission that I agree with your point system, just find it funny to
>>>show you wrong - again. And if you think you earn a few points here, maybe,
>>>just maybe, you will make a valid point someday. I can always hope.
>>
>>PMBYMHMMFSWGAD.
>
>
> If you do not care, why set up a game where you think you can get points?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
It's not the only thing you've missed.
As I had said, your answers will help me to evaluate your skill level. You have
a severe lack-of-humor/reading-comprehension issue.
>>>>c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word over
>>>>the limit.
>>>
>>>Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop to
>>>juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is the
>>>best you can do to get a point.
>>
>>MO is the abbreviation for "method of operation," so you get -2 pts for going
>>over the 35 word limit. Nice try.
>
>
> Well, really it stands for "Modus Operandi", so you should only take one,
> but I will grant you another point for actually counting my words to see if
> I hit the 35 limit.
As I had told you to choose from *one* of the answers, and your above statement
is your clear admission that you had answered two of them, I must deduct 5 pts
from your score.
>>>>I eagerly await your responses.
>>>
>>>Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
>>>"points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever make a
>>>point in most discussions.
>>
>>You seem bitter. Sigh.
>>
>>You did very well and have successfully raised your score to a 17 (in this
>>thread.) You *should* be pleased. I may even considering lowering the bottom
>>end of my grading scale in order to pass you. Of course, you could always do
>>extra credit work.
>
>
> I have to say, in this post you seem damn near likable. How can I vilify
> you if you are gonna act cool every now and then?
I am Elizabot. Resistance is futile.
Snit
I do not know if you are being cute, which is fine by me, or just real
lonely. which is kinda sad.
>
>>>> Oh, so clever of you. Here you claim that Steve "abandoned" me, but still
>>>> you post.
>>>>
>>> Steve abandoning you and my posting are not mutually exclusive. But
>>> considering your have drawn the erroneous conclusion that Steve and I are
>>> the same person, I can understand why you are confused.
>>
>> I am basing my belief on your words - or was your logic incorrect in the
>> following (from previous post):
>
> Your reading comprehension is poor.
I explain my reasoning clearly - and you have yet to even comment on where
you disagree. Nor do you state what made you think of Josh. Read the
following...
>
>> ----------
>>
>>>> Don't forget the other people that Steve and / or Elizabot have claimed I
>>>> am... I am many people to them.
>>>
>>> Quit spreading your lies. I have only claimed that you are Snit and perhaps
>>> "Sigmond." You would like to believe I have called you someone named Josh.
>>>
>>> Sir, you are no Josh.
>>
>> Now you claim that you and Steve are the same person. You just admitted it!
>>
>> I said you and / or Steve have said something, and you said I was lying
>> solely based on your claim that *you* never said it. The only possible way
>> you are not lying is to say that you two are one and the same.
>>
>> Bad form. I just caught you in your lie.
>>
>> At least now I know why you two use so many of the same logical fallacies,
>> side issues, nit picking, semantic games, etc.
>>
>> PS: I did not mention Josh. What made you think of him?
>> -----------
>>
>>>> Why is that, Stevabot (did you think I had forgotten how you had claimed to
>>>> be the same person)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gee. I'm not Stevabot, so I suppose this point does not apply to me.
>>
>>
>> Are you wrong now or then?
>
> Neither. I have never claimed to be Stevabot.
But you did claim that if you and / or Steve did something, and you did not,
then that by itself invalidates the entire premise. How is that possible if
you are not Steve (and you make no comment as to Steve's actions)
>
>> Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic games with you that you have
>> not tried on me. Well, accept mine make logical sense. :)
>
> I disagree.
Which which part. Do you not agree "at all"?
>
>>>> Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to refute it (it
>>>> very strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well supported and not
>>>> refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw around insults.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned before, considering your post was in response to Steve
>>> Carroll, I took the liberty of snipping out points that I did not care to
>>> discuss.
>>
>> Then what is your post about again? Oh yeah, you desperately wanting to get
>> some points from me.
>
> It was about Steve abandoning you. Don't be silly! I was letting you now that
> I have not abandoned you. I gave you a new quiz to keep you happy and
> entertained!
> Gee, I am *so* under appreciated.
Steve will be back. He always is.
But here, have some more points. Want another 20?
>>> You seem to be under the impression that it is my duty to answer to your
>>> whims.
>>
>>
>> You have now tried and succeeded with one of the two refutations I know -
>> now that you cannot get the other it is not your duty? LOL. OK. You may
>> give up whenever you want - just do not try to hold that against me.
>
> I wouldn't hold *anything* against you, if you get my drift.
Sure, since I am almost always right, you would not want to argue against
me. Makes sense to me. :)
>>> LOL! If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You started the silliness of
>>> assigning "lessons" and giving points. I'm just giving you a dose of your
>>> own medicine, and I see that you don't like it *at all.*
>>
>> No - I like it. I love seeing you want to get a point somehow, in any
>> possible way. Here, have 100. That puts me at -140 or whatever your scorig
>> system is.
>
> How charitable of you.
Thanks... I give to the needy.
>
>>>> I am sure you will rate these to take points from me, as you seem to
>>>> admittedly be desperate to get a point now and then (apparently valid or
>>>> not), I will play your game. For now. In no way should it be seen as any
>>>> type of admission that I agree with your point system, just find it funny
>>>> to
>>>> show you wrong - again. And if you think you earn a few points here,
>>>> maybe,
>>>> just maybe, you will make a valid point someday. I can always hope.
>>>
>>> PMBYMHMMFSWGAD.
>>
>> If you do not care, why set up a game where you think you can get points?
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
Depends in what game. She beat me in Backgammon just this morning. Why do
you ask?
Score away then....
>
>>>>> c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word
>>>>> over the limit.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop to
>>>> juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is the
>>>> best you can do to get a point.
>>>
>>> MO is the abbreviation for "method of operation," so you get -2 pts for
>>> going over the 35 word limit. Nice try.
>>
>> Well, really it stands for "Modus Operandi", so you should only take one,
>> but I will grant you another point for actually counting my words to see if
>> I hit the 35 limit.
>
> As I had told you to choose from *one* of the answers, and your above
> statement is your clear admission that you had answered two of them, I must
> deduct 5 pts from your score.
Good. You need all the points you can get.
>
>>>>> I eagerly await your responses.
>>>>
>>>> Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
>>>> "points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever make a
>>>> point in most discussions.
>>>
>>> You seem bitter. Sigh.
>>>
>>> You did very well and have successfully raised your score to a 17 (in this
>>> thread.) You *should* be pleased. I may even considering lowering the bottom
>>> end of my grading scale in order to pass you. Of course, you could always do
>>> extra credit work.
>>
>>
>> I have to say, in this post you seem damn near likable. How can I vilify
>> you if you are gonna act cool every now and then?
>
> I am Elizabot. Resistance is futile.
I will soon join the Stevabot collective?
Elizabot
I've read the entire thing. It's very clear to me that you are missing something
HUGE.
>>>----------
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Don't forget the other people that Steve and / or Elizabot have claimed I
>>>>>am... I am many people to them.
>>>>
>>>>Quit spreading your lies. I have only claimed that you are Snit and perhaps
>>>>"Sigmond." You would like to believe I have called you someone named Josh.
>>>>
>>>>Sir, you are no Josh.
>>>
>>>Now you claim that you and Steve are the same person. You just admitted it!
>>>
>>>I said you and / or Steve have said something, and you said I was lying
>>>solely based on your claim that *you* never said it. The only possible way
>>>you are not lying is to say that you two are one and the same.
>>>
>>>Bad form. I just caught you in your lie.
>>>
>>>At least now I know why you two use so many of the same logical fallacies,
>>>side issues, nit picking, semantic games, etc.
>>>
>>>PS: I did not mention Josh. What made you think of him?
>>>-----------
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Why is that, Stevabot (did you think I had forgotten how you had claimed to
>>>>>be the same person)?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gee. I'm not Stevabot, so I suppose this point does not apply to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you wrong now or then?
>>
>>Neither. I have never claimed to be Stevabot.
>
>
> But you did claim that if you and / or Steve did something, and you did not,
> then that by itself invalidates the entire premise.
This is your error. Come on Snit! You can figure it out! Cantcha? Look at your
premise and the conclusion you drew from it! HAHAHA!!!
Here it is again:
Snit:
Premise: Don't forget the other people that Steve and / or Elizabot have claimed
I am
Conclusion: I am many people to them.
Get it yet? Find *your* error???
HAHAHAAA!
> How is that possible if
> you are not Steve (and you make no comment as to Steve's actions)
>
>>>Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic games with you that you have
>>>not tried on me. Well, accept mine make logical sense. :)
>>
>>I disagree.
>
>
> Which which part. Do you not agree "at all"?
Well, I haven't said now, have I?
(Your reading skill level has increased. Good Job!)
>>>>>Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to refute it (it
>>>>>very strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well supported and not
>>>>>refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw around insults.
>>>>
>>>>As I mentioned before, considering your post was in response to Steve
>>>>Carroll, I took the liberty of snipping out points that I did not care to
>>>>discuss.
>>>
>>>Then what is your post about again? Oh yeah, you desperately wanting to get
>>>some points from me.
>>
>>It was about Steve abandoning you. Don't be silly! I was letting you now that
>>I have not abandoned you. I gave you a new quiz to keep you happy and
>>entertained!
>>Gee, I am *so* under appreciated.
>
>
> Steve will be back. He always is.
>
> But here, have some more points. Want another 20?
HA! I really burnt you with that point game!
>>>>You seem to be under the impression that it is my duty to answer to your
>>>>whims.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have now tried and succeeded with one of the two refutations I know -
>>>now that you cannot get the other it is not your duty? LOL. OK. You may
>>>give up whenever you want - just do not try to hold that against me.
>>
>>I wouldn't hold *anything* against you, if you get my drift.
>
>
> Sure, since I am almost always right, you would not want to argue against
> me. Makes sense to me. :)
Guess you didn't get the joke. I'm not surprised.
>>>>LOL! If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You started the silliness of
>>>>assigning "lessons" and giving points. I'm just giving you a dose of your
>>>>own medicine, and I see that you don't like it *at all.*
>>>
>>>No - I like it. I love seeing you want to get a point somehow, in any
>>>possible way. Here, have 100. That puts me at -140 or whatever your scorig
>>>system is.
>>
>>How charitable of you.
>
>
> Thanks... I give to the needy.
Then you better give yourself a few more points because you REALLY flubbed the
Stevabot thing.
>>>>>I am sure you will rate these to take points from me, as you seem to
>>>>>admittedly be desperate to get a point now and then (apparently valid or
>>>>>not), I will play your game. For now. In no way should it be seen as any
>>>>>type of admission that I agree with your point system, just find it funny
>>>>>to
>>>>>show you wrong - again. And if you think you earn a few points here,
>>>>>maybe,
>>>>>just maybe, you will make a valid point someday. I can always hope.
>>>>
>>>>PMBYMHMMFSWGAD.
>>>
>>>If you do not care, why set up a game where you think you can get points?
>>
>>Have you stopped beating your wife?
>
>
> Depends in what game. She beat me in Backgammon just this morning. Why do
> you ask?
I will take that as a "No."
You need to take the few points you have earned and exchange them for a clue, so
I'll hold off deducting points for the time.
>>>>>>c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word
>>>>>>over the limit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop to
>>>>>juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is the
>>>>>best you can do to get a point.
>>>>
>>>>MO is the abbreviation for "method of operation," so you get -2 pts for
>>>>going over the 35 word limit. Nice try.
>>>
>>>Well, really it stands for "Modus Operandi", so you should only take one,
>>>but I will grant you another point for actually counting my words to see if
>>>I hit the 35 limit.
>>
>>As I had told you to choose from *one* of the answers, and your above
>>statement is your clear admission that you had answered two of them, I must
>>deduct 5 pts from your score.
>
>
> Good. You need all the points you can get.
Go out and get that clue. FAST! It appears as though your reading comprehension
level is dropping again.
>>>>>>I eagerly await your responses.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
>>>>>"points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever make a
>>>>>point in most discussions.
>>>>
>>>>You seem bitter. Sigh.
>>>>
>>>>You did very well and have successfully raised your score to a 17 (in this
>>>>thread.) You *should* be pleased. I may even considering lowering the bottom
>>>>end of my grading scale in order to pass you. Of course, you could always do
>>>>extra credit work.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have to say, in this post you seem damn near likable. How can I vilify
>>>you if you are gonna act cool every now and then?
>>
>>I am Elizabot. Resistance is futile.
>
>
> I will soon join the Stevabot collective?
We do not assimilate inferior biological organisms.
Steve Carroll
Elizabot
:-)
Snit
No, I took your ego into account.
I am guessing that you are looking at the word "them" and assuming that
since I refer to both of you it *must* mean that both of you hold the same
beliefs.
But, if you talk about a group, you can logically say "they" believe
something even if some subset does not - example: "the Iraqi's, they believe
America is evil" - does not imply that *all* Americans believe that way"
>
>> How is that possible if
>> you are not Steve (and you make no comment as to Steve's actions)
>>
>>>> Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic games with you that you
>>>> have not tried on me. Well, accept mine make logical sense. :)
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>>
>> Which which part. Do you not agree "at all"?
>
> Well, I haven't said now, have I?
>
> (Your reading skill level has increased. Good Job!)
And I see you still are not answering direct questions.
>
>>>>>> Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to refute it (it
>>>>>> very strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well supported and
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw around insults.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned before, considering your post was in response to Steve
>>>>> Carroll, I took the liberty of snipping out points that I did not care to
>>>>> discuss.
>>>>
>>>> Then what is your post about again? Oh yeah, you desperately wanting to
>>>> get
>>>> some points from me.
>>>
>>> It was about Steve abandoning you. Don't be silly! I was letting you now
>>> that
>>> I have not abandoned you. I gave you a new quiz to keep you happy and
>>> entertained!
>>> Gee, I am *so* under appreciated.
>>
>>
>> Steve will be back. He always is.
>>
>> But here, have some more points. Want another 20?
>
> HA! I really burnt you with that point game!
Nope.
>
>>>>> You seem to be under the impression that it is my duty to answer to your
>>>>> whims.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have now tried and succeeded with one of the two refutations I know -
>>>> now that you cannot get the other it is not your duty? LOL. OK. You may
>>>> give up whenever you want - just do not try to hold that against me.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't hold *anything* against you, if you get my drift.
>>
>>
>> Sure, since I am almost always right, you would not want to argue against
>> me. Makes sense to me. :)
>
> Guess you didn't get the joke. I'm not surprised.
I think I did - on more levels than you. :)
>
>>>>> LOL! If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You started the silliness of
>>>>> assigning "lessons" and giving points. I'm just giving you a dose of your
>>>>> own medicine, and I see that you don't like it *at all.*
>>>>
>>>> No - I like it. I love seeing you want to get a point somehow, in any
>>>> possible way. Here, have 100. That puts me at -140 or whatever your
>>>> scorig
>>>> system is.
>>>
>>> How charitable of you.
>>
>>
>> Thanks... I give to the needy.
>
> Then you better give yourself a few more points because you REALLY flubbed the
> Stevabot thing.
Nope. Not at all. At least you have not shown why not, Stevabot.
>
>>>>>> I am sure you will rate these to take points from me, as you seem to
>>>>>> admittedly be desperate to get a point now and then (apparently valid or
>>>>>> not), I will play your game. For now. In no way should it be seen as
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> type of admission that I agree with your point system, just find it funny
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> show you wrong - again. And if you think you earn a few points here,
>>>>>> maybe,
>>>>>> just maybe, you will make a valid point someday. I can always hope.
>>>>>
>>>>> PMBYMHMMFSWGAD.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not care, why set up a game where you think you can get points?
>>>
>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>
>>
>> Depends in what game. She beat me in Backgammon just this morning. Why do
>> you ask?
>
> I will take that as a "No."
Well, I beat her in Farkle, so, again, it depends on the game. Take that as
you wish... I suppose I have not stopped beating her, but she beats me at
times, too.
I think you are taking my offerings a bit seriously....
>
>>>>>>> c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word
>>>>>>> over the limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is the
>>>>>> best you can do to get a point.
>>>>>
>>>>> MO is the abbreviation for "method of operation," so you get -2 pts for
>>>>> going over the 35 word limit. Nice try.
>>>>
>>>> Well, really it stands for "Modus Operandi", so you should only take one,
>>>> but I will grant you another point for actually counting my words to see if
>>>> I hit the 35 limit.
>>>
>>> As I had told you to choose from *one* of the answers, and your above
>>> statement is your clear admission that you had answered two of them, I must
>>> deduct 5 pts from your score.
>>
>>
>> Good. You need all the points you can get.
>
> Go out and get that clue. FAST! It appears as though your reading
> comprehension level is dropping again.
Sorry, not one of the games I commonly play.
>
>>>>>>> I eagerly await your responses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
>>>>>> "points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever make
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> point in most discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem bitter. Sigh.
>>>>>
>>>>> You did very well and have successfully raised your score to a 17 (in this
>>>>> thread.) You *should* be pleased. I may even considering lowering the
>>>>> bottom
>>>>> end of my grading scale in order to pass you. Of course, you could always
>>>>> do
>>>>> extra credit work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to say, in this post you seem damn near likable. How can I vilify
>>>> you if you are gonna act cool every now and then?
>>>
>>> I am Elizabot. Resistance is futile.
>>
>>
>> I will soon join the Stevabot collective?
>
> We do not assimilate inferior biological organisms.
Here you acknowledge, again, that you are a part, at least, of Stevabot.
Snit
What could be inferior to Steve?
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > In article <400431f4$0$70305$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> > Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Snit wrote:
>
>
> >>>I will soon join the Stevabot collective?
> >>
> >>We do not assimilate inferior biological organisms.
> >
> > LOL!
>
> :-)
Here's another fun one:
Early on in the discussion stage Snit referred to his argument in the
following manner:
"So far, however, nobody has come up with a refutation of the legal
argument."
Consider the nerve with which John Q Public subsequently wrote to Snit:
"You said you wanted a legal debate."
--------------------------------------------------
How DARE John make such a wild leap! Right, Snit?!?
--------------------------------------------------
To which Snit answered:
"When? I said I have a case and am open to refutation."
LOL!!
Steve
Snit
I thought you were done debating me. Shows how sincere you are...
Here, though, for once, you have an actual place where I seem to contradict
myself. Good.
Except, this has already been covered:
"I have admitted my error about not replying to the "legal argument"
refutations well. That is a genuine admission of error. I have posted an
argument that, so far, has not been refuted. You apparently have tried, but
also claim that you are not defending Bush against my claims. Seems pretty
disingenuous, if you ask me. As far as my argument, I have re-posted it in
its entirely, showing that my case has not changed. I may have gone
slightly astray with my arguments against the "legal argument" refutation,
but my core argument is *exactly* the same."
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BBFBB95
E.34A4E%25snit...@cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
See, I made the mistake of believing that you were actually, honestly
working toward a refutation; then you started redefining what a "legal"
argument was, assuming that all legal arguments must be judicial, as opposed
to just dealing with the law (as was the definition George Graves gave out
that I agreed to). So, sure, I became confused as to what definitions you
were using, because you kept changing them to fit your needs.
However you want to classify my argument, it *still* has not changed. You
have a very hard time coping with that. So hard you hide behind a kill file
and then *still* continue the debate.
And you used to call me a coward.
Elizabot
Your ego is a huge pendulum attached to a miniature clock.
Nice backpedaling, but you are wrong. Your conclusion did not state anything
about believing or beliefs. You made a concrete statement.
>>>How is that possible if
>>>you are not Steve (and you make no comment as to Steve's actions)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic games with you that you
>>>>>have not tried on me. Well, accept mine make logical sense. :)
>>>>
>>>>I disagree.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which which part. Do you not agree "at all"?
>>
>>Well, I haven't said now, have I?
>>
>>(Your reading skill level has increased. Good Job!)
>
>
> And I see you still are not answering direct questions.
I see you don't like it very much when I play your silly words games back at you.
Have you already forgotten my having written "You did not answer my question.
I'll clarify it a little bit. Where is it written in the Constitution that we
can kill people after Congress has authorized the President to use War Powers?"
Your answer: "As you wrote above: 'The Congress shall have Power: To declare War'"
Over two weeks later I asked you again and you responded with: "You now need the
Constitution to tell you that people die in wars?"
And another time with: "Define war. Your answer is there. In any case, let us
say I agree with your implication that war powers do not allow killing - then
the war is still illegal. You are supporting my case here - just not well."
So don't you act all High and Mighty about my not answering your direct
questions. I can play that game too.
>>>>>>>Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to refute it (it
>>>>>>>very strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well supported and
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw around insults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I mentioned before, considering your post was in response to Steve
>>>>>>Carroll, I took the liberty of snipping out points that I did not care to
>>>>>>discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then what is your post about again? Oh yeah, you desperately wanting to
>>>>>get
>>>>>some points from me.
>>>>
>>>>It was about Steve abandoning you. Don't be silly! I was letting you now
>>>>that
>>>>I have not abandoned you. I gave you a new quiz to keep you happy and
>>>>entertained!
>>>>Gee, I am *so* under appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>Steve will be back. He always is.
>>>
>>>But here, have some more points. Want another 20?
>>
>>HA! I really burnt you with that point game!
>
>
> Nope.
I see you couldn't think of a clever response.
>>>>>>You seem to be under the impression that it is my duty to answer to your
>>>>>>whims.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You have now tried and succeeded with one of the two refutations I know -
>>>>>now that you cannot get the other it is not your duty? LOL. OK. You may
>>>>>give up whenever you want - just do not try to hold that against me.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't hold *anything* against you, if you get my drift.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, since I am almost always right, you would not want to argue against
>>>me. Makes sense to me. :)
>>
>>Guess you didn't get the joke. I'm not surprised.
>
>
> I think
Here's your error.
> I did - on more levels than you. :)
>
>>>>>>LOL! If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You started the silliness of
>>>>>>assigning "lessons" and giving points. I'm just giving you a dose of your
>>>>>>own medicine, and I see that you don't like it *at all.*
>>>>>
>>>>>No - I like it. I love seeing you want to get a point somehow, in any
>>>>>possible way. Here, have 100. That puts me at -140 or whatever your
>>>>>scorig
>>>>>system is.
>>>>
>>>>How charitable of you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks... I give to the needy.
>>
>>Then you better give yourself a few more points because you REALLY flubbed the
>>Stevabot thing.
>
>
> Nope. Not at all. At least you have not shown why not, Stevabot.
Yes I have, Mr. Clueless Wonder.
You still need to get that Clue...
>>>>>>>>c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word
>>>>>>>>over the limit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is the
>>>>>>>best you can do to get a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>MO is the abbreviation for "method of operation," so you get -2 pts for
>>>>>>going over the 35 word limit. Nice try.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, really it stands for "Modus Operandi", so you should only take one,
>>>>>but I will grant you another point for actually counting my words to see if
>>>>>I hit the 35 limit.
>>>>
>>>>As I had told you to choose from *one* of the answers, and your above
>>>>statement is your clear admission that you had answered two of them, I must
>>>>deduct 5 pts from your score.
>>>
>>>
>>>Good. You need all the points you can get.
>>
>>Go out and get that clue. FAST! It appears as though your reading
>>comprehension level is dropping again.
>
>
> Sorry, not one of the games I commonly play.
Of course not. Clue is a game of logical deductions.
>>>>>>>>I eagerly await your responses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
>>>>>>>"points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever make
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>point in most discussions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem bitter. Sigh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You did very well and have successfully raised your score to a 17 (in this
>>>>>>thread.) You *should* be pleased. I may even considering lowering the
>>>>>>bottom
>>>>>>end of my grading scale in order to pass you. Of course, you could always
>>>>>>do
>>>>>>extra credit work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have to say, in this post you seem damn near likable. How can I vilify
>>>>>you if you are gonna act cool every now and then?
>>>>
>>>>I am Elizabot. Resistance is futile.
>>>
>>>
>>>I will soon join the Stevabot collective?
>>
>>We do not assimilate inferior biological organisms.
>
>
> Here you acknowledge, again, that you are a part, at least, of Stevabot.
Do you need me to put a smiley after every joke I make? I have already noted
your severe lack-of-humor/reading-comprehension problem. I was hoping you could
overcome it on your own.
--
Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03
Snit
>>>> I explain my reasoning clearly - and you have yet to even comment on where
>>>> you disagree. Nor do you state what made you think of Josh. Read the
>>>> following...
>>>
>>> I've read the entire thing. It's very clear to me that you are missing
>>> something HUGE.
>>
>> No, I took your ego into account.
>
> Your ego is a huge pendulum attached to a miniature clock.
No no no... see, I make an insult based directly on your comments, and your
insult is just like a 14 yr old retaliation. No good.
>>> This is your error. Come on Snit! You can figure it out! Cantcha? Look at
>>> your
>>> premise and the conclusion you drew from it! HAHAHA!!!
>>>
>>> Here it is again:
>>>
>>> Snit:
>>> Premise: Don't forget the other people that Steve and / or Elizabot have
>>> claimed I am
>>>
>>> Conclusion: I am many people to them.
>>>
>>> Get it yet? Find *your* error???
>>>
>>> HAHAHAAA!
>>
>> I am guessing that you are looking at the word "them" and assuming that
>> since I refer to both of you it *must* mean that both of you hold the same
>> beliefs.
>>
>> But, if you talk about a group, you can logically say "they" believe
>> something even if some subset does not - example: "the Iraqi's, they believe
>> America is evil" - does not imply that *all* Americans believe that way"
>
> Nice backpedaling, but you are wrong. Your conclusion did not state anything
> about believing or beliefs. You made a concrete statement.
What does that have to do with "they". Jesus, you sound like Clinton, to
you it matters what the definition of "they" is.
Look at this group: They do not even want to read this. :)
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic games with you that you
>>>>>> have not tried on me. Well, accept mine make logical sense. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which which part. Do you not agree "at all"?
>>>
>>> Well, I haven't said now, have I?
>>>
>>> (Your reading skill level has increased. Good Job!)
>>
>>
>> And I see you still are not answering direct questions.
>
> I see you don't like it very much when I play your silly words games back at
> you.
One - you and Steve started the words games
Two - I have clearly beaten you even at that, Stevabot who says there is no
logical possibility I am wrong.
>
> Have you already forgotten my having written "You did not answer my question.
> I'll clarify it a little bit. Where is it written in the Constitution that we
> can kill people after Congress has authorized the President to use War
> Powers?"
>
> Your answer: "As you wrote above: 'The Congress shall have Power: To declare
> War'"
>
> Over two weeks later I asked you again and you responded with: "You now need
> the Constitution to tell you that people die in wars?"
>
> And another time with: "Define war. Your answer is there. In any case, let
> us say I agree with your implication that war powers do not allow killing -
> then the war is still illegal. You are supporting my case here - just not
> well."
>
> So don't you act all High and Mighty about my not answering your direct
> questions. I can play that game too.
My questions still stand: do you need to Constitution to tell you people die
in wars. The Constitution talks about war, and therefore it talks about
killing. Unless you are looking to play some weird word games (still) I do
not see how you can miss that.
>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, you did not respond to this post in an attempt to refute it (it
>>>>>>>> very strongly shows how my argument against Bush is well supported and
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> refuted), you came here for your normal reason - to throw around
>>>>>>>> insults.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I mentioned before, considering your post was in response to Steve
>>>>>>> Carroll, I took the liberty of snipping out points that I did not care
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> discuss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then what is your post about again? Oh yeah, you desperately wanting to
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> some points from me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was about Steve abandoning you. Don't be silly! I was letting you now
>>>>> that
>>>>> I have not abandoned you. I gave you a new quiz to keep you happy and
>>>>> entertained!
>>>>> Gee, I am *so* under appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve will be back. He always is.
>>>>
>>>> But here, have some more points. Want another 20?
>>>
>>> HA! I really burnt you with that point game!
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>
> I see you couldn't think of a clever response.
None were warranted.
Wow - meaningless name calling. You are so over your head.
see... completely meaningless. And you were doing so much better for a
while.
>
>>>>>>>>> c) Please give another explanation in 35 words or less. -1 pt per word
>>>>>>>>> over the limit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, instead of even attempting to make a valid point, you stoop
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> juvenile insults. It is your MO, your signature, your style. It is
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> best you can do to get a point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MO is the abbreviation for "method of operation," so you get -2 pts for
>>>>>>> going over the 35 word limit. Nice try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, really it stands for "Modus Operandi", so you should only take one,
>>>>>> but I will grant you another point for actually counting my words to see
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> I hit the 35 limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I had told you to choose from *one* of the answers, and your above
>>>>> statement is your clear admission that you had answered two of them, I
>>>>> must
>>>>> deduct 5 pts from your score.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good. You need all the points you can get.
>>>
>>> Go out and get that clue. FAST! It appears as though your reading
>>> comprehension level is dropping again.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, not one of the games I commonly play.
>
> Of course not. Clue is a game of logical deductions.
See, this is how you make an insult - much better; even deals with what I
was talking about. I knew you had it in you. As an insult, I suppose the
logical fallacies are not worth discussing - unless you were really trying
to make a point.
>
>>>>>>>>> I eagerly await your responses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course: so you can claim some sort of victory and say you earned
>>>>>>>> "points". Makes sense, being that seems to be the only way you ever
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> point in most discussions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem bitter. Sigh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You did very well and have successfully raised your score to a 17 (in
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> thread.) You *should* be pleased. I may even considering lowering the
>>>>>>> bottom
>>>>>>> end of my grading scale in order to pass you. Of course, you could
>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> extra credit work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to say, in this post you seem damn near likable. How can I vilify
>>>>>> you if you are gonna act cool every now and then?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am Elizabot. Resistance is futile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will soon join the Stevabot collective?
>>>
>>> We do not assimilate inferior biological organisms.
>>
>>
>> Here you acknowledge, again, that you are a part, at least, of Stevabot.
>
> Do you need me to put a smiley after every joke I make? I have already noted
> your severe lack-of-humor/reading-comprehension problem. I was hoping you
> could overcome it on your own.
See, back to bad insults. You show signs you can get there.
Do you need a teacher?
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/13/04 2:07 PM:
>
>
>>>>>I explain my reasoning clearly - and you have yet to even comment on where
>>>>>you disagree. Nor do you state what made you think of Josh. Read the
>>>>>following...
>>>>
>>>>I've read the entire thing. It's very clear to me that you are missing
>>>>something HUGE.
>>>
>>>No, I took your ego into account.
>>
>>Your ego is a huge pendulum attached to a miniature clock.
>
>
> No no no... see, I make an insult based directly on your comments, and your
> insult is just like a 14 yr old retaliation. No good.
You are stuttering. Take a deep breath and slow down.
"No, I took your ego into account." WoW! Did you come up with that one all by
yourself? How original. ;-) <- NOTE SMILEY.
No good.
>>>>This is your error. Come on Snit! You can figure it out! Cantcha? Look at
>>>>your
>>>>premise and the conclusion you drew from it! HAHAHA!!!
>>>>
>>>>Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>>Snit:
>>>>Premise: Don't forget the other people that Steve and / or Elizabot have
>>>>claimed I am
>>>>
>>>>Conclusion: I am many people to them.
>>>>
>>>>Get it yet? Find *your* error???
>>>>
>>>>HAHAHAAA!
>>>
>>>I am guessing that you are looking at the word "them" and assuming that
>>>since I refer to both of you it *must* mean that both of you hold the same
>>>beliefs.
>>>
>>>But, if you talk about a group, you can logically say "they" believe
>>>something even if some subset does not - example: "the Iraqi's, they believe
>>>America is evil" - does not imply that *all* Americans believe that way"
>>
>>Nice backpedaling, but you are wrong. Your conclusion did not state anything
>>about believing or beliefs. You made a concrete statement.
>
>
> What does that have to do with "they". Jesus, you sound like Clinton, to
> you it matters what the definition of "they" is.
Your definition of "them" above is Steve and Elizabot, silly! Not a bunch of
other people with Steve and Elizabot as a subset!
Snit engages in Fallacy of Exaggeration once again!
> Look at this group: They do not even want to read this. :)
Another irrelevant comment from Snit. See, Snit, you said GROUP. In the other
statement you said STEVE AND ELIZABOT. "Them" means "Steve and Elizabot" in your
original argument.
This is not a difficult concept, really.
>>>>>>>Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic games with you that you
>>>>>>>have not tried on me. Well, accept mine make logical sense. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Which which part. Do you not agree "at all"?
>>>>
>>>>Well, I haven't said now, have I?
>>>>
>>>>(Your reading skill level has increased. Good Job!)
>>>
>>>
>>>And I see you still are not answering direct questions.
>>
>>I see you don't like it very much when I play your silly words games back at
>>you.
>
>
> One - you and Steve started the words games
You started it when you couldn't decide if you wanted to have a
legal/moral/logical debate. That was before *I* got involved.
> Two - I have clearly beaten you even at that, Stevabot who says there is no
> logical possibility I am wrong.
Now you're really grasping at straws. Go ahead and use your fallacious arguments
as "support" for your claim. You fool nobody.
No Three? Come on, Snit. Give me a Three! ;-) <- NOTE SMILEY
>>Have you already forgotten my having written "You did not answer my question.
>>I'll clarify it a little bit. Where is it written in the Constitution that we
>>can kill people after Congress has authorized the President to use War
>>Powers?"
>>
>>Your answer: "As you wrote above: 'The Congress shall have Power: To declare
>>War'"
>>
>>Over two weeks later I asked you again and you responded with: "You now need
>>the Constitution to tell you that people die in wars?"
>>
>>And another time with: "Define war. Your answer is there. In any case, let
>>us say I agree with your implication that war powers do not allow killing -
>>then the war is still illegal. You are supporting my case here - just not
>>well."
>>
>>So don't you act all High and Mighty about my not answering your direct
>>questions. I can play that game too.
>
>
> My questions still stand: do you need to Constitution to tell you people die
> in wars. The Constitution talks about war, and therefore it talks about
> killing. Unless you are looking to play some weird word games (still) I do
> not see how you can miss that.
Back to that unproven argument.
Have you figured out that it is not valid yet?
Wow - and you still don't get that I am not Stevabot. You are so over your head.
It has meaning, but since you apparently can't keep anything straight in your
head, I'm not surprised that you missed it.
Your insults are simply stupid and trite.
My, you are sensitive today! Losing Backgammon must have set your day off on the
wrong foot. ;-) <- NOTE SMILEY
I see you also didn't answer my question. Oh well. I'll just have to take the
matter into my own hands.
> Do you need a teacher?
Nope.
Snit
If the concept is so easy, then why do you keep missing it? The group of
Steve and Elizabot did do exactly as I state: claimed I am someone other
than Snit.
>
>>>>>>>> Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic games with you that
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> have not tried on me. Well, accept mine make logical sense. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which which part. Do you not agree "at all"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I haven't said now, have I?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Your reading skill level has increased. Good Job!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I see you still are not answering direct questions.
>>>
>>> I see you don't like it very much when I play your silly words games back at
>>> you.
>>
>>
>> One - you and Steve started the words games
>
> You started it when you couldn't decide if you wanted to have a
> legal/moral/logical debate. That was before *I* got involved.
Actually, that is Steve's word game - I just asked for reasoned refutations
of my argument. How you want to categorize it is completely irrelevant.
>
>> Two - I have clearly beaten you even at that, Stevabot who says there is no
>> logical possibility I am wrong.
>
> Now you're really grasping at straws. Go ahead and use your fallacious
> arguments
> as "support" for your claim. You fool nobody.
You seem unable to grasp the clear concepts I lay out for you - therefore,
you are being fooled (in this case into *not* believing what I say)
>
> No Three? Come on, Snit. Give me a Three! ;-) <- NOTE SMILEY
>
>>> Have you already forgotten my having written "You did not answer my
>>> question.
>>> I'll clarify it a little bit. Where is it written in the Constitution that
>>> we
>>> can kill people after Congress has authorized the President to use War
>>> Powers?"
>>>
>>> Your answer: "As you wrote above: 'The Congress shall have Power: To declare
>>> War'"
>>>
>>> Over two weeks later I asked you again and you responded with: "You now need
>>> the Constitution to tell you that people die in wars?"
>>>
>>> And another time with: "Define war. Your answer is there. In any case, let
>>> us say I agree with your implication that war powers do not allow killing -
>>> then the war is still illegal. You are supporting my case here - just not
>>> well."
>>>
>>> So don't you act all High and Mighty about my not answering your direct
>>> questions. I can play that game too.
>>
>>
>> My questions still stand: do you need to Constitution to tell you people die
>> in wars. The Constitution talks about war, and therefore it talks about
>> killing. Unless you are looking to play some weird word games (still) I do
>> not see how you can miss that.
>
> Back to that unproven argument.
>
> Have you figured out that it is not valid yet?
I know many things that are not valid - much of what you say fits that
description. :)
But accurate.
Enjoying the pyramids?
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
You forgot mathematical :) I think you're pissing him off...
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Yeah... I just twisted your arm making you continually redefine
everything you ever said. LOL! Snit: My argument is a floor wax... NO,
its a dessert topping... NO, it's TWO IN ONE!
Steve
Snit
>> You started it when you couldn't decide if you wanted to have a
>> legal/moral/logical debate. That was before *I* got involved.
>
> You forgot mathematical :) I think you're pissing him off...
Actually, the mathematical argument was yours, you just did not word it that
way. Oh, you still have not responded to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC28
87DA.3A0A5%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&lr=&hl=en
I think it lays things out pretty clearly....
As far as me getting pissed off, why should I be?
After all this time, my argument *still* stands with support, meets its
burden of proof, and has not been successfully refuted.
All these side issues and games just prove my point that the actual attempt
to refute my argument has, so far, failed miserably.
Snit
>> Actually, that is Steve's word game - I just asked for reasoned refutations
>> of my argument. How you want to categorize it is completely irrelevant.
>
> Yeah... I just twisted your arm making you continually redefine
> everything you ever said.
Well, when started re-defining what was meant, by say a legal argument and
assuming it was judicial, yeah, you sorta did. In any case, I figured out
your game and stopped playing.
Now, can you tell me why it matters? No matter how you categorize my
argument, it *still* stands unrefuted.
The rest is side issues you were playing.
Care to respond to this:
Elizabot
Try and stay focused. The conclusion you used was "I am many people to them."
I assume you will withdraw your claim: "But you did claim that if you and / or
Steve did something, and you did not, then that by itself invalidates the entire
premise."
You clearly see that the above claim is wrong. My issues are with your
conclusion, the one where you falsely assign the entire claim to each member of
the group.
You did not state "I am many people to Steve and / or Elizabot." You did not
state "I am many people to either of them." You stated "I am many people to
them." "Them" is inclusive. Therefore, you are assigning your claim to each
member of the group.
Them is an AND statement. Only Snit would argue that his statement was an
exclusive AND statement, as such is illogic to the extreme.
>>>>>>>>>Of course, I am not playing any logic / semantic games with you that
>>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>>have not tried on me. Well, accept mine make logical sense. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I disagree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which which part. Do you not agree "at all"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, I haven't said now, have I?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(Your reading skill level has increased. Good Job!)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And I see you still are not answering direct questions.
>>>>
>>>>I see you don't like it very much when I play your silly words games back at
>>>>you.
>>>
>>>
>>>One - you and Steve started the words games
>>
>>You started it when you couldn't decide if you wanted to have a
>>legal/moral/logical debate. That was before *I* got involved.
>
>
> Actually, that is Steve's word game - I just asked for reasoned refutations
> of my argument. How you want to categorize it is completely irrelevant.
So your above statement is incorrect. You stated the inclusive "you and Steve."
You did not state "you or Steve."
Admit your error.
[snip]
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
So you forgot that it was YOU who first used the term legal argument?
And it's everyone else's fault that they ALL misinterpreted what you
really meant, right? LOL!
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/13/04 3:50 PM:
>
> >> You started it when you couldn't decide if you wanted to have a
> >> legal/moral/logical debate. That was before *I* got involved.
> >
> > You forgot mathematical :) I think you're pissing him off...
>
> Actually, the mathematical argument was yours, you just did not word it that
> way. Oh, you still have not responded to:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC28
> 87DA.3A0A5%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&lr=&hl=en
>
> I think it lays things out pretty clearly....
>
> As far as me getting pissed off, why should I be?
I dunno... why are you? You should sort these things out or you'll get
high blood pressure :)
Steve
Snit
>>> Another irrelevant comment from Snit. See, Snit, you said GROUP. In the
>>> other statement you said STEVE AND ELIZABOT. "Them" means "Steve and
>>> Elizabot" in your original argument.
>>>
>>> This is not a difficult concept, really.
>>
>> If the concept is so easy, then why do you keep missing it? The group of
>> Steve and Elizabot did do exactly as I state: claimed I am someone other
>> than Snit.
>
> Try and stay focused. The conclusion you used was "I am many people to them."
>
> I assume you will withdraw your claim: "But you did claim that if you and / or
> Steve did something, and you did not, then that by itself invalidates the
> entire premise."
>
> You clearly see that the above claim is wrong. My issues are with your
> conclusion, the one where you falsely assign the entire claim to each member
> of the group.
>
> You did not state "I am many people to Steve and / or Elizabot." You did not
> state "I am many people to either of them." You stated "I am many people to
> them." "Them" is inclusive. Therefore, you are assigning your claim to each
> member of the group.
>
> Them is an AND statement. Only Snit would argue that his statement was an
> exclusive AND statement, as such is illogic to the extreme.
In any profession it is good to know your strengths and weaknesses. I know
both of mine; and I know one of my strengths is to patiently place myself at
my students level, even in topics where I am clearly far more advanced than
they are. This is where I find myself now: you will have to let me know if
I am able to place myself at your starting level. It has been a while since
I had an English class (3 years).
When you use a pronoun, it refers to a noun (or noun clause) that has
recently been used or referred to. I will not get into all the tricky
points, because we both seem to agree that, in the case of my sentence, the
pronoun is pointing to the previously used "Steve and / or Elizabot".
Here is the sentence again "Don't forget the other people that Steve and /
or Elizabot have claimed I am... I am many people to them."
What is the "them" in reference to in that quote?. Clearly, it is in
reference to "Steve and / or Elizabot"
To claim that it is pointing to "Steve and Elizabot" makes no sense, as
neither that phrase nor concept were used.
So, did I succeed in teaching you enough about pronoun usage so you can see
your mistake?
Snit
Say what you wish to, use any side issues you want where you feel you may
have a point... my argument *still* stands without refutation.
Oh, and based on the definition George Graves offered, and I accepted, my
argument is legal. It is not now, nor has it ever been, judicial.
Snit
Ahhh... a smiley. Now that you realize that you have no chance at refuting
my argument, are you trying to be nice?
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Yeah... right. How can it not have been judicial when you reached a
conclusion? You need a new dictionary... maybe next Xmas :)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
What argument?
Steve
Snit
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/13/04 5:17 PM:
>
>
>>>>Another irrelevant comment from Snit. See, Snit, you said GROUP. In the
>>>>other statement you said STEVE AND ELIZABOT. "Them" means "Steve and
>>>>Elizabot" in your original argument.
>>>>
>>>>This is not a difficult concept, really.
>>>
>>>If the concept is so easy, then why do you keep missing it? The group of
>>>Steve and Elizabot did do exactly as I state: claimed I am someone other
>>>than Snit.
>>
>>Try and stay focused. The conclusion you used was "I am many people to them."
>>
>>I assume you will withdraw your claim: "But you did claim that if you and / or
>>Steve did something, and you did not, then that by itself invalidates the
>>entire premise."
I see you refuse to withdraw your facetious claim. Does not doing so give you
"the warm fuzzies inside?"
>>You clearly see that the above claim is wrong. My issues are with your
>>conclusion, the one where you falsely assign the entire claim to each member
>>of the group.
>>
>>You did not state "I am many people to Steve and / or Elizabot." You did not
>>state "I am many people to either of them." You stated "I am many people to
>>them." "Them" is inclusive. Therefore, you are assigning your claim to each
>>member of the group.
>>
>>Them is an AND statement. Only Snit would argue that his statement was an
>>exclusive AND statement, as such is illogic to the extreme.
>
>
> In any profession it is good to know your strengths and weaknesses. I know
> both of mine;
You only have two strengths and weaknesses?
> and I know one of my strengths is to patiently place myself at
> my students level, even in topics where I am clearly far more advanced than
> they are. This is where I find myself now: you will have to let me know if
> I am able to place myself at your starting level. It has been a while since
> I had an English class (3 years).
Apparently I overestimated *your* skill level again.
> When you use a pronoun, it refers to a noun (or noun clause) that has
> recently been used or referred to. I will not get into all the tricky
> points, because we both seem to agree that, in the case of my sentence, the
> pronoun is pointing to the previously used "Steve and / or Elizabot".
Do you realize "them" is plural and refers to more than one person? Nothing you
say can change that fact. You wrote "them" and you are now attempting to claim
you wrote otherwise. "Them" is plural.
> Here is the sentence again "Don't forget the other people that Steve and /
> or Elizabot have claimed I am... I am many people to them."
You are simply backpedaling.
"Them" implies more than one. I.e. *both*. Not either, as you are now attempting
to claim.
> What is the "them" in reference to in that quote?. Clearly, it is in
> reference to "Steve and / or Elizabot"
Clearly you are backpedaling. "Them" refers to your group "Steve and Elizabot."
Them is plural and refers to more than one member of that subset.
> To claim that it is pointing to "Steve and Elizabot" makes no sense, as
> neither that phrase nor concept were used.
Above you used the phrase "The group of Steve and Elizabot" This is clear
evidence that you are now changing your argument away from that fact.
> So, did I succeed in teaching you enough about pronoun usage so you can see
> your mistake?
The mistakes are yours.
Let us return to the concepts of singulars, plurals, and the word "they" wrt groups.
Let's say you have a group of 10 members. You refer to a subset of the 10
members of the group with the word "they." "They" refers to MORE THAN ONE member
of the group.
Have a lost you yet? I hope not.
"They" actually refers to 2 or more members of the group.
Here is were it gets "tricky" and you get confused.
Let's say you have a group consisting of 2 members. Once again, you refer to a
subset of the group with the word "they." Since "They" refers to more than one
member of the group, it applies to both members of the group.
Get it?
Snit
>> Say what you wish to, use any side issues you want where you feel you may
>> have a point... my argument *still* stands without refutation.
>>
>> Oh, and based on the definition George Graves offered, and I accepted, my
>> argument is legal. It is not now, nor has it ever been, judicial.
>>
> Yeah... right. How can it not have been judicial when you reached a
> conclusion? You need a new dictionary... maybe next Xmas :)
Side issues and no comments on my argument or
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC28
87DA.3A0A5%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&lr=&hl=en
Snit
Ah... your language skills are as bad as they seem. Puts your other
comments in perspective.
>
>> and I know one of my strengths is to patiently place myself at
>> my students level, even in topics where I am clearly far more advanced than
>> they are. This is where I find myself now: you will have to let me know if
>> I am able to place myself at your starting level. It has been a while since
>> I had an English class (3 years).
>
> Apparently I overestimated *your* skill level again.
Well, I cannot teach an unwilling student - no teacher can, esp. in a forum
like this.
>
>> When you use a pronoun, it refers to a noun (or noun clause) that has
>> recently been used or referred to. I will not get into all the tricky
>> points, because we both seem to agree that, in the case of my sentence, the
>> pronoun is pointing to the previously used "Steve and / or Elizabot".
>
> Do you realize "them" is plural and refers to more than one person? Nothing
> you say can change that fact. You wrote "them" and you are now attempting to
> claim you wrote otherwise. "Them" is plural.
Damn, you do not seem to be able to understand the lesson.
You sound like the feminists who claim that all references to "he" refers to
a male.
>
>> Here is the sentence again "Don't forget the other people that Steve and /
>> or Elizabot have claimed I am... I am many people to them."
>
> You are simply backpedaling.
>
> "Them" implies more than one. I.e. *both*. Not either, as you are now
> attempting to claim.
Can you support your claim? Seems my interpretation of my words holds much
higher weight than yours. Esp. when yours is not grammatically accurate.
>
>> What is the "them" in reference to in that quote?. Clearly, it is in
>> reference to "Steve and / or Elizabot"
>
> Clearly you are backpedaling. "Them" refers to your group "Steve and
> Elizabot." Them is plural and refers to more than one member of that subset.
There was no reference to ""Steve and Elizabot". There was a reference to
""Steve and / or Elizabot." The proper noun to refer to that is "them".
>
>> To claim that it is pointing to "Steve and Elizabot" makes no sense, as
>> neither that phrase nor concept were used.
>
> Above you used the phrase "The group of Steve and Elizabot" This is clear
> evidence that you are now changing your argument away from that fact.
My original comment stands unchanged. (This is beginning to sound
familiar...)
>
>> So, did I succeed in teaching you enough about pronoun usage so you can see
>> your mistake?
>
> The mistakes are yours.
Yeah... I hoped you could learn. I refuse to give up on even the hopeless
cases. Both a strength and a weakness of mine.
>
> Let us return to the concepts of singulars, plurals, and the word "they" wrt
> groups.
>
> Let's say you have a group of 10 members. You refer to a subset of the 10
> members of the group with the word "they." "They" refers to MORE THAN ONE
> member of the group.
>
> Have a lost you yet? I hope not.
>
> "They" actually refers to 2 or more members of the group.
>
> Here is were it gets "tricky" and you get confused.
>
> Let's say you have a group consisting of 2 members. Once again, you refer to a
> subset of the group with the word "they." Since "They" refers to more than one
> member of the group, it applies to both members of the group.
>
> Get it?
What would be the correct pronoun to use to refer to "Steve and / or
Elizabot" based on your claim? Can you think of a better pronoun in that
instance? Bet you cannot come up with one.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/13/04 7:04 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/13/04 5:17 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Another irrelevant comment from Snit. See, Snit, you said GROUP. In the
>>>>>>other statement you said STEVE AND ELIZABOT. "Them" means "Steve and
>>>>>>Elizabot" in your original argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is not a difficult concept, really.
>>>>>
>>>>>If the concept is so easy, then why do you keep missing it? The group of
>>>>>Steve and Elizabot did do exactly as I state: claimed I am someone other
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I refer to this statement of yours below.
>>>>>than Snit.
>>>>
>>>>Try and stay focused. The conclusion you used was "I am many people to
>>>>them."
>>>>
>>>>I assume you will withdraw your claim: "But you did claim that if you and /
>>>>or
>>>>Steve did something, and you did not, then that by itself invalidates the
>>>>entire premise."
>>
>>I see you refuse to withdraw your facetious claim. Does not doing so give you
>>"the warm fuzzies inside?"
Note. No response. Your refusal to admit your clear error is a poor reflection
on your character. As you claim to be a teacher, you should lead by example. You
make a poor teacher.
>>>>You clearly see that the above claim is wrong. My issues are with your
>>>>conclusion, the one where you falsely assign the entire claim to each member
>>>>of the group.
>>>>
>>>>You did not state "I am many people to Steve and / or Elizabot." You did not
>>>>state "I am many people to either of them." You stated "I am many people to
>>>>them." "Them" is inclusive. Therefore, you are assigning your claim to each
>>>>member of the group.
>>>>
>>>>Them is an AND statement. Only Snit would argue that his statement was an
>>>>exclusive AND statement, as such is illogic to the extreme.
>>>
>>>
>>>In any profession it is good to know your strengths and weaknesses. I know
>>>both of mine;
>>
>>You only have two strengths and weaknesses?
>
>
> Ah... your language skills are as bad as they seem. Puts your other
> comments in perspective.
I forgot to include a smiley. Sue me. ;-) <- NOTE SMILEY
>>>and I know one of my strengths is to patiently place myself at
>>>my students level, even in topics where I am clearly far more advanced than
>>>they are. This is where I find myself now: you will have to let me know if
>>>I am able to place myself at your starting level. It has been a while since
>>>I had an English class (3 years).
>>
>>Apparently I overestimated *your* skill level again.
>
>
> Well, I cannot teach an unwilling student - no teacher can, esp. in a forum
> like this.
It is your erroneous presumption that I am your student.
>>>When you use a pronoun, it refers to a noun (or noun clause) that has
>>>recently been used or referred to. I will not get into all the tricky
>>>points, because we both seem to agree that, in the case of my sentence, the
>>>pronoun is pointing to the previously used "Steve and / or Elizabot".
>>
>>Do you realize "them" is plural and refers to more than one person? Nothing
>>you say can change that fact. You wrote "them" and you are now attempting to
>>claim you wrote otherwise. "Them" is plural.
>
>
> Damn, you do not seem to be able to understand the lesson.
I understood what you had written. You do not seem to understand that your use
of "them" is plural and inclusive. Here's something for you to look at:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_pronuse.html
Using Pronouns Clearly
Because a pronoun REFERS BACK to a noun or TAKES THE PLACE OF that noun, you
have to use the correct pronoun so that your reader clearly understands which
noun your pronoun is referring to.
Therefore, pronouns should:
1. AGREE in NUMBER
If the pronoun takes the place of a singular noun, you have to use a singular
pronoun.
You have failed. You argue your pronoun can be either singular and / or plural,
yet you use a simply a plural. Do not blame your poor writing skills on me.
> You sound like the feminists who claim that all references to "he" refers to
> a male.
I see you stoop to insults - a clear sign that you are losing again.
>>>Here is the sentence again "Don't forget the other people that Steve and /
>>>or Elizabot have claimed I am... I am many people to them."
>>
>>You are simply backpedaling.
>>
>>"Them" implies more than one. I.e. *both*. Not either, as you are now
>>attempting to claim.
>
>
> Can you support your claim? Seems my interpretation of my words holds much
> higher weight than yours. Esp. when yours is not grammatically accurate.
Your interpretation that "them" refers to perhaps one person has higher weight
than my interpretation that "them" refers more than one?
I don't think so....
>>>What is the "them" in reference to in that quote?. Clearly, it is in
>>>reference to "Steve and / or Elizabot"
>>
>>Clearly you are backpedaling. "Them" refers to your group "Steve and
>>Elizabot." Them is plural and refers to more than one member of that subset.
>
>
> There was no reference to ""Steve and Elizabot".
Yes there is. I pointed it out for you above. You wrote it.
> There was a reference to
> ""Steve and / or Elizabot." The proper noun to refer to that is "them".
Nope. "Them" is plural and inclusive and refers to them both.
>>>To claim that it is pointing to "Steve and Elizabot" makes no sense, as
>>>neither that phrase nor concept were used.
>>
>>Above you used the phrase "The group of Steve and Elizabot" This is clear
>>evidence that you are now changing your argument away from that fact.
>
>
> My original comment stands unchanged. (This is beginning to sound
> familiar...)
Of course it does, as you refuse to see your error.
>>>So, did I succeed in teaching you enough about pronoun usage so you can see
>>>your mistake?
>>
>>The mistakes are yours.
>
>
> Yeah... I hoped you could learn. I refuse to give up on even the hopeless
> cases. Both a strength and a weakness of mine.
I am simply too smart to fall for your fallacious arguments.
>>Let us return to the concepts of singulars, plurals, and the word "they" wrt
>>groups.
>>
>>Let's say you have a group of 10 members. You refer to a subset of the 10
>>members of the group with the word "they." "They" refers to MORE THAN ONE
>>member of the group.
>>
>>Have a lost you yet? I hope not.
>>
>>"They" actually refers to 2 or more members of the group.
>>
>>Here is were it gets "tricky" and you get confused.
>>
>>Let's say you have a group consisting of 2 members. Once again, you refer to a
>>subset of the group with the word "they." Since "They" refers to more than one
>>member of the group, it applies to both members of the group.
>>
>>Get it?
>
>
> What would be the correct pronoun to use to refer to "Steve and / or
> Elizabot" based on your claim? Can you think of a better pronoun in that
> instance? Bet you cannot come up with one.
"him and /or her" would be acceptable.
From the lesson page: Everybody ought to do his or her best. (NOT: their best)
What do I win? ;-) <- NOTE SMILEY
Snit
> I understood what you had written. You do not seem to understand that your use
> of "them" is plural and inclusive. Here's something for you to look at:
>
> http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_pronuse.html
>
> Using Pronouns Clearly
>
> Because a pronoun REFERS BACK to a noun or TAKES THE PLACE OF that noun, you
> have to use the correct pronoun so that your reader clearly understands which
> noun your pronoun is referring to.
>
> Therefore, pronouns should:
> 1. AGREE in NUMBER
>
> If the pronoun takes the place of a singular noun, you have to use a singular
> pronoun.
>
> You have failed. You argue your pronoun can be either singular and / or
> plural, yet you use a simply a plural. Do not blame your poor writing skills
> on me.
<SNIP?
> Your interpretation that "them" refers to perhaps one person has higher weight
> than my interpretation that "them" refers more than one?
>
> I don't think so....
<SNIP>
>> What would be the correct pronoun to use to refer to "Steve and / or
>> Elizabot" based on your claim? Can you think of a better pronoun in that
>> instance? Bet you cannot come up with one.
>
> "him and /or her" would be acceptable.
>
> From the lesson page: Everybody ought to do his or her best. (NOT: their best)
>
> What do I win? ;-) <- NOTE SMILEY
How about an admission that you are right (in this case), and I am wrong (in
this case)
To cut to the chase, in our debate, to interpret "them" as "Steve and
Elizabot" is a valid way of reading the sentence.
Ok, before I state my opinion of the taste of humble pie... let me explain:
First, the original sentence again:
"Don't forget the other people that Steve and / or Elizabot have claimed I
am... I am many people to them."
-----
I brought that statement to several people and asked for their
interpretation, does "them" refer to "Steve and / or Elizabot" (as I have
been claiming) or does it refer to the group of "Steve and Elizabot" (as you
have been claiming). While there was a split, the majority agreed with you,
with the idea that if I meant "and / or" I should have stated "I am many
people to either or both of them". I did not. It is clear that the "them"
can easily and accurately be interpreted to refer to the group of both Steve
*and* Elizabot. And since that is the way you say you read it when you
responded to it, then that is the way it should be seen in understanding
your response.
See, when I am wrong I admit it.
OK... let's move on.
Let us assume that the following conditions exist (as I believe you are
claiming)
1) Steve believes I post as A
2) Steve believes I post as B
3) Elizabot believes I post as A
Therefore we can conclude:
4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes I post as A & B
Are we still together? Hope so. Nothing too tough here. The only place I
see for reasoned disagreement is if you do not agree that Steve believes I
post as A and B, but you have not suggested that previously.
Now to your response to my statement:
"Quit spreading your lies. I have only claimed that you are Snit and perhaps
"Sigmond."
You claim I am lying, and your evidence is that *you* have only claimed I am
[posting as] Snit.
If "they" is interpreted as the group consisting of Steve and Elizabot, as
you have claimed and I have now accepted, then the only way what your claim
is possible is if neither Steve nor Elizabot believe I am posting as
anything other than A, or, stated another way:
If "they" (the group consisting of Steve and Elizabot) believe I am posting
as A (and not B)
You were doing more than speaking for Steve, you were speaking *as* Steve.
Well, really, you were speaking as the *group* that consists of Steve and
Elizabot. If not, you would have been unable to logically conclude that I
was lying, only that my statement did not apply to you as an individual.
You spoke as the group, not as an individual in the group.
In short: you were claiming to be Stevabot.
-------
Then again, your claim that you had never stated I was posting as Sigmond is
not accurate. Do not forget the following exchange:
When I stated: "So I am now Snit and Josh and Sigmond. Anyone else."
You responded with "Only Snit and Sigmond , at the moment..."
http://www.google.com/groups?q=sigmond+author:elizabot&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie
=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3ffc34e1%240%24197%2475868355%40news.frii.net
&rnum=25&filter=0
There we have it: not only did you admit to being Stevabot, you also lied
about what you had previously claimed.
Sometimes humble pie tastes good.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Earth to Snit... you brought the issue up. LOL!
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
I already refuted the first argument you asked up to refute. You now
want me to refute this new argument on your website, too? I'll consider
it... what is it that you think you are arguing on this website?
Steve
Snit
The issue is my argument and your lack of a refutation.
Snit
Wow. I think this is the first time you have so clearly stated your
agreement that you have not even begun to try to refute my argument that
shows Bush broke US and International law. Thanks.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Then why did you bring up your silly idea that you weren't judicial?
Methinks thou doth protest too much... :)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Huh? You're not broke again, are you?
Steve
Elizabot
Okay.
>
> Let us assume that the following conditions exist (as I believe you are
> claiming)
>
> 1) Steve believes I post as A
> 2) Steve believes I post as B
> 3) Elizabot believes I post as A
>
> Therefore we can conclude:
Not the we as in you and I, I assume. I assume you are using the Royal We.
;-) <- NOTE SMILEY
>
> 4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes I post as A & B
A subset of that group may believe that. You are applying the Fallacy of
Composition. "The Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared
by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those items;
or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the
whole thing."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Fallacies are not valid ways to interpreting things.
I would conclude:
The group of Steve and Elizabot believes Snit posts as A and / or B.
>
> Are we still together? Hope so.
Nope. Sorry. I disagree with your conclusion.
> Nothing too tough here. The only place I
> see for reasoned disagreement is if you do not agree that Steve believes I
> post as A and B, but you have not suggested that previously.
Or perhaps you have drawn an erroneous conclusion.
I do not care to argue about the actual content of what Steve may or may not
believe.
> Now to your response to my statement:
>
> "Quit spreading your lies. I have only claimed that you are Snit and perhaps
> "Sigmond."
>
> You claim I am lying, and your evidence is that *you* have only claimed I am
> [posting as] Snit.
>
> If "they" is interpreted as the group consisting of Steve and Elizabot, as
> you have claimed and I have now accepted, then the only way what your claim
> is possible is if neither Steve nor Elizabot believe I am posting as
> anything other than A, or, stated another way:
>
> If "they" (the group consisting of Steve and Elizabot) believe I am posting
> as A (and not B)
You made the argument:
(Steve and Elizabot)(X) or Steve(X) or Elizabot(X)
X = "the many people" bit.
You drew the conclusion:
Steve(X) and Elizabot(X).
You assigned X to both Steve() and Elizabot().
The value of this truth statement is False.
Here are examples, as I'm sure what I'm writing is a bit foreign for you.
My computer is silver and my dogs are Beagles. X and Y.
As my computer is silver and my dogs are Beagles, we have
X AND Y -> T AND T which is true.
Now if I stated my computer is silver and my dogs are Poodles, (no Poodles
here), the the truth value of the statement would be:
X AND Y -> T and F which is false.
Okay?
If I were to state my computer is silver OR my dogs are Poodles, the statement
would still be true, as one of the conditions is true.
But we are using AND.
The truth value for the argument above [Steve(X) AND Elizabot(X)] is False, as
both sub arguments are not true.
Follow?
My claim that you are lying was based on your asserting this conclusion was true.
(Do not start thinking that F AND F is T, as this is not like multiplying -1
together. Check out Symbolic Logic, if any of this interests you.)
> You were doing more than speaking for Steve, you were speaking *as* Steve.
> Well, really, you were speaking as the *group* that consists of Steve and
> Elizabot. If not, you would have been unable to logically conclude that I
> was lying, only that my statement did not apply to you as an individual.
>
> You spoke as the group, not as an individual in the group.
I was speaking as a group member that did not share the property that you were
attempting to lump on all group members.
>
> In short: you were claiming to be Stevabot.
>
> -------
>
> Then again, your claim that you had never stated I was posting as Sigmond is
> not accurate. Do not forget the following exchange:
>
> When I stated: "So I am now Snit and Josh and Sigmond. Anyone else."
>
> You responded with "Only Snit and Sigmond , at the moment..."
Yeah, well, I was hasty to make such a judgment. I later included the
possibility that Sigmond was someone else.
> http://www.google.com/groups?q=sigmond+author:elizabot&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie
> =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3ffc34e1%240%24197%2475868355%40news.frii.net
> &rnum=25&filter=0
>
> There we have it: not only did you admit to being Stevabot, you also lied
> about what you had previously claimed.
>
> Sometimes humble pie tastes good.
But not always.
Jim Lee Jr.
<snipped>
All right, Snit, you and Elizabot kiss and make up. :D
Snit
I mentioned the idea of judicial to refute your claim that my argument was.
My first use of the word in our discussions:
December 18, where I use the word in a definition to show how my argument
was not judicial - as you were claiming (though you had not used the word)
http://www.google.com/groups?q=judicial+author:snit&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=BC0790B8.3643C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum
=29&filter=0
Your first use of the word:
December 2, 16 days before I used "brought it up".
http://www.google.com/groups?q=judicial+author:carroll+author:steve&start=20
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=fretwizz-9D9A16.21380002122003%4
0netnews.attbi.com&rnum=22&filter=0
Snit
Well, I could use a bit more money - my car is in the shop. Why do you ask?
Snit
The *group* believes Snit posted as A *and* B. There is no or. This does
not imply that every member of the group agrees with that statement.
>
>>
>> Are we still together? Hope so.
>
> Nope. Sorry. I disagree with your conclusion.
>
>> Nothing too tough here. The only place I
>> see for reasoned disagreement is if you do not agree that Steve believes I
>> post as A and B, but you have not suggested that previously.
>
> Or perhaps you have drawn an erroneous conclusion.
>
> I do not care to argue about the actual content of what Steve may or may not
> believe.
Fair enough... can you accept, for the sake of argument, that he has claimed
I post as A and B (Snit and Sigmond)
Sure.
>
> If I were to state my computer is silver OR my dogs are Poodles, the statement
> would still be true, as one of the conditions is true.
Still with you.
>
> But we are using AND.
>
> The truth value for the argument above [Steve(X) AND Elizabot(X)] is False, as
> both sub arguments are not true.
>
> Follow?
But I do not claim that both Steve and Elizabot believe X, I state that the
group that consists of Steve and Elizabot holds these beliefs. As you
showed me, "them" referred to the group of both of you. Had you claimed you
believed it referred to either of you or both, you would be making a valid
argument. You clearly have stated that is not the case.
>
> My claim that you are lying was based on your asserting this conclusion was
> true.
The group of Steve and Elizabot has made the claims I attribute to it.
>
> (Do not start thinking that F AND F is T, as this is not like multiplying -1
> together. Check out Symbolic Logic, if any of this interests you.)
Straw man....
>
>> You were doing more than speaking for Steve, you were speaking *as* Steve.
>> Well, really, you were speaking as the *group* that consists of Steve and
>> Elizabot. If not, you would have been unable to logically conclude that I
>> was lying, only that my statement did not apply to you as an individual.
>>
>> You spoke as the group, not as an individual in the group.
>
> I was speaking as a group member that did not share the property that you were
> attempting to lump on all group members.
I never lumped it. You did. Again, who does "them" refer to: not Steve
and/or Elizabot, but the group that consists of Steve and Elizabot.
>>
>> In short: you were claiming to be Stevabot.
>>
>> -------
>>
>> Then again, your claim that you had never stated I was posting as Sigmond is
>> not accurate. Do not forget the following exchange:
>>
>> When I stated: "So I am now Snit and Josh and Sigmond. Anyone else."
>>
>> You responded with "Only Snit and Sigmond , at the moment..."
>
> Yeah, well, I was hasty to make such a judgment. I later included the
> possibility that Sigmond was someone else.
Big of you to admit your error. Thanks. Seriously... We can share the
humble pie it seems.
>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?q=sigmond+author:elizabot&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie
>> =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3ffc34e1%240%24197%2475868355%40news.frii.net
>> &rnum=25&filter=0
>>
>> There we have it: not only did you admit to being Stevabot, you also lied
>> about what you had previously claimed.
>>
>> Sometimes humble pie tastes good.
>
> But not always.
No, in your case I would not imagine it would.
Elizabot
Let's apply your logic you used below to this argument.
Group A believes "them" refers to the group "Steve and Elizabot."
Group B believes "them" refers to the group "Steve and / or Elizabot."
Group C is the group whose members consist of A and B.
Do you think it is reasonable for me to state that the group C believes "them"
refers to "Steve and / or Elizabot?"
You've made it fairly clear that you believe the majority of your group believes
otherwise.
You seem to think that if one member of a group holds a certain belief, that you
may argue that the entire group holds that belief.
>>>
>>>See, when I am wrong I admit it.
>>>
>>>OK... let's move on.
>>
>>Okay.
>>
>>
>>>Let us assume that the following conditions exist (as I believe you are
>>>claiming)
>>>
>>>1) Steve believes I post as A
>>>2) Steve believes I post as B
>>>3) Elizabot believes I post as A
>>>
>>>Therefore we can conclude:
>>
>>Not the we as in you and I, I assume. I assume you are using the Royal We.
>>;-) <- NOTE SMILEY
>>
>>
>>>4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes I post as A & B
>>
>>A subset of that group may believe that. You are applying the Fallacy of
>>Composition. "The Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared
>>by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those
>>items;
>>or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the
>>whole thing."
>>
>>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>>
>>Fallacies are not valid ways to interpreting things.
>>
>>I would conclude:
>>
>>The group of Steve and Elizabot believes Snit posts as A and / or B.
>
>
> The *group* believes Snit posted as A *and* B. There is no or. This does
> not imply that every member of the group agrees with that statement.
Yes, it does. You are arguing that a subset of a group defines whole group
properties.
Yes you do.
>I state that the
> group that consists of Steve and Elizabot holds these beliefs.
There is no difference.
> As you
> showed me, "them" referred to the group of both of you. Had you claimed you
> believed it referred to either of you or both, you would be making a valid
> argument. You clearly have stated that is not the case.
If you had written "I am many people to him and / or her," we would not be
having this discussion, and you would be making a valid argument.
>>My claim that you are lying was based on your asserting this conclusion was
>>true.
>
>
> The group of Steve and Elizabot has made the claims I attribute to it.
No. A subset of the group has made such claims.
You are making a "guilt by association" argument.
>>(Do not start thinking that F AND F is T, as this is not like multiplying -1
>>together. Check out Symbolic Logic, if any of this interests you.)
>
>
> Straw man....
Straw man? How so?
Do you believe that two false statements make a true one?
>>>You were doing more than speaking for Steve, you were speaking *as* Steve.
>>>Well, really, you were speaking as the *group* that consists of Steve and
>>>Elizabot. If not, you would have been unable to logically conclude that I
>>>was lying, only that my statement did not apply to you as an individual.
>>>
>>>You spoke as the group, not as an individual in the group.
>>
>>I was speaking as a group member that did not share the property that you were
>>attempting to lump on all group members.
>
>
> I never lumped it. You did. Again, who does "them" refer to: not Steve
> and/or Elizabot, but the group that consists of Steve and Elizabot.
And you are inappropriately lumping the beliefs of a subset of the group onto
the whole group.
If a subset of a group believes "Tomatoes are the work of the devil" do you
think it's reasonable to state the entire group believes such?
>>>In short: you were claiming to be Stevabot.
>>>
>>>-------
>>>
>>>Then again, your claim that you had never stated I was posting as Sigmond is
>>>not accurate. Do not forget the following exchange:
>>>
>>>When I stated: "So I am now Snit and Josh and Sigmond. Anyone else."
>>>
>>>You responded with "Only Snit and Sigmond , at the moment..."
>>
>>Yeah, well, I was hasty to make such a judgment. I later included the
>>possibility that Sigmond was someone else.
>
>
> Big of you to admit your error. Thanks. Seriously... We can share the
> humble pie it seems.
>
>>>http://www.google.com/groups?q=sigmond+author:elizabot&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie
>>>=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3ffc34e1%240%24197%2475868355%40news.frii.net
>>>&rnum=25&filter=0
>>>
>>>There we have it: not only did you admit to being Stevabot, you also lied
>>>about what you had previously claimed.
>>>
>>>Sometimes humble pie tastes good.
>>
>>But not always.
>
>
> No, in your case I would not imagine it would.
>
Snit
The group I talked to held both beliefs... the individual members held one
belief or the other.
Nope. Not at all. That is a straw man. Not my argument at all.
Straw man.
>
>> I state that the
>> group that consists of Steve and Elizabot holds these beliefs.
>
> There is no difference.
There is. One individual is not the group... as *you* are now implying.
>
>> As you
>> showed me, "them" referred to the group of both of you. Had you claimed you
>> believed it referred to either of you or both, you would be making a valid
>> argument. You clearly have stated that is not the case.
>
> If you had written "I am many people to him and / or her," we would not be
> having this discussion, and you would be making a valid argument.
You are still arguing a straw man.
>
>>> My claim that you are lying was based on your asserting this conclusion was
>>> true.
>>
>>
>> The group of Steve and Elizabot has made the claims I attribute to it.
>
> No. A subset of the group has made such claims.
>
> You are making a "guilt by association" argument.
Nope. Straw man.
>
>>> (Do not start thinking that F AND F is T, as this is not like multiplying -1
>>> together. Check out Symbolic Logic, if any of this interests you.)
>>
>>
>> Straw man....
>
> Straw man? How so?
>
> Do you believe that two false statements make a true one?
Nope... but it is not related to the topic at hand. You are stating that as
if you believe I have our would think that.
>
>>>> You were doing more than speaking for Steve, you were speaking *as* Steve.
>>>> Well, really, you were speaking as the *group* that consists of Steve and
>>>> Elizabot. If not, you would have been unable to logically conclude that I
>>>> was lying, only that my statement did not apply to you as an individual.
>>>>
>>>> You spoke as the group, not as an individual in the group.
>>>
>>> I was speaking as a group member that did not share the property that you
>>> were
>>> attempting to lump on all group members.
>>
>>
>> I never lumped it. You did. Again, who does "them" refer to: not Steve
>> and/or Elizabot, but the group that consists of Steve and Elizabot.
>
> And you are inappropriately lumping the beliefs of a subset of the group onto
> the whole group.
Straw man. I am not.
>
> If a subset of a group believes "Tomatoes are the work of the devil" do you
> think it's reasonable to state the entire group believes such?
Straw man.
Elizabot
Say your whole group consists of Snit, Anne, Sally and Sigmond.
Snit and Anne believe "them" refers to "Steve and Elizabot"
Sally and Sigmond believe "them" refers to "Steve and / or Elizabot."
According to your rules, I can say the whole group believes "them" refers to
"Steve and Elizabot."
This IS what you are arguing.
Perhaps you need to see a parallel argument.
Snit's argument:
1) Steve believes I post as A
2) Steve believes I post as B
3) Elizabot believes I post as A
Therefore we can conclude:
4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes I post as A & B
Parallel argument:
1) Elizabot believes Mac OS X is superior.
2) Elizabot believes Snit is an idiot.
3) Snit believes Mac OS X is superior.
Therefore we can conclude:
4) The group of Snit and Elizabot believes that Mac OS X is superior and that
Snit is an idiot.
Do you seriously believe this is a valid argument?
Yes you are. You are stating that the belief of one member, Steve, can define
group beliefs.
No, I am implying that shared beliefs define the group.
Steve and Elizabot believe A is one group.
Steve believes B is a separate group.
You are inappropriately combining groups.
Do you maintain "I am many people to them" means "I am many people to Elizabot?"
>>If a subset of a group believes "Tomatoes are the work of the devil" do you
>>think it's reasonable to state the entire group believes such?
>
>
> Straw man.
>
>>>>>In short: you were claiming to be Stevabot.
>>>>>
>>>>>-------
>>>>>
>>>>>Then again, your claim that you had never stated I was posting as Sigmond
>>>>>is
>>>>>not accurate. Do not forget the following exchange:
>>>>>
>>>>>When I stated: "So I am now Snit and Josh and Sigmond. Anyone else."
>>>>>
>>>>>You responded with "Only Snit and Sigmond , at the moment..."
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, well, I was hasty to make such a judgment. I later included the
>>>>possibility that Sigmond was someone else.
>>>
>>>
>>>Big of you to admit your error. Thanks. Seriously... We can share the
>>>humble pie it seems.
>>>
>>>
> http://www.google.com/groups?q=sigmond+author:elizabot&start=20&hl=en&lr=&i>>>>
> e
>
> =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3ffc34e1%240%24197%2475868355%40news.frii.ne>>>>
> t
>
>>>>>&rnum=25&filter=0
>>>>>
>>>>>There we have it: not only did you admit to being Stevabot, you also lied
>>>>>about what you had previously claimed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sometimes humble pie tastes good.
>>>>
>>>>But not always.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, in your case I would not imagine it would.
>>>
>>
>
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Unless you didn't judge the evidence, how can you have come to a
conclusion without having been judicial? This makes sense to you? If it
does, it's only because you don't understand possible meanings for the
word. You HAD to be judicial to even reach your conclusion. If you
weren't, I'd say you were negligent because you failed to judge the
evidence to reach your conclusion... and you must have reached it some
other way(other than by judging the evidence. Whether you even recognize
or admit it, you used your own personal judicial system to judge the
evidence in the reaching of your conclusion. If I were you, I'd run
right out and buy an unabridged dictionary. I'm being totally serious
here.
Steve
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
Snit has already shown that he can't distinguish between a 100% lack of
proof and a lack of 100% proof. Seriously now... what makes you think
he'll grasp the above?
Steve
Elizabot
> In article <40058038$0$70304$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
[snip]
>>>There is. One individual is not the group... as *you* are now implying.
>>
>>No, I am implying that shared beliefs define the group.
>>
>>Steve and Elizabot believe A is one group.
>>
>>Steve believes B is a separate group.
>>
>>You are inappropriately combining groups.
>
>
> Snit has already shown that he can't distinguish between a 100% lack of
> proof and a lack of 100% proof. Seriously now... what makes you think
> he'll grasp the above?
Hope?
Snit
Straw man
>
> Perhaps you need to see a parallel argument.
>
> Snit's argument:
> 1) Steve believes I post as A
> 2) Steve believes I post as B
> 3) Elizabot believes I post as A
>
> Therefore we can conclude:
>
> 4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes I post as A & B
>
> Parallel argument:
> 1) Elizabot believes Mac OS X is superior.
> 2) Elizabot believes Snit is an idiot.
> 3) Snit believes Mac OS X is superior.
>
> Therefore we can conclude:
>
> 4) The group of Snit and Elizabot believes that Mac OS X is superior and that
> Snit is an idiot.
Yes, the *group* holds those beliefs. The individual members do not.
>
>
> Do you seriously believe this is a valid argument?
Sure.
Hmmm, depending on how you define that, maybe accurate, maybe straw man.
You are not clear.
Nope. Straw man.
Straw man.
Snit
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC2A
C323.3A290%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&lr=&hl=en
Snit
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC2A
C323.3A290%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&lr=&hl=en
Snit
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> In article <40058038$0$70304$7586...@news.frii.net>,
>> Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> There is. One individual is not the group... as *you* are now implying.
>>>
>>> No, I am implying that shared beliefs define the group.
>>>
>>> Steve and Elizabot believe A is one group.
>>>
>>> Steve believes B is a separate group.
>>>
>>> You are inappropriately combining groups.
>>
>>
>> Snit has already shown that he can't distinguish between a 100% lack of
>> proof and a lack of 100% proof. Seriously now... what makes you think
>> he'll grasp the above?
>
> Hope?
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Oh.. a loop... I like a good loop...
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC28
> 87DA.3A0A5%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
Uh... hello... here, you claim I agreed to something I didn't agree to
in this post.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC04
> B591.3585B%25snit...@cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
>
All this one shows is that you think I have the burden of proving Bush's
innocence. You're wrong.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC09
> 0978.3686C%25snit...@cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
>
Sometimes it's helpful to actually read the thread titles:) Here's a wee
bit o' context for ya, genius... that thread was entitled:
"Snit proclaims win... begin the validation process"
In other places you have pretended to use this as a source for my
admission that you won your argument. Reality prevents this from
happening.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC21
> F646.39851%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
Then only thing shown here is that you failed to distinguish between a
100% lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof. Not really something I'd be
proud of pointing out if I were you.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC22
> BFDC.398D4%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
Rehash of the above. I'm tellin ya, Snit... I'd dump this one quick :)
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC22
> D243.398E8%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
Twice? Dump it!
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC23
> 27F5.39A91%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
Yeah, this is where you claim to show I've been a bad boy:) Only problem
is, it's essentially devoid of anything I wrote. Don't see a problem
with that, do you? IOW... why would anyone take your word (and all the
misinterpretation you're capable of) for anything... why not show ME
doing the stuff you claim?
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC24
> A016.39C8B%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC24
> A016.39C8B%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
Same one twice? Anyway... now that I know your identity,(Mike) I'm not
arguing with Snit:) It's funny you think you can get away with all the
crap that you did and yet you try to denigrate someone else for going
back on something they said about not arguing with a NG idiot anymore.
Is there ANY shred of reality in your world, Mike?
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC29
> ADD7.3A199%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
>
All this one shows is that YOU are STILL the only one claiming this NG
is a real courtroom. Like I've said too many times... a dime store
strawman here:)
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BC2A
> 117D.3A243%25s...@nospam-cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&hl=en
>
Is this supposed to show the level of denial you are capable of? I can't
really see any reason why you'd send someone to this.
You left some things out and maybe I'll include them bit by bit. For
starters... how about the one where you explain how you reached a
conclusion, based on your evidence, yet, you weren't judicial in the
reaching of that conclusion? Is there one there that explains why you
posted my name on your site with an argument that doesn't remotely
resemble what I was arguing? Yup... it's a helluva history ya got
there, Mike :)
Steve
Elizabot
Wrong. You argued such below. You stated: the *group* holds those beliefs.
>>Perhaps you need to see a parallel argument.
>>
>>Snit's argument:
>>1) Steve believes I post as A
>>2) Steve believes I post as B
>>3) Elizabot believes I post as A
>>
>>Therefore we can conclude:
>>
>>4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes I post as A & B
>>
>>Parallel argument:
>>1) Elizabot believes Mac OS X is superior.
>>2) Elizabot believes Snit is an idiot.
>>3) Snit believes Mac OS X is superior.
>>
>>Therefore we can conclude:
>>
>>4) The group of Snit and Elizabot believes that Mac OS X is superior and that
>>Snit is an idiot.
>
>
> Yes, the *group* holds those beliefs. The individual members do not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here is were you argued about the group holding such beliefs.
Then according to your own logic, the group also holds the beliefs that Snit
posts as A and not B.
1) Steve believes Snit posts as A
2) Elizabot believes Snit posts as A
3) Elizabot believes Snit does not post as B
conclusion:
4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes Snit posts as A and not B.
Allow me to clarify.
Do you believe that if you have a group of 100 members and 1 member believes
that "tomatoes are the work of the devil," that the group believes that
"tomatoes are the work of the devil?"
How so?
>>
>>>>>As you
>>>>>showed me, "them" referred to the group of both of you. Had you claimed
>>>>>you
>>>>>believed it referred to either of you or both, you would be making a valid
>>>>>argument. You clearly have stated that is not the case.
>>>>
>>>>If you had written "I am many people to him and / or her," we would not be
>>>>having this discussion, and you would be making a valid argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are still arguing a straw man.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>My claim that you are lying was based on your asserting this conclusion
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The group of Steve and Elizabot has made the claims I attribute to it.
>>>>
>>>>No. A subset of the group has made such claims.
>>>>
>>>>You are making a "guilt by association" argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. Straw man.
Nope.
Above you wrote "Yes, the *group* holds those beliefs. The individual members
do not."
An individual member is a subset of the group.
Do you maintain "I am many people to them" means "I am many people to the group?"
Elizabot
Hope is dead. Gotcha.
Snit
The group can hold contradictory views; in the case of you and Steve, you as
individuals do, so the group of the two of you *must*.
The believe is part of the group, though not all members may agree.
Look up straw man on your own.
>
>>>
>>>>>> As you
>>>>>> showed me, "them" referred to the group of both of you. Had you claimed
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> believed it referred to either of you or both, you would be making a
>>>>>> valid
>>>>>> argument. You clearly have stated that is not the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had written "I am many people to him and / or her," we would not be
>>>>> having this discussion, and you would be making a valid argument.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are still arguing a straw man.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> My claim that you are lying was based on your asserting this conclusion
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The group of Steve and Elizabot has made the claims I attribute to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. A subset of the group has made such claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are making a "guilt by association" argument.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Straw man.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
>
> Above you wrote "Yes, the *group* holds those beliefs. The individual members
> do not."
Yes I did.
>
> An individual member is a subset of the group.
Yes I did.
if you define "the group" as "Steve and Elizabot" that was your argument.
Steve Carroll
sig...@mad.scientist.com (sigmond) wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<fretwizz-29A563...@netnews.comcast.net>...
> you are as dumb as they come aren't you Steve
i don't know i suppose the possibility exists Sigmond please tell me
what you think
Steve
p.s. (to Snit)... I think it's pretty obvious Siggy hasn't cracked any
books lately. You might want to forget about your idea to the contrary.
Just a thought... :)
Elizabot
I see you once again fail to admit to your error.
So, according to Snit Logic, the conclusion is "The group of Steve and Elizabot
believes Snit posts as A and not B."
Gotcha.
So, according to Snit Logic, we can safely conclude that the group believes
"tomatoes are the work of the devil."
Gotcha.
As you are *clearly* inappropriately combining groups, there is no straw man.
>
>>>>>>>As you
>>>>>>>showed me, "them" referred to the group of both of you. Had you claimed
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>believed it referred to either of you or both, you would be making a
>>>>>>>valid
>>>>>>>argument. You clearly have stated that is not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you had written "I am many people to him and / or her," we would not be
>>>>>>having this discussion, and you would be making a valid argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are still arguing a straw man.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>My claim that you are lying was based on your asserting this conclusion
>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The group of Steve and Elizabot has made the claims I attribute to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. A subset of the group has made such claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are making a "guilt by association" argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. Straw man.
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> Yep.
>
>>Above you wrote "Yes, the *group* holds those beliefs. The individual members
>>do not."
>
>
> Yes I did.
The group holds the belief A.
Elizabot and Steve belong to the group that believes A.
Steve holds the belief B.
Steve belongs to the group that believes A and B.
Elizabot belongs to the group that believes A. As Elizabot does not hold the
belief B, you cannot put Elizabot in the group group that believes A and B.
>>An individual member is a subset of the group.
>
>
> Yes I did.
Those who hold the belief B are not necessarily part of the group who believes
A. You are inappropriately combining groups.
My argument would have defined "them" as "him and / or her."
It is *your* argument that your "them" refers to the group "Steve and Elizabot."
Are we on the same page here?
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
Typical Snit... and he thinks his logic isn't faulty. It doesn't occur
to him that insufficient data is given to make the leap he made.
He gave me crap about subsets... :)
The funny thing is how stubbornly he holds to his beliefs simply because
they're his beliefs. Oh well... he may grow out of it.
Gee, I guess he never heard of the priest John Venn. Ah... Snit probably
chews all his crayons up out of frustration anyway ;)
http://www.stat.sc.edu/~west/applets/Venn.html
If you are, I'd be very worried were I you :)
Steve
Snit
Straw man.
Straw man.
The belief would be a part of the group.
Are you in the group of Steve and Elizabot?
>
>>> An individual member is a subset of the group.
>>
>>
>> Yes I did.
>
> Those who hold the belief B are not necessarily part of the group who believes
> A. You are inappropriately combining groups.
Nope. Straw man.
Nope. Flip flop from you.
>
> It is *your* argument that your "them" refers to the group "Steve and
> Elizabot."
Nope. Flip flop from you.
>
> Are we on the same page here?
Nope.
Snit
Straw man.
Link?
Nope.
> Oh well... he may grow out of it.
?
,-----.
,' `.
/ \
; :
| Steve |
: Elizabot ;
\ /
`. ,'
'-----'
This group contains beliefs A & B
Pretty easy diagram. Really.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
(snip)
> >>> The group can hold contradictory views; in the case of you and Steve, you
> >>> as
> >>> individuals do, so the group of the two of you *must*.
> >>
> >> So, according to Snit Logic, the conclusion is "The group of Steve and
> >> Elizabot
> >> believes Snit posts as A and not B."
> >>
> >> Gotcha.
> >
> > Typical Snit... and he thinks his logic isn't faulty. It doesn't occur
> > to him that insufficient data is given to make the leap he made.
>
> Straw man.
It's a strawman that you had insufficient data to leap to the conclusion
that you did? I told you... put the crack pipe down.
(snip)
> >
> > He gave me crap about subsets... :)
>
> Link?
Waste of time... as you've previously shown too many times, you're
perfectly capable of denying the truth without actually seeing it.
(snip)
> >> As you are *clearly* inappropriately combining groups, there is no straw
> >> man.
> >
> > The funny thing is how stubbornly he holds to his beliefs simply because
> > they're his beliefs.
>
> Nope.
This is the usenet equivalent of you sticking your fingers in your ears
while yelling 'Bot's talking and I'm not listening lalalalalalalala':)
Deny all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the Bot is
right... you are *clearly* inappropriately combining groups.
(snip)
> >> Those who hold the belief B are not necessarily part of the group who
> >> believes
> >> A. You are inappropriately combining groups.
> >
> > Gee, I guess he never heard of the priest John Venn. Ah... Snit probably
> > chews all his crayons up out of frustration anyway ;)
> >
> > http://www.stat.sc.edu/~west/applets/Venn.html
>
> ,-----.
> ,' `.
> / \
> ; :
> | Steve |
> : Elizabot ;
> \ /
> `. ,'
> '-----'
> This group contains beliefs A & B
>
?
> Pretty easy diagram. Really.
Too bad it's not representative of what your instructor is talking
about. I think you'll be receiving a failing grade in her class.
Steve
Snit
> In article <BC2C62D0.3A5B2%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>>> The group can hold contradictory views; in the case of you and Steve, you
>>>>> as
>>>>> individuals do, so the group of the two of you *must*.
>>>>
>>>> So, according to Snit Logic, the conclusion is "The group of Steve and
>>>> Elizabot
>>>> believes Snit posts as A and not B."
>>>>
>>>> Gotcha.
>>>
>>> Typical Snit... and he thinks his logic isn't faulty. It doesn't occur
>>> to him that insufficient data is given to make the leap he made.
>>
>> Straw man.
>
> It's a strawman that you had insufficient data to leap to the conclusion
> that you did? I told you... put the crack pipe down.
Straw man
>
> (snip)
>
>>>
>>> He gave me crap about subsets... :)
>>
>> Link?
>
> Waste of time... as you've previously shown too many times, you're
> perfectly capable of denying the truth without actually seeing it.
Straw man.
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> As you are *clearly* inappropriately combining groups, there is no straw
>>>> man.
>>>
>>> The funny thing is how stubbornly he holds to his beliefs simply because
>>> they're his beliefs.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> This is the usenet equivalent of you sticking your fingers in your ears
> while yelling 'Bot's talking and I'm not listening lalalalalalalala':)
> Deny all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the Bot is
> right... you are *clearly* inappropriately combining groups.
Straw man.
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> Those who hold the belief B are not necessarily part of the group who
>>>> believes
>>>> A. You are inappropriately combining groups.
>>>
>>> Gee, I guess he never heard of the priest John Venn. Ah... Snit probably
>>> chews all his crayons up out of frustration anyway ;)
>>>
>>> http://www.stat.sc.edu/~west/applets/Venn.html
>>
>> ,-----.
>> ,' `.
>> / \
>> ; :
>> | Steve |
>> : Elizabot ;
>> \ /
>> `. ,'
>> '-----'
>> This group contains beliefs A & B
>>
>
> ?
>
>> Pretty easy diagram. Really.
>
> Too bad it's not representative of what your instructor is talking
> about. I think you'll be receiving a failing grade in her class.
Straw man.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Maybe you've heard your wife say this before but I gotta tell ya...
you're not as much fun as you once were:(
With respect to a legal argument that purports guilt, will you at least
explain "an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an
argument that can only be categorized as a legal argument" for me?
Steve
Snit
Nope. Never heard that.
>
> With respect to a legal argument that purports guilt, will you at least
> explain "an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an
> argument that can only be categorized as a legal argument" for me?
Are you stating you do not know? I will do your work of differentiating
your lumpits, but since you asked nicely, here is a hint, in your new found
notation:
_.----------.
,--'' `---.
,-' ,---------. `-.
,' ,-' `-. `.
,' ,' `. `.
/ ,' `. \
/ / \ \
/ ; Arguments that : \
/ | can *only* be | \
/ : categorized as ; \
; \ legal arguments [1] / :
| `. ,' |
| `. ,' |
| `-. ,-' |
: `---------' ;
\ /
\ Arguments that /
\ can be /
\ categorized as /
\ legal arguments /
`. ,'
`. ,'
`-. ,-'
`---. _.--'
`----------''
For that matter, what about your other lumpits?
Here is the list:
* being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
* an argument AND a statement
* an argument AND a proof
* a judgment AND a adjudication
* a defendant AND a defender
* what an argument is AND what an argument is about
* proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
in a trial)
* an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
* a legal system AND a judicial system
* an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
that can only be categorized as a legal argument
* defense of an argument AND an argument
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
* Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
* an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
* a lack of proof AND a disproof
* evidence AND proof
* an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
system
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
* order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument
-----------
[1[ In a given list of argument categorizations
Elizabot
Nope. Below is written:
Elizabot: Above you wrote "Yes, the *group* holds those beliefs. The individual
members do not."
Snit: Yes I did.
Admit your error.
Nope.
1) Steve believes Snit posts as A
2) Elizabot believes Snit posts as A
3) Elizabot believes Snit does not post as B
conclusion:
4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes Snit posts as A and not B.
This is exactly the same structure as your argument:
----
Snit's argument:
1) Steve believes I post as A
2) Steve believes I post as B
3) Elizabot believes I post as A
Therefore we can conclude:
4) The group of Steve and Elizabot believes I post as A & B
----
Using your logic, one could just as easily conclude "The group of Steve and
Elizabot believes Snit posts as A and not B."
>>>>>>Do you seriously believe this is a valid argument?
>>>>>
>>>>>
Above you argue:
"The *group* believes Snit posted as A *and* B."
I am making the same statement wrt the above argument using your own logic.
Nope. You clearly lack the capability to clearly define groups.
I am in the group that believes A and not B.
>>>>An individual member is a subset of the group.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes I did.
>>
>>Those who hold the belief B are not necessarily part of the group who believes
>>A. You are inappropriately combining groups.
>
>
> Nope. Straw man.
Nope. It is clear you have assigned members to inappropriate groups.
Note the "would have." I mentioned this before. There is no flip flop.
>>It is *your* argument that your "them" refers to the group "Steve and
>>Elizabot."
>
>
> Nope. Flip flop from you.
I stated "them" refers to "Steve and Elizabot."
You argue "them" refers to the group of "Steve and Elizabot."
>>Are we on the same page here?
>
>
> Nope.
Apparently your page is blank.
Elizabot
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/15/04 3:16 PM:
[snip]
>>>Those who hold the belief B are not necessarily part of the group who
>>>believes
>>>A. You are inappropriately combining groups.
>>
>>Gee, I guess he never heard of the priest John Venn. Ah... Snit probably
>>chews all his crayons up out of frustration anyway ;)
>>
>>http://www.stat.sc.edu/~west/applets/Venn.html
>
>
> ,-----.
> ,' `.
> / \
> ; :
> | Steve |
> : Elizabot ;
> \ /
> `. ,'
> '-----'
> This group contains beliefs A & B
>
>
> Pretty easy diagram. Really.
LOL! Why don't you get that friend that helped you draw your other Venn diagram
to help you figure out how to draw this one.
Elizabot does not hold the belief B and does not belong in that group.
Hint: 2 circles
[snip]
Snit
Elizabot
Note: No refutation.
Your false claim of straw man is noted.
Note: No refutation.
I see you do not dispute this conclusion.
Note: No refutation.
I see you do not dispute the statement.
Note: No refutation.
Note: No refutation.
Note: No refutation.
>>>>It is *your* argument that your "them" refers to the group "Steve and
>>>>Elizabot."
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. Flip flop from you.
>>
>>I stated "them" refers to "Steve and Elizabot."
>>
>>You argue "them" refers to the group of "Steve and Elizabot."
Note: No refutation.
Now maybe we can get somewhere.
You maintain that in the statement "I am many people to them" that "them" refers
to the group Steve and Elizabot. You have made this very clear in this thread as
well as others.
Your statement that "The group of Steve and Elizabot did do exactly as I state:
claimed I am someone other than Snit" demonstrates two things: 1) Your use of
the phrase "group of Elizabot and Steve" in an argument and 2) Your dishonest
changing of your argument midstream.
I would like you to notice that the word "group" is singular.
You would like to argue that you attribute the claim to the group, but the
reality is that you used the word "them" in your argument. "Them" is plural so
you are referring to more than one entity. You could only have been referring to
the beliefs of each group member. As Elizabot does not hold belief B, your
argument is in error.
You will not admit to this. You've been dragging this out any possible way you
can in an attempt to not admit your error. You claim you are honest, but I've
seen little evidence of honesty coming from you based on what you have written.
"Them" is a plural noun. "Group" is singular. "Them" must refer to more than one
group member. As there are only two members in this group, you are applying the
mistaken belief to each member.
So, did I succeed in teaching you enough about pronoun usage so you can see
your mistake?
Sound familiar?
>>>>Are we on the same page here?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>Apparently your page is blank.
>
>
> Nope.
Yes it is.