Page 128 of 161 FirstFirst ... 2878118124125126127128129130131132138 ... LastLast
Results 3,176 to 3,200 of 4001
  1. #3176
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    So when you cannot win the argument you resort to lying?
    That's the status quo here. RG, Manny, Fuzzy, ElNono, etc. etc. etc.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  2. #3177
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    So I'm the one being dishonest here? Ok. I'm not concerned at all about your list. I decided to engage you since you decided it was worth your time to post here. The internet is filled with a ton of pages that provide out of context information on subjects. Your entrance to the ranks of those webpages does affect me in the least.
    Yes you are being dishonest and continue to. The list is not out of context because all of the papers on it relate to the subject of the list, "Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm".

    However, using your logic every page on the Internet about climate change that does not include all the papers on my list is "out of context".

    Why not make a more comprehensive list?
    This is being done as the list attempts to be a comprehensive resource of, "Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm".

    The question I posed: [...] has been dodged several times. I get it though. Its easy to search the web and find sites that claim to provide evidence for nearly any position on any subject. Some will even provide actual scientific articles. The actual value of these webpages is extremely limited because they only provide a narrow look.
    Nothing has been dodged, as you are making a strawman argument in relation to the purpose of the list. Actually it is not easy to compile all of these papers as quite a bit of research was required and is on going. "Value" is subjective but the list is very valuable for skeptics. The list provides a very wide view of papers that support skeptic arguments.

    Its good your looking out for skeptics though. Its hard for them actually find those articles in existing databases due to the fact that when you search for climate change on those databases you're going to get all the scientific literature and not simply a small segment meant to produce an agenda. You make it easier for people like Darrin to claim they know of scientific literature and what actual research in the field is saying when in fact they're just browsing over a list of out of context research.

    Your goal has been accomplished quite well. Bravo.
    Actually when you search a database you will simply get all of the results that include the terms used in your search. These terms can be found in papers that have nothing to do with climate change, are not scientific or even peer-reviewed. No database is comprehensive of the entire scientific literature either.

    Since you clearly do not have an agenda I look forward to you making sure any discussion of the peer-reviewed literature on climate change in the future includes these papers.

    I am glad to see skeptic's like Darrin referencing the peer-reviewed literature to support his arguments.
    Last edited by Poptech; 04-30-2012 at 02:53 AM.
    Poptech is offline

  3. #3178
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Reads what?


    Why do you continue to falsely state I used blogs when neither source is a blog? The justification for the image is based on the organization's anti-capitalist views which can accurately be represented as socialist/communist. Are you denying the organization holds anti-capitalist views?


    I fully aware your analogy does not apply to your argument. Speech from whom?


    Yes I meant links, this has been acknowledged.


    It means that the most prolific skeptical scientists have the most papers on the list and that in such a small scientific community you can easily find casual links. There is nothing unusual about this and you would find the same statistical information if you looked at alarmist scientists.


    The game six degrees of kevin bacon is irrelevant to the scientific credentials of any of the authors or the scientific validity of their papers. It is not evidence of anything specious.


    It is an irrefutable fact that two sources are provided. Are you denying this fact?


    No "blogs" are cited in the Sourcewatch piece, why do you keep lying about this? I came here to correct the misinformation you stated about the list. I have not ignored any point and have addressed everything you stated. Pictures are only used in relation to the content of an article, they are not subs uted for analysis or to make a point.


    You have stated lies about my intentions. I ask that you do not continue to misrepresent my position.


    It is not semantics but an irrefutable fact that you are in denial of because you again failed to properly read what you attempted to criticize. Again, I ask that you do not continue to misrepresent my position.
    I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that you are resorting to ad hominem and discrediting the site on a basis of no third party confirmation when all you have is some random .org. That designation does not even require a corp filed as a nonprofit with the state.

    The term blog was meant to simply indicate that it was a random website. This is not the National Review, New Republic, Washington Times, Economist or any other legitimate website. It was a random location that states in their about us that they are watchdogs of the 'left.'

    Its quite ironic that a website that claims that it is watching the left is accusing someone of watching the right. The articles you posted are just smears that point to no specific individuals actions or anything. Its just a nice vague smear that you were more than happy to latch onto with your confirmation bias.

    Do I need to get a .org domain to make my point?

    Dear god you are evasive. The analogy was that you wrote two paragraphs and the size of the picture was about the same size as those two paragraphs. A picture is worth a thousand words: you get it yet? And lol analysis. Lets do this: how about you quote the part of that 'article' that you consider analysis.

    Irrefutable fact? Spare me. Psoturing in place of analysis, bravo. Ad hominem and hypocrisy seems to be the popwatch motto.

    As for the 'six degrees' thing: I am not going to even address your attempt to move the goalposts. 10 authors were responsible for 1/5th of the links on your blog. That is no degree of separation. It points to a lack of diversity of opinion in your list. What seems to be a large body of work by a wide range of people is not.

    You can continue to try and label me whatever ad hominem over my mistake that you like.

    Further a member here that actually studies climatology estimated that there were about 200k total papers on the subject of climate. You once again resorted to specious arguments assuming how he formed the basis of the figure and as you typically do, a blanket dismissal.

    Its been quite amusing watching the 'skeptic' movement evolve. Now that its been proven that it is actually warming, now you have moved onto trying to mitigate the impact of said warming. Its funny how the 'skeptic' position always seems to fall in line with what helps the energy industry's bottom line.

    As for you intentions, that is besides the point. I am more interested in what it does. The lay person that would view your blog is going to be the likes of Darrin. Most people are at best intellectually lazy.

    Take WC, here. Have you had the privilege of reading about him trying to describe the behavior of all the oceans of the world with a solubility chart? Whether or not you intend it for use by legitimate scientists and intellectuals is besides the point. the point is that it is misleading to the layman as all it does is present one side of the argument and tries to do so in 'grandiose' terms: LOOKIE HERE NINE HUNDRED PAPERS THAT SHOW AGW IS FALSE!!!

    i will ask you the same thing that MiG asked: why not even an attempt to make a more comprehensive list.

    in·doc·tri·na·tion
      [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn]
    noun
    the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  4. #3179
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Yonivore is offline

  5. #3180
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I will have to keep it simple then.

    Yes or no, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
    Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied.
    Once again, I did not ask you about whether you think it is relevant to something.

    My question was simple, and made no reference to whether you think something is refutable or not.

    I asked a question simply, and plainly. Twice.

    I will ask a third time. Then I will simply have to assume the answer is yes, if you cannot, or will not answer it.

    Yes or no, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
    RandomGuy is offline

  6. #3181
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Define context and provide a source available on the Internet for the definition.


    ...for an argumentum ad populum.


    If you are interested in an argumentum ad populum.
    (edit) Since you ask for a definition:
    Context:
    2. the conditions and cir stances that are relevant to an event, fact, etc.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/context

    That seems about as good as any other.
    (end edit)


    Again with broken record.

    It is not an argumentum ad populum.

    Since you want to go here, let's go there. I will ask a series of direct questions, and construct a logical argument, based on your responses.

    If you fail to answer any direct question, we must assume that the answer is the one that does not support your charge. The principles of intellectual honesty require direct answers. Remember, you have made a positive claim. It is your burden of proof. The default position is to reject it, as any good skeptic would know.


    Yes or no, are people who earn PhD's in a subject more knowledgeable about that subject that people who do not study it?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-30-2012 at 11:43 AM. Reason: Meeting a request for a definition, even if I think doing so is a little silly.
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #3182
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    That's the status quo here. RG, Manny, Fuzzy, ElNono, etc. etc. etc.
    Show me where I have lied. I am very committed to not doing so.

    There is a vast gulf between a difference of opinion, and falsehood.
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #3183
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It's not flawed logic just because you don't understand it.

    I hope you are ready for an honest debate with PopTech. That would be a first.
    I understand you and Darrin's "arguments" all to well. That is your problem.

    Please do not insult my intelligence.
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #3184
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I understand you and Darrin's "arguments" all to well. That is your problem.

    Please do not insult my intelligence.


    .
    DarrinS is offline

  10. #3185
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position? If not then you only purpose for arguing for a volume ratio is an argumentum ad populum.
    To be clear:

    No, it does not.

    The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument.

    This, of course, sets aside the irony of someone working hard to populate a list of " 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" accusing someone else of "counting evidence. That is a little funny.

    I will ask you the same question then.

    Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #3186
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The problem is that was not your argument.

    The that gets you the merit badge for stupidity, is when you attempt to support that with ad hominems accusing people of lying, or having a motive to lie without addressing underlying claims. That may sound harsh, but you keep repeating these ad hominems even after being clearly shown that they are flawed logic. That is just stupid.
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #3187
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    The problem is that was not your argument.

    The that gets you the merit badge for stupidity, is when you attempt to support that with ad hominems accusing people of lying, or having a motive to lie without addressing underlying claims. That may sound harsh, but you keep repeating these ad hominems even after being clearly shown that they are flawed logic. That is just stupid.

    I had misread your post that I was resonding to and redacted my post with a ".". Settle down there Sparky.
    DarrinS is offline

  13. #3188
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    To be clear:

    No, it does not.

    The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument.

    This, of course, sets aside the irony of someone working hard to populate a list of " 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" accusing someone else of "counting evidence. That is a little funny.

    I will ask you the same question then.

    Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?

    Perhaps not, but it does destroy this claim from your OP.


    Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.
    DarrinS is offline

  14. #3189
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Have to admit, I have enjoyed the last few pages of this thread.

    DarrinS is offline

  15. #3190
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Perhaps not, but it does destroy this claim from your OP.
    (facepalm)

    No it does not. No offense, but I think you are going to be a bit over your head here. You might want to stop.
    RandomGuy is offline

  16. #3191
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It is possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage?
    This depends on your interpretation of "damage" and "catastrophic impacts". I believe and have seen evidence to support that most species are able to adapt to environmental changes. In a case of where a species would not survive I call that evolution.
    Prevaricating again.

    Either it is possible, or it is not.

    Quibbling over semantics is evasive. Is that your intention?

    Please answer the question. If you like, provide definitions that you feel appropriate. The question hinges on overall principles, and is directly relevant to how much that paper supports what you call "skeptical" arguments.
    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #3192
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that you are resorting to ad hominem and discrediting the site on a basis of no third party confirmation when all you have is some random .org. That designation does not even require a corp filed as a nonprofit with the state.
    The third party sources used are Discover the Networks and ActivistCash both are legitimate sites. Discover the Networks is run by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. ActivistCash is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom. Both are legitimate websites and neither are blogs.

    The term blog was meant to simply indicate that it was a random website. This is not the National Review, New Republic, Washington Times, Economist or any other legitimate website. It was a random location that states in their about us that they are watchdogs of the 'left.'
    That is an improper use of the term. The word "blog" is defined as, "Short for Web log, a blog is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author." Neither website fits this description.

    Its quite ironic that a website that claims that it is watching the left is accusing someone of watching the right. The articles you posted are just smears that point to no specific individuals actions or anything. Its just a nice vague smear that you were more than happy to latch onto with your confirmation bias.
    It is not a smear that Sourcewatch is written and edited by ordinary web users and is funded by the Center for Media and Democracy which holds extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate views. The village voice is hardly a conservative publication and they explicitly stated this about Sourcewatch's founders,

    "These guys come from the far side of liberal." - VillageVoice, 2001

    Dear god you are evasive. The analogy was that you wrote two paragraphs and the size of the picture was about the same size as those two paragraphs. A picture is worth a thousand words: you get it yet? And lol analysis. Lets do this: how about you quote the part of that 'article' that you consider analysis.
    The picture size and paragraph size is pure coincidence as I attempt to use roughly the same image size with all articles. You are confusing the shortened article snippet for the main page with the actual length of the article that includes extensive quotes from the two sources. That paragraph is a concise summary of my analysis, feel free to read the three provided links for more detailed information.

    Irrefutable fact? Spare me. Psoturing in place of analysis, bravo. Ad hominem and hypocrisy seems to be the popwatch motto.
    All articles are fully cited and sourced, there is no posturing, ad hominem or hypocrisy.

    As for the 'six degrees' thing: I am not going to even address your attempt to move the goalposts. 10 authors were responsible for 1/5th of the links on your blog. That is no degree of separation. It points to a lack of diversity of opinion in your list. What seems to be a large body of work by a wide range of people is not.
    No goal posts have been moved. There is nothing revealing about ten of the most prolific scientists listed having roughly 20 papers on the list when their entire publishing history is much larger than this. Your pop-culture Kevin Bacon game has no bearing on their credentials or the scientific validity of their work. Your counting exercise is not even an argument in relation to your pop-culture Kevin Bacon game of "degrees of separation". It is a strawman argument that the list is presenting your subjective criteria of a "diversity of opinion", "by a wide range of people". It is an irrefutable fact that the over 900 peer-reviewed papers on the list were written by over 350 unique authors.

    Further a member here that actually studies climatology estimated that there were about 200k total papers on the subject of climate. You once again resorted to specious arguments assuming how he formed the basis of the figure and as you typically do, a blanket dismissal.
    That was a total bull claim that cannot be verified. He most likely attempted to use Google Scholar for this flawed exercise and if he tried to use this to justify his number, I could shred it in a matter of minutes as I have done extensively when the Google Scholar illiterates at Skeptical Science did the same thing. None of which is specious. I thoroughly enjoy embarrassing those who try to use Google Scholar like this, please feel free to entertain me.

    Its been quite amusing watching the 'skeptic' movement evolve. Now that its been proven that it is actually warming, now you have moved onto trying to mitigate the impact of said warming. Its funny how the 'skeptic' position always seems to fall in line with what helps the energy industry's bottom line.
    Skeptics have never denied that there has been a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. The debate is over how much if any of that is due to man's activities. They also play devils advocate and make mitigation arguments under the presumption that human's do play a significant role. This should not be confused with acceptance of this position.

    It is always funny how alarmists believe in energy industry conspiracies while attempting to criticize skeptics for conspiratorial beliefs.

    As for you intentions, that is besides the point. I am more interested in what it does. The lay person that would view your blog is going to be the likes of Darrin. Most people are at best intellectually lazy.
    This is incorrect as most of the emails I receive about this list are from actual scientists and policy analysts thanking me for compiling it. The fact that Darrin is citing the peer-reviewed literature to make his arguments demonstrates he is not intellectually lazy at all.

    Whether or not you intend it for use by legitimate scientists and intellectuals is besides the point. the point is that it is misleading to the layman as all it does is present one side of the argument and tries to do so in 'grandiose' terms: LOOKIE HERE NINE HUNDRED PAPERS THAT SHOW AGW IS FALSE!!!
    It is only misleading if you misread the list. The list does include papers arguing against ACC/AGW in addition to ACC/AGW Alarm. So it is accurate to state that papers on the list make this claim just not the entire list.

    i will ask you the same thing that MiG asked: why not even an attempt to make a more comprehensive list.
    The list is attempting to be a comprehensive list for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm.

    in·doc·tri·na·tion
      [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn]
    noun
    the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:
    Nothing is being indoctrinated outside of learning that these papers do exist.
    Poptech is offline

  18. #3193
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Yes or no, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
    Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied with the list.
    Poptech is offline

  19. #3194
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Again with broken record.

    It is not an argumentum ad populum.
    This is an argumentum ad populum,

    900 out of how many papers total?

    If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

    900/200000= 0.45%
    Your denial of this is quite entertaining.

    Since you want to go here, let's go there. I will ask a series of direct questions, and construct a logical argument, based on your responses.

    If you fail to answer any direct question, we must assume that the answer is the one that does not support your charge. The principles of intellectual honesty require direct answers. Remember, you have made a positive claim. It is your burden of proof. The default position is to reject it, as any good skeptic would know.
    This is rather amusing your claims of "intellectual" honesty when you continued to state lies about the list.

    Yes or no, are people who earn PhD's in a subject more knowledgeable about that subject that people who do not study it?
    This is not a yes or no question. Worded that they "can be" and are "more likely to be" would warrant a "yes" answer.
    Last edited by Poptech; 04-30-2012 at 01:16 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  20. #3195
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Show me where I have lied. I am very committed to not doing so.

    There is a vast gulf between a difference of opinion, and falsehood.
    You have lied here,
    The implied intent is clear.

    Sure the list succeeds at pointing out some decent peer reviewed science that can be used as a "resource" by "skeptics".

    It is less than credulous to think that there is no implied theory.
    You are of course free to stop repeating this lie at any time.
    Poptech is offline

  21. #3196
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    To be clear:

    No, it does not.

    The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument.

    This, of course, sets aside the irony of someone working hard to populate a list of " 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" accusing someone else of "counting evidence. That is a little funny.
    There is no irony as the numerical total of the list is factual. No argument is made that this is more or less than something else as you did with your argumentum ad populum.

    I will ask you the same question then.

    Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?
    Obviously not.
    Poptech is offline

  22. #3197
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    You have, by the very nature of the list, implied a theory. You are "skeptical" of "alarmism".
    The intention of the list is quite obvious because it is explicitly stated,...
    Once again, evasive and obfuscating. Not surprising.

    I will have to keep it simple then.

    Yes or no, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
    Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied.
    Once again, I did not ask you about whether you think it is relevant to something.

    My question was simple, and made no reference to whether you think something is refutable or not.
    I asked a question simply, and plainly. Twice.

    I will ask a third time. Then I will simply have to assume the answer is yes, if you cannot, or will not answer it.

    Yes or no, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
    Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied with the list.
    So it would seem that you aren't interested in intellectual honesty.
    Intellectual honesty requires answering questions and admitting things you might not like.


    Figures. In that case, you have proven the point of the OP, and validated my theory. I had hoped for better.

    In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

    While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

    Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

    I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

    What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

    Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

    10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.
    http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/20...ual-honesty-2/
    RandomGuy is offline

  23. #3198
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    So it would seem that you aren't interested in intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty requires answering questions and admitting things you might not like.
    This tactic may work on others but not I so stop wasting your time as the answer to your game has been given. I will rephrase it and give it again,

    It is an irrefutable fact that there never was any intent to imply anything other then what is explicitly stated on the list about the list.

    Stating otherwise is a lie.

    The only thing intellectually dishonest is to keep on this line of argument when the answer (you obviously do not like) was given to you the first time.
    Poptech is offline

  24. #3199
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    This is an argumentum ad populum,


    Your denial of this is quite entertaining.


    This is rather amusing your claims of "intellectual" honesty when you continued to state lies about the list.
    Fair enough. I don't consider that to be a lie, but if you object, then I will withdraw the statement, if only to get you to stop ing about your list.

    Better:

    It is my opinion that there is an underlying subtext inherent to the list. This subtext is, in my opinion, similar to other "in languages" for any cultural subgroup. The underlying message of this language is plain to insiders, and reflects a common understanding.
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #3200
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    It is my opinion that there is an underlying subtext inherent to the list. This subtext is, in my opinion, similar to other "in languages" for any cultural subgroup. The underlying message of this language is plain to insiders, and reflects a common understanding.
    This is again a lie in relation to the list.
    Poptech is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •