What are Loki Points?
harvest dancer
Jason
Jon Fleming
(harvest dancer) wrote:
>Exactly what are Loki Points, what are they given for, how are they earned?
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargonfile_l.html>
Google is your friend.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Clothaire
(harvest dancer) wrote:
From Google:
>>
Loki
Loki is one of the major deities in the Norse pantheon. He is a son of
the giant Farbauti ("cruel striker") and the giantess Laufey.... He
is connected with fire and magic, and can assume many different shapes
(horse, falcon, fly).... He is crafty and malicious, but is also
heroic: in that aspect he can be compared with the trickster from
North American myths.>>
In TalK.origins Loki points are conceded to anyone who can write a
creationist rant that is cited or plagiarized by another creationist
as undeniable evidence of their religious doctrine.
Even creationist pros have been sucked in.
Clothaire
"It is better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot"
- Anatole France
Floyd
> Exactly what are Loki Points, what are they given for, how are they earned?
http://www.ediacara.org/loki.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargonfile_l.html
Basically, they're kudos awarded to people who post believable,
tounge-in-cheek parodies of positions other than their own. (In
practice, they are awarded for posting parodies of creationist
arguments; I am unaware of any creationist successfully posting a
parody of evolution and getting other creationists to critique it,
although it's hypothetically possible.) The parodist earns points for
suckering t.o. regulars who should know better into arguing against
the post or flaming the author. They are named for the Norse God of
mischief. HTH
-Floyd
stew dean
>
> Jason
Loki is a minor Norse Diety that is known for being a trickster and
generaly sly and underhand.
Loki points are gained when you fool someone into thinking you are
serious when you're not in this group. In the US some appear to think
this is funny.
Stew Dean
David Horn
More accurately, Loki points are awarded to those in the group who take
on a position--usually a creationist position--that they would not
otherwise support and argue in its favor. It's actually a common
instructional method used in secondary school and first-semester college
speech classes. Loki points are awarded to the writer of a post in
talk.origins who takes on such a position and is able to fool others
into believing that the article advocating the position represents the
genuine position of the author. The value of the points increases (some
might say "geometrically") with the level and frequency of ire and
disdain found in the responses.
The phrase, "methinks he doth protest too much" seems appropriate here.
There are a couple of things implied by this rather terse reponse from
Dean. The first implication is that Dean has been taken in by such a
trick. Second, he didn't think it was funny. Third, apparently the
appreciation for the humor inherent in loki-troll posts (and the
associated responses) is limited to "some in the US," while, by
implication, no one else finds it funny.
Having been taken in a couple of times by this sort of thing over the
years, I think it's quite effective as a "shot-in-the-arm," reminding us
of a couple of things, not the least of which is not to take what goes
on in newsgroups *too* seriously.
us...@example.com
>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:26:09 +0000 (UTC), harves...@hotmail.com
>(harvest dancer) wrote:
>
>>Exactly what are Loki Points, what are they given for, how are they earned?
>
><http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargonfile_l.html>
Basically, successful trolling?
David Horn
Basically; but in my own reply I had forgotten that, generally, posters
seeking Loki points are usually parodying creationist arguments in some
way or another:
"Points garnered in the Chris Colby t.o. home game by entering a
tongue-in-cheek parody of a viewpoint opposite your own which is
responded to by persons of your own viewpoint as if the parody was a
real argument."
It seems to me, now, that "parody" at some level was a significant
contributing factor to whether or not one garners Loki points. So it
was my error for forgetting that and leaving that out.
stew dean
> stew dean wrote:
> > harves...@hotmail.com (harvest dancer) wrote in message news:<4f697f9f.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>Exactly what are Loki Points, what are they given for, how are they earned?
> >>
> >>Jason
> >
> > Loki is a minor Norse Diety that is known for being a trickster and
> > generaly sly and underhand.
> >
> > Loki points are gained when you fool someone into thinking you are
> > serious when you're not in this group. In the US some appear to think
> > this is funny.
>
> More accurately, Loki points are awarded to those in the group who take
> on a position--usually a creationist position--that they would not
> otherwise support and argue in its favor.
The idea of Loki points is to create a post that fools others. This is
done by aping the other side. BUT it is not parody as parody is
obvious and humourous. When a post is too close to the original it
> It's actually a common
> instructional method used in secondary school and first-semester college
> speech classes.
You're confusing it with debating. Debating is something totally
different. It's where you take an opposing view and argue it. It's not
the same as those looking to score Loki points.
> Loki points are awarded to the writer of a post in
> talk.origins who takes on such a position and is able to fool others
> into believing that the article advocating the position represents the
> genuine position of the author.
Exactly. As an exercise it is irritating and not something you'll see
in schools.
> The value of the points increases (some
> might say "geometrically") with the level and frequency of ire and
> disdain found in the responses.
Otherwise known as a troll. A troll, as you know, posts with the
direct intention of sturing up the group or an individual and to try
and solicit negative responces.
> The phrase, "methinks he doth protest too much" seems appropriate here.
> There are a couple of things implied by this rather terse reponse from
> Dean. The first implication is that Dean has been taken in by such a
> trick.
Not applicable. This is the only point in you post you slip into your
bad old ways. Personal attack is not part of good debating.
> Second, he didn't think it was funny.
Exactly.
> Third, apparently the
> appreciation for the humor inherent in loki-troll posts (and the
> associated responses) is limited to "some in the US," while, by
> implication, no one else finds it funny.
Doesnt follow. If I have don't have a car and some in the US have a
car that doesnt mean others outside of the US don't have cars.
As you correctly pointed out I don't find it funny or worthwhile. I
think this is down to a gap between the UK and US sense of humour. It
is subjective and it's just my view.
> Having been taken in a couple of times by this sort of thing over the
> years, I think it's quite effective as a "shot-in-the-arm," reminding us
> of a couple of things, not the least of which is not to take what goes
> on in newsgroups *too* seriously.
Don't get me wrong, I like parody - and some posts are clearly parody
whilst some miss the point and end up becoming unintended trolls. If
the intention is to make people laugh, that's good. If it's intended
to fool, especially if the pretence is extended with no humour then
it's the same as a post intended to troll.
Stew Dean
David Horn
stew dean wrote:
> David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<OJsBb.6332$US3.5189@okepread03>...
>
>>stew dean wrote:
>>
>>>harves...@hotmail.com (harvest dancer) wrote in message news:<4f697f9f.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>>Exactly what are Loki Points, what are they given for, how are they earned?
>>>>
>>>>Jason
>>>
>>>Loki is a minor Norse Diety that is known for being a trickster and
>>>generaly sly and underhand.
>>>
>>>Loki points are gained when you fool someone into thinking you are
>>>serious when you're not in this group. In the US some appear to think
>>>this is funny.
>>
>>More accurately, Loki points are awarded to those in the group who take
>>on a position--usually a creationist position--that they would not
>>otherwise support and argue in its favor.
>
> The idea of Loki points is to create a post that fools others.
> This is done by aping the other side. BUT it is not parody as
> parody is obvious and humourous. When a post is too close to the
> original it
Dean seems to have cut himself off, but that's fine because his whole
line of reasoning doesn't seem to follow the history of Loki points in
talk.origins. Of course, I neglected to mention that, in fact, Loki
points *are* parody as they were originally envisioned. See the other
posts in this thread for that information and a reference to the jargon
file. I would contest that parody is necessarily "obvious and
humourous" since, as we have already seen and we'll see again further
below, humor, particularly, is in the eye of the beholder. Dean's
failure to see or understand the humor in Loki points and Loki trolling
does not mean that the humor isn't there.
>>It's actually a common instructional method used in secondary school
>>and first-semester college speech classes.
>
> You're confusing it with debating. Debating is something totally
> different. It's where you take an opposing view and argue it. It's not
> the same as those looking to score Loki points.
I confuse nothing. What I said was that taking an alternative viewpoint
and defending it, even when the person debating doesn't agree with that
viewpoint, is a common instructional method in speech and debate classes
at the secondary and freshman and sophomore college levels. Dean shows
that, once again, he is incapable of following the point or
understanding simple concepts.
>>Loki points are awarded to the writer of a post in talk.origins who
>>takes on such a position and is able to fool others into believing
>>that the article advocating the position represents the genuine position
>>of the author.
>
> Exactly. As an exercise it is irritating and not something you'll see
> in schools.
That Dean might find it irritating does nothing to the value of arguing
an alternative viewpoint in an academic setting. Loki points are not
awarded, of course, but my point stands and Dean is wrong. I say this
having been on both sides of this kind of instruction--as a student and
as an instructor.
>>The value of the points increases (some might say "geometrically") with
>>the level and frequency of ire and disdain found in the responses.
>
> Otherwise known as a troll. A troll, as you know, posts with the
> direct intention of sturing up the group or an individual and to try
> and solicit negative responces.
A troll may try to prompt any number of any kind of responses. That
Loki points are a kind of trolling is not something anyone is denying.
>>The phrase, "methinks he doth protest too much" seems appropriate here.
>> There are a couple of things implied by this rather terse reponse from
>>Dean. The first implication is that Dean has been taken in by such a
>>trick.
>
> Not applicable. This is the only point in you post you slip into your
> bad old ways. Personal attack is not part of good debating.
It depends on the factual nature and what really constitutes "personal
attack." What I related above was accurate and entirely applicable.
Dean is obviously not a fan of the Loki style of posting; and I can't
help but notice that Dean does not tell us one way or the other if he
has been taken in by such a posting. It so happens that I know that he
has and, given his subsequent attitude about it as illustrated here,
he's not happy about it. Dean needs to get over this idea that he's
some kind of master debator or expert at debate and discussion. I don't
see that happening. The fact is that there's no harm in admitting that
a Loki post was offered as "bait" and accepted. I've been taken in,
myself. I think it's quite funny most of the time.
>> Second, he didn't think it was funny.
>
> Exactly.
So there's no point of contention here.
>>Third, apparently the appreciation for the humor inherent in loki-troll
>>posts (and the associated responses) is limited to "some in the US,"
>>while, by implication, no one else finds it funny.
>
> Doesnt follow. If I have don't have a car and some in the US have a
> car that doesnt mean others outside of the US don't have cars.
Now *that* doesn't follow; but what I said does. Dean made it a point
to specifically write that "some in the US" find Loki posts funny. What
I said was that, by implication, those outside do not. The words "some
in the US" did not appear magically in Dean's post. He put them there.
But Dean can never say "whoops, that isn't what I meant."
> As you correctly pointed out I don't find it funny or worthwhile. I
> think this is down to a gap between the UK and US sense of humour. It
> is subjective and it's just my view.
Well, now Dean seems to be contradicting himself again. It doesn't
follow that "some in the US" find Loki posts funny while, by
implication, others do not, but "this is down to a gap between the UK
and US sense of humor" so, at least according to Dean, people in the UK
won't find Loki posts funny.
Humor takes many forms and is generally a matter of taste. Many of us
like the humor of Monty Python's Flying Circus and continue to be fans
of the individual members of the troupe; but for many, that "dry"
British humor is an acquired taste. Humor tends to be culturally biased
and what members of one culture find funny, others will not or will not
understand. I don't think that the "gap" is as pronounced as Dean might
imagine, given his rather arrogant, euro-centric point of view; and I
happen to know people all over the world--including the UK--who find
this sort of thing amusing. Dean has a really bad habit of presuming to
speak inclusively for Britons. The people of Great Britain are
culturally diverse and their tastes are as varied as those of any
western nation.
>>Having been taken in a couple of times by this sort of thing over the
>>years, I think it's quite effective as a "shot-in-the-arm," reminding us
>>of a couple of things, not the least of which is not to take what goes
>>on in newsgroups *too* seriously.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I like parody - and some posts are clearly parody
Near the top of his response, Dean writes:
"The idea of Loki points is to create a post that fools others. This is
done by aping the other side. BUT it is not parody as parody is obvious
and humourous.
Quoting a more specific portion:
"it is NOT PARODY [emphasis added] as parody is obvious and humourous."
I point out yet again that if Dean can't keep his own arguments
straight, how can he presume to criticize those of others?
> whilst some miss the point and end up becoming unintended trolls.
The very nature of a Loki post makes it an *intended* troll.
> If the intention is to make people laugh, that's good. If it's intended
> to fool, especially if the pretence is extended with no humour then
> it's the same as a post intended to troll.
In it's own way, a Loki post is intended to fool and, subsequently, to
make people laugh. It doesn't always work, of course, because some of
the more self-important among us such as Dean, tend to resent being
taken in by such things. The fact remains that Loki posts are a part of
the culture of talk.origins and were a part of that culture long before
Dean first posted here. The history and the jargon file show these to
have originated with Chris Colby and, if my estimates are correct, this
would have been in the late 80s or early 90s--before my participation,
as well. Loki posts serve a couple of purposes and, I think, one of
them is precisely to remind people like Dean not to take this, or
themselves, too seriously. That that is lost on Dean doesn't surprise
me, at all.
Andrew Arensburger
> I am unaware of any creationist successfully posting a
> parody of evolution and getting other creationists to critique it,
> although it's hypothetically possible.
Does this qualify?
Original article by Dr. Silence:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20031204205820.28615.00000190%40mb-m01.aol.com
Barbarossa takes it seriously:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3fcffda6%240%24276%24ba620e4c%40reader4.news.skynet.be
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Evolution is a fact. God is a theory.
stew dean
> It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Discussion over. It was a mistake to think you could be sensible for a change.
Stew Dean
David Horn
As usual, Dean snipped every point made and every rebuttal and
refutation to his claims, his misdirections, his misunderstandings and
his ego-centric musings. And, as usual, Dean decides that his opponent
in the exchange cannot "be sensible for a change." Yes, the discussion
is over, but that is because Dean had nowhere else to go. He loses.
Again.
ArWeGod
news:2b68957a.03121...@posting.google.com...
Damn! I believe the boy has GOT IT!
I recommend two Loki points for this post! Just check the responses and say
I'm wrong.
Uuuuhhh...does the Loki point have to be intentional? That was never made
clear...
--
ArWeHavoc
Staffan S
>
> Jason
And can you exchange them for goods or services? I would really,
really like a diploma from the U of E.
Staffan S
PS
Or one of the secret evilutionist membership badges.
DS
harvest dancer
> Floyd <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > I am unaware of any creationist successfully posting a
> > parody of evolution and getting other creationists to critique it,
> > although it's hypothetically possible.
>
> Does this qualify?
>
> Original article by Dr. Silence:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20031204205820.28615.00000190%40mb-m01.aol.com
>
> Barbarossa takes it seriously:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3fcffda6%240%24276%24ba620e4c%40reader4.news.skynet.be
Well, that's a good question. From most of the replies, it appears
that loki points are rewarded to scientists who pretend to be
creationists and get quoted by creationists and opposed by scientists.
Dr. Silence is a creationist pretending to be an evolutionist.
Then again, since he fooled Barbarossa, junior points are all that his
rant merits.
Jason
stew dean
No David, you lost because of your reliance on personal attack.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Stew Dean
David Horn
> David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<BTSBb.6448$US3.2515@okepread03>...
>
>>stew dean wrote:
>>
>>>David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<R6IBb.6410$US3.3089@okepread03>...
>>>
>>>>It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
>>>
>>>Discussion over. It was a mistake to think you could be sensible for a change.
>>
>>As usual, Dean snipped every point made and every rebuttal and
>>refutation to his claims, his misdirections, his misunderstandings and
>>his ego-centric musings. And, as usual, Dean decides that his opponent
>>in the exchange cannot "be sensible for a change." Yes, the discussion
>>is over, but that is because Dean had nowhere else to go. He loses.
>>Again.
>
> No David, you lost because of your reliance on personal attack.
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
In fact, I did not rely on personal attack. I demonstrated the flaws in
Dean's "reasoning," showed that his own arguments were inconsistent, and
explained his lack of reasoned rebuttal in the end. Dean snipped all
of the rebuttal points and does what he always does--declare that the
other party could not be reasonable (ostensibly for failing to see the
world as he does, as he once told another he wants to do). And here we
see that Dean has changed his mind yet *again*. After all, it was Dean
who said "discussion over," was it not?
Like I said: It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
John Wilkins
> harves...@hotmail.com (harvest dancer) wrote:
> > Exactly what are Loki Points, what are they given for, how are they
> > earned?
> >
> > Jason
>
> And can you exchange them for goods or services? I would really,
> really like a diploma from the U of E.
Given that the Dean is on extended leave, and that I am about to become
a full Professor at my own behest and on my own recognisance (or did
that mean something else? the judge was not clear on that point) I shall
undertake to design and mail you, for a suitable consideration (in
American dollars, small unmarked bills), the UoE New Testamur. Drop me a
line...
>
> Staffan S
>
> PS
> Or one of the secret evilutionist membership badges.
> DS
I couldn't possibly comment about that [*big* donation, really, really
*big* donation]
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Crwydryn
How about a slightly used soul?
--
Kevyn Winkless kevyn at the-winkless.net
Do not speak of secrets in a field that is full of little hills.
Hebrew Proverb
John Wilkins
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:58:25 +0000 (UTC), wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Staffan S <qswitch2....@passagen.se> wrote:
> >
> >> harves...@hotmail.com (harvest dancer) wrote:
> >> > Exactly what are Loki Points, what are they given for, how are they
> >> > earned?
> >> >
> >> > Jason
> >>
> >> And can you exchange them for goods or services? I would really,
> >> really like a diploma from the U of E.
> >
> >Given that the Dean is on extended leave, and that I am about to become
> >a full Professor at my own behest and on my own recognisance (or did
> >that mean something else? the judge was not clear on that point) I shall
> >undertake to design and mail you, for a suitable consideration (in
> >American dollars, small unmarked bills), the UoE New Testamur. Drop me a
> >line...
> >>
> >> Staffan S
> >>
> >> PS
> >> Or one of the secret evilutionist membership badges.
> >> DS
> >
> >I couldn't possibly comment about that [*big* donation, really, really
> >*big* donation]
>
> How about a slightly used soul?
My soul catcher's full of the bastards. Give me something I can *spend*.
stew dean
Well done, that's my first irony meter blown by an evolutionist.
Stew Dean
David Horn
Now *this* little bit of evasion is almost good enough for a "Chez
Watt," but obviously Dean just really doesn't get it. Furthermore, I
doubt it he can or will bother to show the irony here. That's becuase
there isn't any. There *is*, however, hypocrisy on Dean's
part--again--and he's just too thick to see it. If "personal attack"
means that a person loses, despite all of the points that are made and
the facts that are related, how did Dean fare in all of those arguments
*he* had when he would, among the evasions and unmarked snippages,
includes comments such as "that's just stupid," "you're being silly" or
"you need to stop being an idiot?" What's particularly amusing is that
if we apply Dean's rule here, I can find an article in which he calls Ed
Conrad a "moron," and I guess that means that Dean lost that
argument--to *Ed* *Conrad*.
The simple fact is that Dean made some incorrect and contradictory
statements based on a lack of thought. He does this often and this
isn't the first time I've caught him at it--again.
stew dean
I think I owe it to you to explain where the irony lies. You post a
message saying that you did not use personal attack that was one long
personal attack.
The irony is you don't appear to be aware you are doing it.
I've tried using the same methods with you and quite frankly didnt
like doing it. Your first repsonce was almost free of personal
attacks, incidently I'm counting all demeaning terms and general
obnoxious behavour. The most consistant thing you do is refer to me as
Dean. This is received as intended.
Notice when I refer to you I refer to you directly using the term
'you'. This is because I attempt to cut down all obnoxious behavour in
my posts. As I've pointed out before every post I've seen from you has
been off topic and full of similair language, it's not polite and it's
not how to get your point across.
So, just to be clear, to claim you did not use personal attack in a
post that is one long personal attack is high irony.
> That's becuase there isn't any.
There was too much, that's why the meter blew. I'm using the standard
issue for all talk.origins regulars with an addition of a new 'fundie
buffer' that, in this case, was ineffective.
> There *is*, however, hypocrisy on Dean's
> part--again--and he's just too thick to see it.
And this is a great example of a personal attack, or attacks in this
case. First the user of Dean (the 'but that's your name' defence is
not valid as my name is Stewart, my surname to be used with it is
Dean, only if I was a political or public figure would Dean be
admissible), again you repeat the falacy that I've been a hypocrit, I
can tell people their posts are off topic because I know when I'm on
topic. I could tell myself the same thing. This post is off topic.
Lastly 'he's just too thick to see it' - well after you personal
attack saying you didnt use a personal attack then I think it's fair
to doubt your own personal perception.
> If "personal attack"
> means that a person loses, despite all of the points that are made and
> the facts that are related, how did Dean fare in all of those arguments
> *he* had when he would, among the evasions and unmarked snippages,
> includes comments such as "that's just stupid," "you're being silly" or
> "you need to stop being an idiot?" What's particularly amusing is that
> if we apply Dean's rule here, I can find an article in which he calls Ed
> Conrad a "moron," and I guess that means that Dean lost that
> argument--to *Ed* *Conrad*.
Again you miss the point. I have used personal attack previously, I
have used it against you but I know it's not valid to win an argument.
If you want to debate then if you use a personal attack you are highly
likely to loose the debate (look up debating guide sites if you don't
believe me).
As your posts are nearly all vitriolic attacks or sarcastic comments
and, as I've explained before, free from logical arguments then how
can I counter them? If I argue a point without ad hominem I would
expect a reasoned responce back.
I would be a hypocrite if I thought I was except from this but I'm
not. I've also covered why you prevous exagerated claim is not valid.
Sometimes you just want to flame someone and it's a twisted pleasure
to beat up on someone with shows signs of a compulsive behavoural
trait. For this reason I've responded to you and Ed Conrad.
I've never claimed to have perfect behavour but endevor to act
correctly.
> The simple fact is that Dean made some incorrect and contradictory
> statements based on a lack of thought.
In this case not at all. If you promise to be more sensible I'll step
you through the logic. I reread the original post and it's a
subjective view related to the topic in question and my reasoning is
not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion.
> He does this often and this
> isn't the first time I've caught him at it--again.
David, you have not caught me doing anything as I've already covered
with you. I am not attempting to sneak anything in, lie or generaly be
downright underhanded. You have accused me of being dishonest before
when I feel I've been overly honest. I'm not perfect, don't post the
best posts around here but can and have moderated my own behavour in
the past. I admit when I'm wrong, appologise for incorrect statements
and listen to others when they make a valid point. If someone asks
politely to stop an off topic thread I would not be offended.
So, just to sum up, your reliance upon personal attack undermines any
argument you attempt to make. It also means it's very difficult to
expect you to post a sensible responce free from Ad Hominem. I marked
your previous post as highly ironic because it claimed you didnt use
personal attack (in it's self wrong) then continued with a personal
attack. One bust (imaginary) irony meter.
I'm not demanding you never use personal attack again (we've all got
to have a bit of fun now and again) but I do wonder if you can
consciously avoid using it.
I look forward to your responce.
Stew Dean
David Horn
"over." I guess it isn't. But that doesn't mean I'm not still shooting
fish in a barrel.
Dean needs to learn how to read. I did not write that I did not *use"
personal attack. I wrote that I did not *rely* on it.
> The irony is you don't appear to be aware you are doing it.
Since I am aware of everything that I do, there is no irony. Dean is once
again simply unable to keep the argument straight or to properly represent
his opponent. And if he can't keep such a simple thing straight, along
with an apparent inability to keep his own arguments straight, how can he
presume to be critical of others as he has been.
[Snip, since it doesn't seem to be relevant]
>> That's becuase there isn't any.
>
> There was too much, that's why the meter blew.
Dean is wrong. See above. Dean needs to learn to read for comprehension.
>> There *is*, however, hypocrisy on Dean's
>> part--again--and he's just too thick to see it.
>
> And this is a great example of a personal attack, or attacks in this
> case. First the user of Dean (the 'but that's your name' defence is
> not valid as my name is Stewart, my surname to be used with it is
> Dean, only if I was a political or public figure would Dean be
> admissible),
I did not use "that's your name" as a defense. It was simply an
explanation. To refer to Dean by his name need not be defended. If he
doesn't like being addressed by his name in the fashion, quite frankly,
accepted most everywhere, that's his problem.
> again you repeat the falacy that I've been a hypocrit,
That Dean is a hypocrite is *demonstrated* and has been on several
occasions. It is not a fallacy.
> I can tell people their posts are off topic because I know when I'm on
> topic. I could tell myself the same thing. This post is off topic.
I think we put that one away, but if Dean wants to bring it up again,
that's fine. It's just another example of Dean's hypocrisy as pointed out
in the past. Dean criticised another for posting an off-topic article.
Take it to another newsgroup, he told that person. But Dean posts
off-topic all the time. Dean was *not* being chastized for posting
off-topic, but for criticizing another for doing so. That is a simple
distinction Dean seems completely incapable of understanding.
> Lastly 'he's just too thick to see it' - well after you personal
> attack saying you didnt use a personal attack...
Once again, I didn't say that it wasn't used. I didn't *rely* on it.
> ...then I think it's fair to doubt your own personal perception.
Here we go again. Dean, the expert in psychology who has a degree
"involving" it, as well, wants to duck the responsibility for his own
errors and hypocrisy and presume to tell another that he doesn't know what
he's doing. But notice that Dean can only accomplish this is he can recast
the argument into something other than what it is. Either Dean is being
flagrantly dishonest, he can't keep his facts straight, or he can't read
for comprehension. There is a difference between use of and reliance on.
Dean wrote:
"...you lost because of your reliance on personal attack."
I responded with:
"In fact, I did not rely on personal attack."
See msg ID Ck3Cb.21$pm5.5@okepread01
I never denied attacking Dean. He's still getting a taste of his own
medicine because I want to make sure that the lesson is driven home
forcefully; but it seems to me that if Dean can't even understand the
difference between such simple concepts as "use of" versus "reliance
upon," it may be a futile effort on my part.
>> If "personal attack"
>> means that a person loses, despite all of the points that are made and
>> the facts that are related, how did Dean fare in all of those arguments
>> *he* had when he would, among the evasions and unmarked snippages,
>> includes comments such as "that's just stupid," "you're being silly" or
>> "you need to stop being an idiot?" What's particularly amusing is that
>> if we apply Dean's rule here, I can find an article in which he calls Ed
>> Conrad a "moron," and I guess that means that Dean lost that
>> argument--to *Ed* *Conrad*.
>
> Again you miss the point. I have used personal attack previously, I
> have used it against you but I know it's not valid to win an argument.
Ah, I see. It only causes one to lose the argument if one is *not* Dean.
> If you want to debate then if you use a personal attack you are highly
> likely to loose the debate (look up debating guide sites if you don't
> believe me).
But that isn't what Dean wrote. Dean wrote that I "lost because of your
reliance on personal attack" which, in order to argue further, he equates
with "use of" personal attack. He didn't say I was likely to lose because
of it, he said I lost because of it. My point is that if I lost because
of it, that presupposes that the points I made, the facts I related and
the rebuttals that I issued were all negated by that event. Since I had
done all of those things as well as thumped Dean across the skull a couple
of times, it is clear that none of that meant anything. Dean snipped it
all away, refused to address any of the points and declared that I had
lost because of my "reliance" on personal attack. Once again, Dean has to back-pedal.
> As your posts are nearly all vitriolic attacks or sarcastic comments
> and, as I've explained before, free from logical arguments then how
> can I counter them? If I argue a point without ad hominem I would
> expect a reasoned responce back.
Dean changes his mind again. Earlier in this post, he told us that I had
used *one* section of personal attack up to that point. See these
messsage IDs:
OJsBb.6332$US3.5189@okepread03
6IBb.6410$US3.3089@okepread03
These are two articles previous to Dean's declaration that I lost. They
contain a number of points, rebuttals and facts (in the first, I forgot to
mention that Loki posts are parody). Dean followed with "discussion
over" (msg ID 2b68957a.03121...@posting.google.com) and a
personal attack ("It was a mistake to think you could be sensible for a
change."). After I pointed out that all of the facts were snipped and
Dean didn't deal with any of them, Dean declared that I "lost" because of
my alleged "reliance on personal attack" (msg ID
2b68957a.03121...@posting.google.com). I pointed out that if
that is the standard by which an argument or a debate is lost, then Dean
has lost many such arguments and debates--even losing to Ed Conrad the
moment he referred to him as a "moron," which he did here:
b68957a.02091...@posting.google.com
And here:
2b68957a.03061...@posting.google.com
Now we see another Dean reversal. As soon as someone shows that the
standard that Dean presumes to apply to another must also apply to him
and, if it does, Dean has lost many arguments because of that standard,
Dean tries to find a way to make the standard not apply to him. That's
hypocrisy, and it's deliberate and calculated. That *doesn't* mean,
however, that he carries it off well.
> I would be a hypocrite if I thought I was except from this but I'm
> not. I've also covered why you prevous exagerated claim is not valid.
In fact, Dean has never "covered" any of it. He snips, ducks, dodges and
weaves and eventually runs away.
> Sometimes you just want to flame someone and it's a twisted pleasure
> to beat up on someone with shows signs of a compulsive behavoural
> trait. For this reason I've responded to you and Ed Conrad.
Is Dean here telling us that he's got a "compulsive behavioral trait" from
which he derives "twisted pleasure to beat up on someone?" "For this
reason I've responded to you and Ed Conrad."
> I've never claimed to have perfect behavour but endevor to act
> correctly.
Right out of the Pagano playbook.
>> The simple fact is that Dean made some incorrect and contradictory
>> statements based on a lack of thought.
>
> In this case not at all. If you promise to be more sensible I'll step
> you through the logic. I reread the original post and it's a
> subjective view related to the topic in question and my reasoning is
> not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion.
Dean wants to retreat back to the concept of Loki points, but that is not
all that I am talking about when I say that Dean makes incorrect and
contradictory statements based on a lack of thought. It is clear even in
this article that he does so.
>> He does this often and this
>> isn't the first time I've caught him at it--again.
>
> David, you have not caught me doing anything as I've already covered
> with you.
Again, Dean did not and does not "cover" anything. Denial does not
constitute "covering" in that context any more than "use of" is synonomous
with "reliance upon."
> I am not attempting to sneak anything in, lie or generaly be
> downright underhanded. You have accused me of being dishonest before
> when I feel I've been overly honest. I'm not perfect, don't post the
> best posts around here but can and have moderated my own behavour in
> the past. I admit when I'm wrong, appologise for incorrect statements
> and listen to others when they make a valid point. If someone asks
> politely to stop an off topic thread I would not be offended.
Here we are back to the issue of topicality. This is a nice retreat for
Dean since no one asked him not to post off-topic posts (at least, no one
of which I am aware). What Dean did was criticize another for posting
off-topic when he posts off-topic. Dean *still* doesn't get it.
> So, just to sum up, your reliance upon personal attack undermines any
> argument you attempt to make.
Does this also apply when Dean tells Conrad he's a "moron," or when he
calls Sienkieiwicz a "moron," as well? When Dean tells gen2rev that he's
"just being silly" or that he needs to stop being an "idiot," were Dean's
arguments undermined? I can find many examples of Dean using personal
attack (as opposed to relying upon it, though given Dean's propensities
for snipping away valid comments, I could make a case for Dean's reliance
on this sort of thing more than any he'd criticize). The point again is
the hypocrisy. Dean makes some Paganoesque comments as we see above, but
as soon as someone shows specific incidents, Dean is full of excuses and
tries to divert from the point. Dean is going to have to do more than
whine about how honest he is. He's going to have to *show* it. Until
then, I'm not convinced; and I suspect I am not alone.
> It also means it's very difficult to
> expect you to post a sensible responce free from Ad Hominem.
In fact, I've posted quite a bit that is "sensible." But I also happen to
think that Dean is an arrogant twit who deserves to be slapped around a
little bit. As soon as he stops acting pompous, arrogant, and
hypocritical, and as soon as I'm convinced that the lesson has been driven
home (in other words, we'll see no more stalking and attack of others for
posting replies to certain net kooks, among other things), then I'll let
up a bit. It's all up to Dean.
> I marked your previous post as highly ironic because it claimed you didnt use
> personal attack (in it's self wrong) then continued with a personal
> attack. One bust (imaginary) irony meter.
Asked and answered. No doubt the irony meters are in good shape. The
problem is that Dean either can't read for comprehension or can't
understand simple concepts.
> I'm not demanding you never use personal attack again (we've all got
> to have a bit of fun now and again) but I do wonder if you can
> consciously avoid using it.
I can consciously do anything I want; but this is not something I have to
justify to Dean or anyone else.
> I look forward to your responce.
I thought the discussion was over, as far as Dean was concerned. This is
rather amusing, actually, but I am starting to wind up with a barrel full
of dead fish; and the start to smell after a while.
stew dean
> Dean has apparently changed his mind--again. He declared the discussion
> "over." I guess it isn't. But that doesn't mean I'm not still shooting
> fish in a barrel.
I'm sure I posted a reply to this a while back.
Anyway David, to sum up what I posted. You did rely upon personal
attack and continue to. The whole of this post was a personal attack,
plase indicate where it is not if you feel I am wrong. Also bear in
mind that every post I looked at via google (including via your email)
was either largely personal attack or a sarcasitic commment.
If you do not rely upon personal attack then you can demonstrate this
by responding without vitriol. If I am right and you have a compulsive
behavour you won't be able to do that.
I'm willing to debate about anything but as soon as you resort to
personal attack you've lost due to the fallacy in your argument.
<rest of post snipped for above reason>
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.13....@cox.net>...
>> Dean has apparently changed his mind--again. He declared the discussion
>> "over." I guess it isn't. But that doesn't mean I'm not still shooting
>> fish in a barrel.
>
> I'm sure I posted a reply to this a while back.
Google shows no reply by Dean to this specific message ID, but what did
happen is what always happens. Dean confuses his own arguments, snips
away my valid points and makes a speech. This is typical of Dean's
dishonest approach to criticizing others. As usual, he is at a loss to
explain the inconsistencies in his claims, his misrepresentations and
evasions and his errors.
What follows is what Dean snipped and did not address. I repost it here
because, at the moment, I have neither the time nor the inclination to
type it all out again. If Dean can respond and explain these things, he
is invited to try; but given his past record, I have no expectations other
than that he will do what he always does: He will avoid the points, snip
the commentary, evade the issues, misrepresent others and even lie.
[Begin repost]
I responded with:
See msg ID Ck3Cb.21$pm5.5@okepread01
OJsBb.6332$US3.5189@okepread03
6IBb.6410$US3.3089@okepread03
b68957a.02091...@posting.google.com
And here:
2b68957a.03061...@posting.google.com
[End repost]
stew dean
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:54:39 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.13....@cox.net>...
> >> Dean has apparently changed his mind--again. He declared the discussion
> >> "over." I guess it isn't. But that doesn't mean I'm not still shooting
> >> fish in a barrel.
> >
> > I'm sure I posted a reply to this a while back.
>
> Google shows no reply by Dean to this specific message ID, but what did
> happen is what always happens. Dean confuses his own arguments, snips
> away my valid points and makes a speech.
My point is that because you use personal attack your points are not
valid.
I addressed everything as every argument you used was personal attack.
Personal attack is a not how you win a debate and is so subjective as
to not require answering. For example where you claim I am dishonest I
can either ignore it or say 'I feel I am honest'. The third option,
which I tried but didnt like, is to use personal attack back, that
would mean I would call you a liar etc. I'm not going to do that.
Previously you wrote..
" Dean needs to learn how to read. I did not write that I did not
*use"
personal attack. I wrote that I did not *rely* on it."
David you rely upon personal attack to such a degree you posts often
have nothing but, as in this case.
I explained why I snipped the rest of you message and will carry on
doing so until such time you demonstrate you do not have a compulsive
character disorder.
Just to quote something you snipped out with out marking form the last
post..
"If you do not rely upon personal attack then you can demonstrate this
by responding without vitriol. If I am right and you have a compulsive
behavour you won't be able to do that."
That's as straight as I can make it.
<rest of post snipped for the same reason as before>
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.18....@cox.net>...
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:54:39 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.13....@cox.net>...
>> >> Dean has apparently changed his mind--again. He declared the discussion
>> >> "over." I guess it isn't. But that doesn't mean I'm not still shooting
>> >> fish in a barrel.
>> >
>> > I'm sure I posted a reply to this a while back.
>>
>> Google shows no reply by Dean to this specific message ID, but what did
>> happen is what always happens. Dean confuses his own arguments, snips
>> away my valid points and makes a speech.
>
> My point is that because you use personal attack your points are not
> valid.
Points are not rendered invalid because of the use of personal attack. If
that was so, then any post in which Dean has used personal attack is
pointless, regardless of any facts that also may be included in that post
(which is actually rare). Once again, the simplest way to counter Dean is
to use his own standards and apply them to his own posts. When Dean
responds to others and if anything in his article can be interpreted as
personal attack, this renders his points invalid. That is Dean's
standard--we can see it above. Let's consider the posts to gen2rev. Dean
generally didn't deal with the actual points provided in rebuttal, but he
certainly felt that he made several points. So are those points rendered
invalid when Dean tells gen2rev that he is being "idiotic?" That's
certainly personal attack.
And, of course, Dean changes his mind again. Dean needs to try to
understand the difference between reliance and use.
> I addressed everything as every argument you used was personal attack.
Dean did not address anything. His tendency was to snip the facts and
whine about being attacked.
> Personal attack is a not how you win a debate and is so subjective as
> to not require answering.
Irrelevant. I never made any claims that personal attack wins debates.
> For example where you claim I am dishonest I
> can either ignore it or say 'I feel I am honest'.
Neither responds to the specific examples of dishonesty that have been
provided.
> The third option, which I tried but didnt like, is to use personal
> attack back...
Which is also useless in dealing with the specific examples that I
provided.
> ...that would mean I would call you a liar etc. I'm not going to
> do that.
In fact, Dean *has* done that. But it doesn't matter, because none of it
addresses the specifics that I have provided. Dean also cannot provide
any examples of dishonesty or lies. He can call me a "liar" as much as he
wishes, just as Newbie does. It will have no more meaning to me (nor, I
suspect, for anyone else) as it does when Newbie does it.
> Previously you wrote..
>
> " Dean needs to learn how to read. I did not write that I did not
> *use" personal attack. I wrote that I did not *rely* on it."
>
> David you rely upon personal attack to such a degree you posts often
> have nothing but, as in this case.
But this is beside the point. Let's consider what Dean did in sequence:
1. Dean complained that I relied on personal attack.
2. I responded that I did not rely on personal attack.
3. Dean made a statement about losing an irony meter. He explained that
this was because I stated that I did not use personal attack when, in
fact, I do.
4. I pointed out that I never said that I didn't *use* personal attack,
simply that I don't rely on it, therefore, there was no irony. I quoted
and used msg IDs as references.
I refuted Dean's claims with respect to reliance upon versus use of
personal attack and negated his claim to irony. As usual, Dean can't keep
up; and his arguments keep changing.
> I explained why I snipped the rest of you message and will carry on
> doing so until such time you demonstrate you do not have a compulsive
> character disorder.
No, Dean snipped the rest of the message because there is evidence within
it that he will not face, will not rebut and to which he will not respond
because he knows he can't. His tactics are to avoid the specific passages
of his own comments and those in rebuttal that show that he cannot keep up
with the arguments and the points rendered in rebuttal to him. This is
how Dean operates and, all the while pretends to be some sort of expert at
debate. It is blatantly dishonest.
> Just to quote something you snipped out with out marking form the last
> post..
>
> "If you do not rely upon personal attack then you can demonstrate this
> by responding without vitriol. If I am right and you have a compulsive
> behavour you won't be able to do that."
This is a comment from Dean that appeared in msg ID
2b68957a.03121...@posting.google.com
My response is in msg ID pan.2003.12.18....@cox.net
It is true that I snipped that statement out and forgot to mark it; but
there is a difference between forgetting to mark a snip on occasion, as
anyone is wont to do, and deliberately removing context and attempting to
misdirect, restate and otherwise dishonestly misrepresent issues.
Dean feels that it falls to him to test others and approve of their
behavior. I'm simply giving him a taste of his own medicine.
> That's as straight as I can make it.
Which, as usual, is not all that straight. We can still see, however,
that Dean confuses "use of" and "reliance upon" and we can still see that
he refuses to deal with the specific rebuttals to his claims. Dean thinks
that *he* controls this exchange, but he is wrong. *I* do. The fact is
that he is stupid and pompous and, in my view, is getting what he
deserves.
> <rest of post snipped for the same reason as before>
See message ID pan.2003.12.18....@cox.net for the comments
that Dean continues to snip and is afraid to specifically address.
David Horn
Dean cannot keep his own argument(s) straight:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:09:10 +0000, David Horn wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:41:39 +0000, stew dean wrote:
[Snip]
>> I addressed everything as every argument you used was personal attack.
Dean has said at least once that, in one of my replies, only one passage
was construed as "personal attack." Specifically, with respect to my
comments as follows:
> The phrase, "methinks he doth protest too much" seems appropriate here.
> There are a couple of things implied by this rather terse reponse from
> Dean. The first implication is that Dean has been taken in by such a
> trick.
Dean replied:
"This is the only point in you post you slip into your
bad old ways. Personal attack is not part of good debating."
See msg ID 2b68957a.03121...@posting.google.com
Dean has changed his mind a couple of times on this point. His position
that either every argument, most arguments, some arguments or just one
argument constitute "personal attack" seems capricious and dictated by
whatever his mood might happen to be at the time.
I have made a number of arguments in this thread, most of which are *not*
personal attack. Dean and I can go through a count if he wishes; but the
only personal attacks I've made are to Dean and to state that yes, I think
he's stupid, pompous, "thick" and unable to grasp simple concepts or
follow the argument. I also think he's dishonest with respect to his
approach. Dean is free to whine about this all he likes; but he never
addresses the *reasons* that I have decided these things or the specific
examples of his own behaviors that have prompted me to come to this
conclusion and to articulate it. Given that, he's really wasting his
time. If he thinks he can prove otherwise, he'll have to address
specifics; but he won't do that because he can't counter those specifics
intelligently or honestly without making admissions to several errors.
Dean has already declared this discussion to be "over" and then has come
back to it. There was a delay in his response this morning which, I
suspect, was prompted by the fact that his other inputs into the group
resulted in nothing, so he wants attention. Either way, I can accommodate
him. I will not be gentle with him.
stew dean
> I forgot something that is pertinent only in that it is more evidence that
> Dean cannot keep his own argument(s) straight:
>
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:09:10 +0000, David Horn wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:41:39 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> I addressed everything as every argument you used was personal attack.
>
> Dean has said at least once that, in one of my replies, only one passage
> was construed as "personal attack." Specifically, with respect to my
> comments as follows:
>
> > The phrase, "methinks he doth protest too much" seems appropriate here.
> > There are a couple of things implied by this rather terse reponse from
> > Dean. The first implication is that Dean has been taken in by such a
> > trick.
>
> Dean replied:
>
> "This is the only point in you post you slip into your
> bad old ways. Personal attack is not part of good debating."
Exactly. Now where are you going with this? Because you nearly once
posted a message without personal attacks that justifies the majority
where you rely upon it up.
I am justified to snip every single personal attack from you I see
when I reply. Do I change my mind? Yep. Is this a bad human trait? No
- it's a good one. If you never changed you mind you'd be a constant
bigot, I'd also be deliberately wrong to save ego. Do I act less than
perfectly? Yes and I don't pretend to be perfect. Do I own up when I
make mistakes? If someone points them out -sure. Do I lie
deliberately. I have no reason to so no. Am I dishonest. Again I don't
need to be. Etc. Etc.
This is all I can do. I've attempted to ape your behavour to see what
effect it had, it just made you more vitriolic.
I responded to your message without resorting once to a personal
attack. Idealy I should snip every single personal attack (as I did
to your quoted message below) but often your posts would end up as
<snip>.
If you want to make an arguement that is not a personal attack I will
address it. Considering this came from you claiming I was a hypocrite
that's highly unlikely. I did demonstrate that you rely upon personal
attack by quoting you past posts.
Here are the non personal attacks that are in the message you quoted.
" I have made a number of arguments in this thread, most of which are
*not*
personal attack."
That's it. So what where they? And can you post a reply without
personal attack?
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
>> I forgot something that is pertinent only in that it is more evidence that
>> Dean cannot keep his own argument(s) straight:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:09:10 +0000, David Horn wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:41:39 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> >> I addressed everything as every argument you used was personal attack.
>>
>> Dean has said at least once that, in one of my replies, only one passage
>> was construed as "personal attack." Specifically, with respect to my
>> comments as follows:
>>
>> > The phrase, "methinks he doth protest too much" seems appropriate here.
>> > There are a couple of things implied by this rather terse reponse from
>> > Dean. The first implication is that Dean has been taken in by such a
>> > trick.
>>
>> Dean replied:
>>
>> "This is the only point in you post you slip into your
>> bad old ways. Personal attack is not part of good debating."
And, as usual, Dean completely ignores that I already rebutted this whole
line of "reasoning."
> Exactly. Now where are you going with this?
I'm not sure how such a brilliant debator as Dean can be so confused. I
have explained where I am "going" in detail. Dean has had his own
standards applied to him and he was found wanting. He was rebutted and
found wrong on nearly every point, so he wants to whine about "personal
attack." He has misrepresented this discussion, himself and me through
this thread. I explained all of that.
> Because you nearly once posted a message without personal
> attacks that justifies the majority where you rely upon it up.
Where I "rely upon it up?" I do so enjoy Dean's barely literate
prattlings; but I have already said *and* *shown* that I do not rely on
personal attack. I showed Dean's errors. He avoids all of that and
whines about personal attack.
> I am justified to snip every single personal attack from you I see
> when I reply.
Except that Dean isn't snipped *just* what he presumes his personal
attack, he is also snipping every point where I show his errors,
misdirections and misunderstandings.
> Do I change my mind? Yep. Is this a bad human trait? No
> - it's a good one.
The frequency with which Dean changes his mind and changes his stories is
not indicative of a good trait, a keen mind or a disciplined debator. His
pattern indicates a problem keeping up with even the simplest concepts.
His representation and recasting of discussions and even single episodes
multiple times demonstrates that he is the last person who should be
criticizing the debating skills of another.
> If you never changed you mind you'd be a constant
> bigot,
Dean probably has an unstandard definition of "bigot," as well.
> I'd also be deliberately wrong to save ego.
So Dean doesn't think it's right to "save ego?" I suspect that Dean would
have a heck of a time telling us what this is supposed to mean.
> Do I act less than perfectly? Yes and I don't pretend to be perfect.
I've already addressed this Paganoesque excuse-making.
> Do I own up when I make mistakes? If someone points them out -sure.
No, Dean does not "own up" when someone points out mistakes. He snips the
evidence of those mistakes from his replies and redirects the thread.
We've seen that in this very thread.
> Do I lie deliberately. I have no reason to so no.
As near as I can tell, Dean has every reason to do so. He wants others to
"see the world" as he does. He's said that at least once, and he's
misrepresented threads and persons to do so. He's avoided the specific
errors he's made and misdirected discussions and exchanges. Unless he
really has that much trouble reading for comprehension, I tend to lean
toward dishonesty.
> Am I dishonest. Again I don't need to be. Etc. Etc.
Asked and answered. No one expects Dean to *admit* to being dishonest.
He can't even admit to the simplest mistakes, as we have seen in this
thread, so certainly we're not going to see him admit to being dishonest.
> This is all I can do. I've attempted to ape your behavour to see what
> effect it had, it just made you more vitriolic.
In fact, I have not been vitriolic at all. I have countered Dean and
shown him to be wrong; and I have slapped him upside the skull a couple of
times, too. Dean deserves that because of his arrogance and his previous
behaviors.
> I responded to your message without resorting once to a personal
> attack. Idealy I should snip every single personal attack (as I did
> to your quoted message below) but often your posts would end up as
> <snip>.
>
> If you want to make an arguement that is not a personal attack I will
> address it. Considering this came from you claiming I was a hypocrite
> that's highly unlikely. I did demonstrate that you rely upon personal
> attack by quoting you past posts.
>
> Here are the non personal attacks that are in the message you quoted.
>
> " I have made a number of arguments in this thread, most of which are
> *not*
> personal attack."
>
> That's it. So what where they? And can you post a reply without
> personal attack?
I have already posted and reposted the material in which Dean is proven
wrong. Dean is an idiot and I see no need to mediate that from my
comments. Dean is free to address his errors and eschew this
excuse-making and whining. When he does, he'll show me something. Until
then, he's a liar and a coward.
stew dean
<usual stuff snipped>
David, looks like the first google responce didnt show up.
I went through you last email and extracted the details. Your whole
post boils down to 'you're an idiot', much the same as previous emails
(although you do stop now and again to add you don't rely upon calling
people idiots).
Do you know why ad hominem is not valid as a logical reasoning
technique? If you think I'm avoiding the issue then re read your own
posts. Can you see what I mean?
Now lets see if this post appears.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
>
> <usual stuff snipped>
Including, as usual, references to the evidence that shows that I refuted
each of Dean's points.
> David, looks like the first google responce didnt show up.
Dean is lying. Google has never failed to provide me with the responses;
and maybe if Dean hadn't ducked those responses in the first place, we
wouldn't be having this little talk now.
> I went through you last email and extracted the details. Your whole
> post boils down to 'you're an idiot', much the same as previous emails
> (although you do stop now and again to add you don't rely upon calling
> people idiots).
My articles boil down to the facts that show that Dean is wrong. That
Dean is an idiot is a *conclusion*, thought it is rapidly becoming a first
assumption.
> Do you know why ad hominem is not valid as a logical reasoning
> technique? If you think I'm avoiding the issue then re read your own
> posts. Can you see what I mean?
I am fully aware that _ad hominem_, even by Dean's definition, is "not
valid as a logical reasoning technique." As far as knowing what Dean
might mean, well, he snips away my rebuttal material and whines about
personal attack. He confuses the phrases "rely upon" and "use of." He
delcares a rule that says that if you use personal attack, you lose the
argument, but is unwilling to apply that to his own postings, which means
he's a hypocrite as well as a liar.
If Dean doesn't want his stupid musings rebutted, he should stop posting.
If he doesn't like personal attack, he needs to cease using it himself or,
at least, stop leaving himself open to it. *That*'s what it boils down to.
> Now lets see if this post appears.
I've already provided all of the necessary references. Dean snips them
away and then pretends he can't find them. He's lying.
David Sienkiewicz
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
>
> <usual stuff snipped>
< snip >
Skippy, you're getting a mudhole stomped into you. You either have no
idea what's going on or you are dishonestly trying to recase the
debate.
It's actually quite entertaining, but if you're half as smart as you
think you are , which I admit is four times as smart as I think you
are, you'll move on. It's obvious you can't keep up.
Now if you do what I think you will do, you'll persist. By all means,
do so. I'm having fun reading it and not being a part of it for a
change. But DAMN, you are dumb.
stew dean
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
> >
> > <usual stuff snipped>
>
> < snip >
>
> Skippy, you're getting a mudhole stomped into you.
Hello David.
I've no idea what you mean. It's probably an insult. I've already
lambasted you for you vitriolic tendencies in past occurances. At
least you can post on topic.
> You either have no
> idea what's going on or you are dishonestly trying to recase the
> debate.
The 'debate' is not a debate. It's Dave not realising that there is no
debate.
A debate requires something to debate about. It also requires some
understanding of you debate.
> It's actually quite entertaining, but if you're half as smart as you
> think you are , which I admit is four times as smart as I think you
> are, you'll move on. It's obvious you can't keep up.
David, clearly state what it is I am missing. Otherwise I presume
you're just doing a Dave.
> Now if you do what I think you will do, you'll persist.
Are you saying this is one long Loki? That's just incredible if it is.
To post thousands of messages in the same style just to catch me out,
and then do it with no humour.
My pet theory is 'grumpy old man'itus. If you're feeling frail and
the world is getting you down, calling someone an idiot will perk up
your frown.
> By all means,
> do so. I'm having fun reading it and not being a part of it for a
> change.
Dave Horn is like you without any kind of substance. As prevously
stated you have redeaming features.
> But DAMN, you are dumb.
So you're now calling me an idiot. The most stupid thing I do is
respond to someone who's calling me an idiot.
As it stands you're going to have to explain what exactly you post was
about. So David, direct question, why do you think I'm dumb?
Stew Dean
stew dean
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:09:05 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
> >
> > <usual stuff snipped>
>
> Including, as usual, references to the evidence that shows that I refuted
> each of Dean's points.
The opposite was true. You used adhominem to claim you didnt use ad
hominem.
> > David, looks like the first google responce didnt show up.
>
> Dean is lying.
This is not the case. I have not reason to lie and no motive. If I am
to win any debate I can only do it by the use of honesty otherwise
it's just bigoted rubbish. I wrote a full responce. I believed I
posted it. It didnt show up.
Now it could be, for some reason, I didnt press send. In that case it
wouldnt have shown up. It could also be it never made it through, but
then I doubt google is that buggy. Like I've said before I've no
reason to lie and no intention of doing so. What I say in this and
every post is my view. It's not yours but I have no reason to think
you are correct.
> Google has never failed to provide me with the responses;
> and maybe if Dean hadn't ducked those responses in the first place, we
> wouldn't be having this little talk now.
So far you have not addressed my overall point, ad hominem is an
argument from fallacy. This addresses, head on, your responces in this
thread without omission that I am aware of. If you rely upon personal
attack as your means of defence then if I show it's not a defence and
is a non acceptable debating technique I, as I've explained, win any
debate by default. As this was never a debate there's nothing to win.
Ergo et demonstratum.
> > I went through you last email and extracted the details. Your whole
> > post boils down to 'you're an idiot', much the same as previous emails
> > (although you do stop now and again to add you don't rely upon calling
> > people idiots).
>
> My articles boil down to the facts that show that Dean is wrong.
Wrong about what? You made some bad assumptions about why I thought
Loki posts where not funny. You claimed in the past I was recently
drawn in by a Loki post, this appeared to be your main reason. It was
one without evidence and innacurate guess. If I have been recently
then I am not aware of it.
> That Dean is an idiot is a *conclusion*, thought it is rapidly becoming a
> first assumption.
But by taking that argument away from you by refering to standard
debating techniques, externaly referable, that would negate your claim
that I am an idiot. I also don't defend myself by the use of
credentials or appeals to authority.
> > Do you know why ad hominem is not valid as a logical reasoning
> > technique? If you think I'm avoiding the issue then re read your own
> > posts. Can you see what I mean?
>
> I am fully aware that _ad hominem_, even by Dean's definition, is "not
> valid as a logical reasoning technique."
My definition? My definition is standard - it's the dictionary
definition. As with 'vitriol', 'bigot' and 'ego' as well. My spelling
may be shakey due to my mild dyslexia and I don't copy read my posts
so mistakes appear but my available lexicon of words is far from
limited my dear boy.
> As far as knowing what Dean
> might mean, well, he snips away my rebuttal material and whines about
> personal attack.
I don't 'whine', I point out that if this was a debate you would have
lost it, without question, because of your reliance upon personal
attack. As this has been almost nothing but there is not debate.
> He confuses the phrases "rely upon" and "use of."
Not in the least. My accusation is clearly that you rely upon
personal attack. You appear to use nothing but most of the time. The
reliance is clear. If you did not rely you could deftly switch your
technique to something else to show your mastery of alternative
reasoning methods.
> He
> delcares a rule that says that if you use personal attack, you lose the
> argument, but is unwilling to apply that to his own postings, which means
> he's a hypocrite as well as a liar.
I do apply it, as I have done with this post. Notice I don't call you
an idiot in this post, nor a liar, dishonest or a coward. I don't
attack you personally but I do attack your argument. I challange you
to show one single personal attack in this post.
> If Dean doesn't want his stupid musings rebutted, he should stop posting.
I claim you havnt rebutted me but mearly insulted me. This is not the
same.
> If he doesn't like personal attack, he needs to cease using it himself or,
> at least, stop leaving himself open to it. *That*'s what it boils down to.
Again, in this post, please demonstrate where I have used personal
attack. I havnt checked but also check other posts in this thread.
Please demonstrate that I have used personal attacks in this thread. I
know I've used them at you before, so no points to be scored there.
> > Now lets see if this post appears.
>
> I've already provided all of the necessary references.
Not in this post. What point are you trying to make? If it's to defend
your use of personal attack as a reasoning techique then to say I have
used personal attack in the past is not a defence as I, as
demonstrated in this post, do not need to use it.
The issue, just to clarify, is if all of you accusations are purely
subjective then what objective issue are we discussing? That loki
posts are funny? That's subjective. I don't, others do.
> Dean snips them
> away and then pretends he can't find them. He's lying.
Let me just review the last four posts. This post, no references. Last
post, ditto. Last but one.
<quote>
"Dean has said at least once that, in one of my replies, only one
passage
was construed as "personal attack." Specifically, with respect to my
comments as follows"
> The phrase, "methinks he doth protest too much" seems appropriate here.
> There are a couple of things implied by this rather terse reponse from
> Dean. The first implication is that Dean has been taken in by such a
> trick.
Dean replied:
"This is the only point in you post you slip into your
bad old ways. Personal attack is not part of good debating."
</quote>
The meaning of the responce I thought was clear. Dave, you appear not
to be able to curb your need to insult. Using insult, as with the use
of 'Dean' in all your posts, is not part of good debating.
Lastly the one before that. Here is a direct quote. On the use of
personal attack.
" Dean and I can go through a count if he wishes; but the
only personal attacks I've made are to Dean and to state that yes, I
think
he's stupid, pompous, "thick" and unable to grasp simple concepts or
follow the argument."
I'm suggesting you may have made a mistake in confusing insulting
someone as a rebuttal. To use your own words...
"1. Dean complained that I relied on personal attack.
2. I responded that I did not rely on personal attack.
3. Dean made a statement about losing an irony meter. He explained
that
this was because I stated that I did not use personal attack when, in
fact, I do.
4. I pointed out that I never said that I didn't *use* personal
attack,
simply that I don't rely on it, therefore, there was no irony. I
quoted
and used msg IDs as references."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pan.2003.12.19.02.15.23.143607%40cox.net
Did you, Dave, really have any references that show he is not reliant
on personal attack? No. He reposts a post that claims "I demonstrated
the flaws in Dean's "reasoning," showed that his own arguments were
inconsistent, and explained his lack of reasoned rebuttal in the
end.".
I think Dave the onus now lies with you to explain to me what
demonstrations you made that where not personal attacks.
I feel my case that your whole argument is reliant upon personal
attack has been demonstrated in this and your past posts. To be honest
I'd like you to explain what your argument actualy is. Mine should be
clear enough.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.24....@cox.net>...
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:09:05 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
>> >
>> > <usual stuff snipped>
>>
>> Including, as usual, references to the evidence that shows that I refuted
>> each of Dean's points.
>
> The opposite was true. You used adhominem to claim you didnt use ad
> hominem.
Once again, we see that Dean either lies or simply cannot read for
comprehension. Dean claimed that I relied on "personal attack" and stated
that I, in fact, did not *rely* on it. I *never* said I didn't use it.
Dean insists on remaining confused on this point or, as seems more likely
to me, confusing it for the readers. That's dishonest. It *is* true that
I refuted and rebutted whatever points Dean was making and provided
references to those messages, so Dean lies again, by claiming "the
opposite was true." These are all fairly simple, straight-forward concepts, yet Dean insists
on confusing them.
>> > David, looks like the first google responce didnt show up.
>>
>> Dean is lying.
>
> This is not the case. I have not reason to lie and no motive.
Asked and answered. Dean has ever reason to lie and continues to do so.
> If I am to win any debate I can only do it by the use of honesty otherwise
> it's just bigoted rubbish.
Wasn't it Dean who once chided Sinkieiwicz that these things are not about
"winning" and that he is not interested in "winning?" The story changes
again about what goes on in talk.origins, how Dean behaves here and is
goals.
> I wrote a full responce. I believed I
> posted it. It didnt show up.
How convenient. This reminds me of the earlier exchange--quite different,
of course--in which Dean claimed that a post of his was *re*posted without
his permission from some months earlier or something to that effect.
Readers may recall that, in fact, that was a situation in which Dean
himself posted something in that same month. It was *not* "reposted"
without his permission. Dean never could own up to *that*, either.
Dean has never posted a "full responce" of any sort. I rebutted his
points and he decided to focus the argument to one about personal attack.
I don't care about that subject, really. If I personally attack someone,
and I do, it's because I think they deserve it. Dean deserves it.
[Snip more excuse-making and whining]
>> Google has never failed to provide me with the responses;
>> and maybe if Dean hadn't ducked those responses in the first place, we
>> wouldn't be having this little talk now.
>
> So far you have not addressed my overall point, ad hominem is an
> argument from fallacy.
"Ad hominem is an argument from fallacy?" What the hell is that supposed
to mean? Ah, yes, of course, it's more of Dean's pseudo-intellectual
ramblings. The _ad hominem_ fallacy simply means that it is an
intellectual fallacy to rely on _ad hominem_ argumentation. The following
would be a simple illustration of the fallacy.
1. Dean says "A."
2. Horn responds, "Dean is an idiot."
But what actually happened was this:
1. Dean says "A."
2. Horn replied with "A is wrong and here's why," provided reasons, and
concluded with "Dean is an idiot."
The argument did not *rely* on _ad hominem_. Yes, it was there. I never
denied attacking Dean personally--he *is* an idiot and I think the reasons
are illustrated in this thread. He can't seem to keep the simplest
concepts straight ("used" versus "relied upon" for example) and tries to
misdirect away from his errors. He is no better than Ed Conrad in that
regard. Dean is also small potatoes and a minor intellect who pretends
that if he can draw out a misdirection long enough, he wins (even though
he tells us elsewhere that it is not his intention to "win").
> This addresses, head on, your responces in this
> thread without omission that I am aware of.
It doesn't and I've already explained why. Dean simply repeats his
errors.
[Snip repeated claims already refuted]
>> That Dean is an idiot is a *conclusion*, thought it is rapidly becoming a
>> first assumption.
>
> But by taking that argument away from you by refering to standard
> debating techniques, externaly referable, that would negate your claim
> that I am an idiot. I also don't defend myself by the use of
> credentials or appeals to authority.
"I have a degree involving psychology," Dean told us during his ill-fated
"analysis" of Ed Conrad. That was certainly an inflation of and an appeal
to his own authority; and that's just one. Dean has not taken the
argument that he is an idiot "away" because I am not arguing that point.
It is a *conclusion* that I have reached based on Dean's own behavior in
this newsgroup.
[Snip bizarre combination of whining and bragging]
[Snip repeated claims already asked and answered--Dean not only doesn't
get it right, he refuses to get it right with typical dishonest
misdirection. Dean is a liar.]
>> > Now lets see if this post appears.
>>
>> I've already provided all of the necessary references.
>
> Not in this post.
I didn't claim that it was in "this post." Dean just wants to play a
rhetorical game here. The answers to Dean's claims are already posted.
He got pretty much everything wrong about Loki posts and didn't want to
debate that, so he decided to redirect into a lengthy whine about
"personal attack." I'm going to rebut Dean at my leisure and if I think
he's being an idiot, a moron, a liar or anything else, I'm going to say
so. Dean tells us that means I lose. I've already asked why that
standard doesn't apply when Dean, for example, called Ed Conrad a "moron"
in a message for which I provided the message ID. I even ridiculed Dean
and pointed out that, by his own standards, Dean lost that argument. Dean
did not respond to that. He snipped it like every other point,
concentrating on the _ad hominem_. If Dean wants to play that game, I can
deal with it, too. Dean is really annoyed at me because I've been giving
him a taste of his own harassing medicine. Clearly he doesn't like it,
but he is no match for me on any level. It's actually quite
entertaining--at least to me.
> What point are you trying to make? If it's to defend
> your use of personal attack as a reasoning techique...
Asked and answered. Dean needs to learn to read for comprehension and
stay focused if he's going to argue with me, or he's going to have to stop
dishonestly misdirecting the exchanges. I do not rely on personal attack
and didn't defend it. I simply am not hesitant to use it; and if Dean's
standards say something about the use of it, then those standards should
apply to him. Those are very simple points that I have supported in the
thread and anyone can go get the previous articles and see that I have,
indeed, supported them. Dean, as is his wont, snipped them away and
refused to answer for them, repeating his errors (such as the one
immediately above). While Dean is pretending to be an intellectual, he
should look up other references that explain the fallacy of attacking a
point that the opponent has not taken.
[Snip remaining examples of Dean not getting it. Again, he is a fool and
a liar, and if he wants to subject himself to continued embarassment and
abuse, he's free to do so. I will be happy to oblige him.]
stew dean
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.24....@cox.net>...
> >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:09:05 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >>
> >> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
> >> >
> >> > <usual stuff snipped>
> >>
> >> Including, as usual, references to the evidence that shows that I refuted
> >> each of Dean's points.
> >
> > The opposite was true. You used adhominem to claim you didnt use ad
> > hominem.
>
> Once again, we see that Dean either lies or simply cannot read for
> comprehension. Dean claimed that I relied on "personal attack" and stated
> that I, in fact, did not *rely* on it.
I have never stated in any kind of fact that you do not rely upon it.
That is my point. If you smoke one cigerette a day that does not make
you a non smoker.
> I *never* said I didn't use it.
Fair enough. Why use it at all? You don't need to.
> Dean insists on remaining confused on this point or, as seems more likely
> to me, confusing it for the readers. That's dishonest.
David I am not confused and I am not being dishonest. My point is
clear. You appear not to be able to post without using personal
attack.
> It *is* true that
> I refuted and rebutted whatever points Dean was making and provided
> references to those messages, so Dean lies again, by claiming "the
> opposite was true." These are all fairly simple, straight-forward concepts, > yet Dean insists on confusing them.
This is not true. You have not refutted or rebutted my points. You
have yet to defend your behavour other than call me an idiot, call me
dishonest, claim you have made rebuttals and that I am a liar and
dishonest. Remove all this and what is left?
> >> > David, looks like the first google responce didnt show up.
> >>
> >> Dean is lying.
> >
> > This is not the case. I have not reason to lie and no motive.
>
> Asked and answered. Dean has ever reason to lie and continues to do so.
You got the answer for this wrong rememeber. You felt I wanted
everyone to see the world as I do, this was incorrect. What I often
seek is that people understand my argument. If they reject it after
understanding it, so be it.
> > If I am to win any debate I can only do it by the use of honesty otherwise
> > it's just bigoted rubbish.
>
> Wasn't it Dean who once chided Sinkieiwicz that these things are not about
> "winning" and that he is not interested in "winning?" The story changes
> again about what goes on in talk.origins, how Dean behaves here and is
> goals.
It really doesnt matter. This is not a competition. This is also not
debate.
> > I wrote a full responce. I believed I
> > posted it. It didnt show up.
>
> How convenient.
No, not really. Accusation noted. Accusation is wrong.
<snip false accusations>
> >> Google has never failed to provide me with the responses;
> >> and maybe if Dean hadn't ducked those responses in the first place, we
> >> wouldn't be having this little talk now.
> >
> > So far you have not addressed my overall point, ad hominem is an
> > argument from fallacy.
>
> "Ad hominem is an argument from fallacy?" What the hell is that supposed
> to mean?
It means what is says.
> Ah, yes, of course, it's more of Dean's pseudo-intellectual
> ramblings. The _ad hominem_ fallacy simply means that it is an
> intellectual fallacy to rely on _ad hominem_ argumentation. The following
> would be a simple illustration of the fallacy.
>
> 1. Dean says "A."
>
> 2. Horn responds, "Dean is an idiot."
>
> But what actually happened was this:
>
> 1. Dean says "A."
>
> 2. Horn replied with "A is wrong and here's why," provided reasons, and
> concluded with "Dean is an idiot."
But this is not what happens. The pervious case is true. You have made
lots of wild claims but nothing objective. You have made many
accusations I know are 100% wrong and you feel are right because you
view me as an idiot.
> The argument did not *rely* on _ad hominem_.
What can I say other than, yes, whatever the argument is, in your
case, does.
> Yes, it was there. I never
> denied attacking Dean personally--he *is* an idiot and I think the reasons
> are illustrated in this thread.
I think you're calling me an idiot because you have no reasoned
argument.
> He can't seem to keep the simplest
> concepts straight ("used" versus "relied upon" for example) and tries to
> misdirect away from his errors.
No, I understand this concept and have explained that I mean rely, you
have yet to disprove this. I know what you've said and I don't think
it's true judging by all your posts. If you use ad homeimem the
majority of the time then you are relying upon it. If you strip away
your personal attacks I don't think you're left with much but denials
that you are reliant upon personal attacks, as previously demonstrated
with one of your posts.
> He is no better than Ed Conrad in that
> regard.
Myself and Ed are totally different creatures.
> Dean is also small potatoes and a minor intellect who pretends
> that if he can draw out a misdirection long enough, he wins (even though
> he tells us elsewhere that it is not his intention to "win").
Chest beating. Very David S.
> > This addresses, head on, your responces in this
> > thread without omission that I am aware of.
>
> It doesn't and I've already explained why. Dean simply repeats his
> errors.
No you havnt explained why. You claimed to have made a rebuttal but
don't appear to be able to explain what it was. You also claim I make
errors but don't say what they are or get it wrong (as in the
misunderstanding of what I understand).
>
> [Snip repeated claims already refuted]
>
> >> That Dean is an idiot is a *conclusion*, thought it is rapidly becoming a
> >> first assumption.
> >
> > But by taking that argument away from you by refering to standard
> > debating techniques, externaly referable, that would negate your claim
> > that I am an idiot. I also don't defend myself by the use of
> > credentials or appeals to authority.
>
> "I have a degree involving psychology," Dean told us during his ill-fated
> "analysis" of Ed Conrad.
I was talking about this thread. I have done so in the past, but in no
way as much as I could do (I also once did it as a ironic jesture).
My Ed conrad analysis was not ill-fated in any way. I stand by what I
said there and have yet to be proven wrong. I agreed to disagree with
Gen2rev and kept my word even when you attempted to stur things up
between us.
> That was certainly an inflation of and an appeal
> to his own authority; and that's just one.
But I don't use it here. That's the point I made. I'm sticking to the
rules (not my rules before you make an accusation like that).
> Dean has not taken the
> argument that he is an idiot "away" because I am not arguing that point.
My argument is that is your only argument.
> It is a *conclusion* that I have reached based on Dean's own behavior in
> this newsgroup.
And I do not use any conclusions other than your arguments are based
upon personal attacks. I do not go beyond that as you do. Note that
the previous sentence means 'This is what I choose not to do now' just
to avoid you building strawmen.
<snip snips>
> >> > Now lets see if this post appears.
> >>
> >> I've already provided all of the necessary references.
> >
> > Not in this post.
>
> I didn't claim that it was in "this post."
Nor did I say you did. But then I went back a few posts and tried to
find out where you did.
<mini snip>
> He got pretty much everything wrong about Loki posts and didn't want to
> debate that, so he decided to redirect into a lengthy whine about
> "personal attack."
If you want to go back to that original argument you can but I
explained the errors you made before you launched into full onslaught
mode. After than the issue flipped into you reliance on personal
attack.
So no I didnt get anything 'wrong' about Loki posts as it was my
subjective view. You, on the other hand, made a bad guess that I was
bitter because I had recently been trapped by a Loki post. This is not
the case.
In effect you provided no rebuttals to my views, only insults. Once
again I remind you that these are not the same.
> I'm going to rebut Dean at my leisure and if I think
> he's being an idiot, a moron, a liar or anything else, I'm going to say
> so. Dean tells us that means I lose.
You will loose any semi-intelligent argument if you call someone an
idiot, regardless of other content.
> I've already asked why that
> standard doesn't apply when Dean, for example, called Ed Conrad a "moron"
> in a message for which I provided the message ID.
And I've replied it does apply to myself. We've been over that. I have
used it but have demonstrated that I don't need to use it and now
choose to avoid it as it's not a good method of arguing, it might let
off steam to flame someone but it doesnt get you anywhere.
I also point out there is not personal attack in this responce. I
don't need to use it.
> I even ridiculed Dean
> and pointed out that, by his own standards, Dean lost that argument.
That's a new one. Ed would have lost the argument well before that.
> Dean
> did not respond to that.
Must have missed that one. I've responded now.
> He snipped it like every other point,
> concentrating on the _ad hominem_.
Irony noted.
> If Dean wants to play that game, I can
> deal with it, too.
What game?
> Dean is really annoyed at me because I've been giving
> him a taste of his own harassing medicine.
I'm not annoyed at you. And no you are not harassing me.
> Clearly he doesn't like it,
> but he is no match for me on any level. It's actually quite
> entertaining--at least to me.
Can we dispence with the chest beating and get back to the issue in
hand?
> > What point are you trying to make? If it's to defend
> > your use of personal attack as a reasoning techique...
>
> Asked and answered.
Where?
> Dean needs to learn to read for comprehension and
> stay focused if he's going to argue with me, or he's going to have to stop
> dishonestly misdirecting the exchanges.
None of this is true.
> I do not rely on personal attack
> and didn't defend it.
You do rely on personal attack and defend your use by claiming you use
rebuttals as well. Where are the rebuttals? There are none in this
post, none in the previous post or the two before that.
> I simply am not hesitant to use it; and if Dean's
> standards say something about the use of it, then those standards should
> apply to him.
First they are not my standards but universaly accepted standards of
intellectual debate. And yes they do apply to me, for that reason I am
sticking within the standards here.
You have accused me of being a liar yet I have not lied. Anyone can
check this.
> Those are very simple points that I have supported in the
> thread and anyone can go get the previous articles and see that I have,
> indeed, supported them.
But you points have not been supported and are simply wrong. In
logical terms I think I have you trapped.
> Dean, as is his wont, snipped them away and
> refused to answer for them, repeating his errors (such as the one
> immediately above).
I snipped away personal attacks only. By all means prove me wrong.
> While Dean is pretending to be an intellectual, he
> should look up other references that explain the fallacy of attacking a
> point that the opponent has not taken.
I am attacking your argument of claiming you have rebutted me because
you feel I am an idiot. No more, no less.
> [Snip remaining examples of Dean not getting it. Again, he is a fool and
> a liar, and if he wants to subject himself to continued embarassment and
> abuse, he's free to do so. I will be happy to oblige him.]
So personal attack is an okay defence?
Go back to the beginning, if you will, and bring up one point you
rebutted me on. Let's strip it back to that. Otherwise it's just you
making up stuff and me saying 'that's not true'.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
[Snip]
Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
old thing. Dean doesn't get it and things that others must justify and
explain things to him. The problem is, of course, that he not only
doesn't understand, but he refuses to understand. And when his errors are
exposed, he hides from them.
Dean's reply, including the comments he quoted, is 353 lines. This won't
be as long.
>> >> Including, as usual, references to the evidence that shows that I refuted
>> >> each of Dean's points.
>> >
>> > The opposite was true. You used adhominem to claim you didnt use ad
>> > hominem.
>>
>> Once again, we see that Dean either lies or simply cannot read for
>> comprehension. Dean claimed that I relied on "personal attack" and stated
>> that I, in fact, did not *rely* on it.
>
> I have never stated in any kind of fact that you do not rely upon it.
I'll take the hit for this one as bad writing on my part. There is a
missing "I." This should read: "Dean claimed that I relied on 'personal
attack' and I [added] stated that I, in fact, did not *rely* on it.
[Snip]
>> I *never* said I didn't use it.
>
> Fair enough. Why use it at all? You don't need to.
I feel no obligation to explain or justify myself to the likes of Dean.
[Snip repetitive statements to which I have responded]
>> It *is* true that
>> I refuted and rebutted whatever points Dean was making and provided
>> references to those messages, so Dean lies again, by claiming "the
>> opposite was true." These are all fairly simple, straight-forward
concepts,
> yet Dean insists on confusing them.
>
> This is not true. You have not refutted or rebutted my points.
[Snip]
Anyone who reads the thread and notes the statements that I made in
rebuttal to Dean that he snipped from his replies will see that it is, in
fact, true. Dean is lying.
[Snip]
>> > If I am to win any debate I can only do it by the use of honesty otherwise
>> > it's just bigoted rubbish.
>>
>> Wasn't it Dean who once chided Sinkieiwicz that these things are not about
>> "winning" and that he is not interested in "winning?" The story changes
>> again about what goes on in talk.origins, how Dean behaves here and is
>> goals.
>
> It really doesnt matter. This is not a competition. This is also not
> debate.
Ah, suddenly it doesn't matter! How convenient that Dean changes his
story yet again to suit his argument.
>> > I wrote a full responce. I believed I
>> > posted it. It didnt show up.
>>
>> How convenient.
>
> No, not really. Accusation noted. Accusation is wrong.
>
> <snip false accusations>
Dean snipped the part where I pointed out a previous example of Dean's
claims regarding his own posting. It was not false. Dean claimed a
rebuttal to Ed Conrad was a repost without his permission and knowledge,
see msg ID 2b68957a.0310...@posting.google.com. In the thread
that followed (ref., http://tinyurl.com/ypkpp), It became clear that
Dean's story about this changed.
Examples like this make it almost impossible to trust anything that Dean
might claim in this newsgroup. He chides others for responding to Ed, but
in the thread noted above, he responded to Ed. He can't keep track of his
own posting and, when caught misrepresenting such a simple thing, he lies
and flees the threads (again, see the above referenced thread). He can't
keep straight the simple difference between "reliance upon" and "used."
All the while we are regaled with the (self-professed) brilliance of what
is really, at best, a minor intellect. We also know him to be a
self-absorbed euro-centric bigot. Of course, he's also a hypocrite who
tries to impose standards on others that he is not willing to live with
himself.
[Snip]
>> Ah, yes, of course, it's more of Dean's pseudo-intellectual
>> ramblings. The _ad hominem_ fallacy simply means that it is an
>> intellectual fallacy to rely on _ad hominem_ argumentation. The following
>> would be a simple illustration of the fallacy.
>>
>> 1. Dean says "A."
>>
>> 2. Horn responds, "Dean is an idiot."
>>
>> But what actually happened was this:
>>
>> 1. Dean says "A."
>>
>> 2. Horn replied with "A is wrong and here's why," provided reasons, and
>> concluded with "Dean is an idiot."
>
> But this is not what happens. The pervious case is true. You have made
> lots of wild claims but nothing objective. You have made many
> accusations I know are 100% wrong and you feel are right because you
> view me as an idiot.
It is what happens, and while I have no idea what a "pervious case" might
be, this is just another example of Dean insisting on being right and,
this time, he doesn't have a specific to snip. Dean has made a lot of
comments that I have addressed and they are objective, such as Dean's
hypocrisy in applying his standards, the difference between "used" and
"reliance" as well as several others. Previous exchanges with Dean and
watching Dean argue with others has provided me with an objective standard
that I know is 100% right (Dean is just wrong about his alleged
assurances) and I believe that Dean is a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot.
It is a subjective viewpoint based on objective evidence that *I* *have*
*addressed* (Dean usually snips it out of his relies and doesn't deal with
it). YMMV.
>> The argument did not *rely* on _ad hominem_.
>
> What can I say other than, yes, whatever the argument is, in your
> case, does.
If I use evidence to demonstrate that Dean is wrong, the argument did not
rely on _ad hominem_. Even if I find that Dean made a lot of errors and
*conclude* that the errors make me think Dean is an idiot, the argument
does not *rely* on _ad hominem_. Dean needs to recast the requirement
because he cannot intelligently or honestly address his errors.
[Snip more denial, evasion and misdirection]
>> He is no better than Ed Conrad in that
>> regard.
>
> Myself and Ed are totally different creatures.
It's amazing that this self-professed Great Intellect can't even structure
a simple sentence such as "Ed and I are totally different creatures"
correctly.
[Snip more denial--I *have* explained why.]
[Snip remaining evasions, lies and chest-beating. I'm bored with Dean.
When he can address his idiocies and stop trying to avoid them, I'll be
here. And when he makes more idiotic, hypocritical or stupid statements,
I'll be here.]
stew dean
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:48:53 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
> old thing.
Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
> Dean doesn't get it and things that others must justify and
> explain things to him.
Once again the onus is on you. You either explain or, as far as I'm
concerned, you've admited that you're in a logical dead end.
> The problem is, of course, that he not only
> doesn't understand, but he refuses to understand. And when his errors are
> exposed, he hides from them.
I'm hiding nothing and I understand exactly what you've said, I simply
think you're wrong in an obvious way.
> Dean's reply, including the comments he quoted, is 353 lines. This won't
> be as long.
A similair length to the message you think I never wrote before.
> >> >> Including, as usual, references to the evidence that shows that I refuted
> >> >> each of Dean's points.
> >> >
> >> > The opposite was true. You used adhominem to claim you didnt use ad
> >> > hominem.
> >>
> >> Once again, we see that Dean either lies or simply cannot read for
> >> comprehension. Dean claimed that I relied on "personal attack" and stated
> >> that I, in fact, did not *rely* on it.
> >
> > I have never stated in any kind of fact that you do not rely upon it.
>
> I'll take the hit for this one as bad writing on my part. There is a
> missing "I." This should read: "Dean claimed that I relied on 'personal
> attack' and I [added] stated that I, in fact, did not *rely* on it.
Okay. You have stated many times that you do no rely on personal
attack. I have stated many times that you have.
> [Snip]
>
> >> I *never* said I didn't use it.
> >
> > Fair enough. Why use it at all? You don't need to.
>
> I feel no obligation to explain or justify myself to the likes of Dean.
Nothing I can add to that.
> [Snip repetitive statements to which I have responded]
>
> >> It *is* true that
> >> I refuted and rebutted whatever points Dean was making and provided
> >> references to those messages, so Dean lies again, by claiming "the
> >> opposite was true." These are all fairly simple, straight-forward
> concepts,
> > yet Dean insists on confusing them.
> >
> > This is not true. You have not refutted or rebutted my points.
>
> [Snip]
>
> Anyone who reads the thread and notes the statements that I made in
> rebuttal to Dean that he snipped from his replies will see that it is, in
> fact, true. Dean is lying.
No Dave you have not made any rebuttals that stand or where not
personal attacks. If you can demonstrate otherwise please do so.
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> > If I am to win any debate I can only do it by the use of honesty otherwise
> >> > it's just bigoted rubbish.
> >>
> >> Wasn't it Dean who once chided Sinkieiwicz that these things are not about
> >> "winning" and that he is not interested in "winning?" The story changes
> >> again about what goes on in talk.origins, how Dean behaves here and is
> >> goals.
> >
> > It really doesnt matter. This is not a competition. This is also not
> > debate.
>
> Ah, suddenly it doesn't matter! How convenient that Dean changes his
> story yet again to suit his argument.
But I havnt changed my story. This is not a debate so there's no
winnders or losers.
>
> >> > I wrote a full responce. I believed I
> >> > posted it. It didnt show up.
> >>
> >> How convenient.
> >
> > No, not really. Accusation noted. Accusation is wrong.
> >
> > <snip false accusations>
>
> Dean snipped the part where I pointed out a previous example of Dean's
> claims regarding his own posting. It was not false. Dean claimed a
> rebuttal to Ed Conrad was a repost without his permission and knowledge,
> see msg ID 2b68957a.0310...@posting.google.com. In the thread
> that followed (ref., http://tinyurl.com/ypkpp), It became clear that
> Dean's story about this changed.
Sigh. The post repeared a while after I posted it.
> Examples like this make it almost impossible to trust anything that Dean
> might claim in this newsgroup.
Hardly.
> He chides others for responding to Ed, but
> in the thread noted above, he responded to Ed.
The time delay might have something to do with it Dave.
> He can't keep track of his
> own posting and, when caught misrepresenting such a simple thing, he lies
> and flees the threads (again, see the above referenced thread).
I don't lie Dave.
> He can't
> keep straight the simple difference between "reliance upon" and "used."
Dave, I know the difference. You have a reliance upon personal attack.
You also use personal attack. I have used personal attack but am not
reliant upon it. You use personal attack and are reliant upon it.
> All the while we are regaled with the (self-professed) brilliance of what
> is really, at best, a minor intellect.
Careful, you where almost nice there.
> We also know him to be a
> self-absorbed euro-centric bigot.
You appear to be more absorbed with me than myself and euro-centric?
Guess that's because I live in the UK, it's part of Europe.
> Of course, he's also a hypocrite who
> tries to impose standards on others that he is not willing to live with
> himself.
This is getting repetitive. No I'm not a hypocrite and yes I am
willing to live what ever standards people consider to be resonable. I
don't lie, am not dishonest and know this whole thing is so far off
topic it's not even on the radar.
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> Ah, yes, of course, it's more of Dean's pseudo-intellectual
> >> ramblings. The _ad hominem_ fallacy simply means that it is an
> >> intellectual fallacy to rely on _ad hominem_ argumentation. The following
> >> would be a simple illustration of the fallacy.
> >>
> >> 1. Dean says "A."
> >>
> >> 2. Horn responds, "Dean is an idiot."
> >>
> >> But what actually happened was this:
> >>
> >> 1. Dean says "A."
> >>
> >> 2. Horn replied with "A is wrong and here's why," provided reasons, and
> >> concluded with "Dean is an idiot."
> >
> > But this is not what happens. The pervious case is true. You have made
> > lots of wild claims but nothing objective. You have made many
> > accusations I know are 100% wrong and you feel are right because you
> > view me as an idiot.
>
> It is what happens, and while I have no idea what a "pervious case" might
> be, this is just another example of Dean insisting on being right and,
> this time, he doesn't have a specific to snip.
Oddly enough I havnt had in the past as well. I snipped vitriol. At
the moment I'm leaving it in and going through the whole 'no I'm not,
no I didnt' stuff. It's dull but about the only way I can stop you
accusing me of snipping stuff that was relevent.
> Dean has made a lot of
> comments that I have addressed and they are objective, such as Dean's
> hypocrisy in applying his standards, the difference between "used" and
> "reliance" as well as several others.
Dave - this is not objective. I have covered this even in this post. I
don't think I can be much clearer. I have used personal attack
previously and not it's not a good thing to do. You are reliant upon
it in the style of your communication. A quick google of your name or
emails confirms this. You appear unable to post a responce to someone
one without a snide comment.
> Previous exchanges with Dean and
> watching Dean argue with others has provided me with an objective standard
> that I know is 100% right
But it's not. Past exchanges of this same type of this have been with
Gen2rev, where we agreed to disagree and who I have supported since
and with David S who shares many traits with yourself but can post put
together a well reasoned post at times. His recent appearance in this
thread is not a suprise.
> (Dean is just wrong about his alleged
> assurances) and I believe that Dean is a liar, a hypocrite and an idiot.
> It is a subjective viewpoint based on objective evidence that *I* *have*
> *addressed* (Dean usually snips it out of his relies and doesn't deal with
> it). YMMV.
It's a subjective view based on strawmen. You've attempted to do
exactly the same in this post with the accusations about the Ed Conrad
post. Google is not 100% reliable and has delayed or not posted some
of my posts. It could have not pressed post but the delayed post I
have no idea about and took a *guess*. I first said someone had
reposted it as that's what I thought had happened. I didnt lie - or
change my story - I was, wait for it, wrong. I still don't know what
happened. In computing terms it's a JWOTT (just one of those things).
So Dave, no objectivity here, not objectivity to do with being a
hypocrite, no evidence I have lied, no evidence that you actualy have
an argument appart from one long personal attack.
You don't even know what it is you're arguing about any more.
>
> >> The argument did not *rely* on _ad hominem_.
> >
> > What can I say other than, yes, whatever the argument is, in your
> > case, does.
>
> If I use evidence to demonstrate that Dean is wrong, the argument did not
> rely on _ad hominem_.
But you havnt. You made up some subjective view based on my past
posts. That's not objective. You had an opinion and sought out quotes
to back up that. We both know that's not what objective means. I did
an objective test with you though, selecting posts from random at
google to find out if you posted on topic. Sure there is a bit of
subjectivity involved but roughly 9 out of 10 posts included no
content, much like this whole thread. I don't think it's scientific or
worth going other but it beats the socks off your idea of what
objective means.
> Even if I find that Dean made a lot of errors and
> *conclude* that the errors make me think Dean is an idiot, the argument
> does not *rely* on _ad hominem_. Dean needs to recast the requirement
> because he cannot intelligently or honestly address his errors.
No. I need not recast the requirement. Now what errors are you talking
about other than the vauge and nodescripte ones you keep alluding to.
For example, if you mean confusing 'used' with 'rely upon' that's a
mistake I never made.
> >> He is no better than Ed Conrad in that
> >> regard.
> >
> > Myself and Ed are totally different creatures.
>
> It's amazing that this self-professed Great Intellect can't even structure
> a simple sentence such as "Ed and I are totally different creatures"
> correctly.
Who's the English one here? There I go being euro centric again.
>
> [Snip more denial--I *have* explained why.]
>
Sorry Dave but you havnt.
> [Snip remaining evasions, lies and chest-beating. I'm bored with Dean.
> When he can address his idiocies and stop trying to avoid them, I'll be
> here. And when he makes more idiotic, hypocritical or stupid statements,
> I'll be here.]
More false accusations. Dave, it boils down to this. This whole thread
has been about you relying upon personal attacks to make an argument.
Your first responce was a subjective responce to a subjective subject
- namely I don't find loki point posts funny as often they fail to be
parody.
Somewhere I think you missed the point.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:48:53 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
>> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
>> old thing.
>
> Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
If Dean objects to being address by name, that's his problem.
>> Dean doesn't get it and things that others must justify and
>> explain things to him.
>
> Once again the onus is on you.
I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
thread.
> You either explain or, as far as I'm concerned, you've admited
> that you're in a logical dead end.
Of course, if I don't explain *again*, this will be Dean's conclusion. He
is welcome to it. It won't matter to me what he thinks. He's been shown
to be wrong on so many points that I am left with the conclusions as
stated: He's an idiot and a liar.
[Snip Dean continuing to misdirect and get it wrong.]
stew dean
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:03:19 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:48:53 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >>
> >> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> >> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >>
> >> [Snip]
> >>
> >> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
> >> old thing.
> >
> > Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
>
> If Dean objects to being address by name, that's his problem.
I've covered this. My name is Stewart or Stew or Stew Dean or Stewart
Dean or Mr Dean. You claim it is commonly acceptable to refer to
someone by their last name. In social conditions outside of politics
and a few other areas it's not.
You continue to use my name in a way that indicates high contempt
despite repeated requests that you do not use such deliberately
provocative behavour. The only similair arrogance I have seen is David
S with the use of Skippy which when questioned about would not admit
why he used Skippy or what it meant.
> >> Dean doesn't get it and things that others must justify and
> >> explain things to him.
> >
> > Once again the onus is on you.
>
> I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
> thread.
You currently have not addresssed the onus. I asked you why you used
personal attack when you did not need to, you replied that you didnt
think you need explain yourself to me. I replied....
> > You either explain or, as far as I'm concerned, you've admited
> > that you're in a logical dead end.
>
> Of course, if I don't explain *again*, this will be Dean's conclusion. He
> is welcome to it.
I think it would be anyones conclusion. I asked a straight question
and it was avoided.
> It won't matter to me what he thinks. He's been shown
> to be wrong on so many points that I am left with the conclusions as
> stated: He's an idiot and a liar.
Dave snips all the material where are ask him to show me what his
points are. He claims I have snipped details in the past but when
asked what those details are cannot repeat them or alude to them.
The only aleged error I have made that he has mentioned is that I
confused 'used' with 'rely upon' as in 'Dave relies upon personal
attack as his mean argument technique'.
I did not confuse this and in the snipped content explained that Dave
is reliant on personal abuse to try and win his arguments, as a quick
google of his posts demonstrates. No error was made on my part, only
on Dave's part for claiming he is not reliant on personal attack.
This whole thread started with Dave telling me I was wrong for
thinking Loki posts where not funny and not parody.
Dave, you appear to have a compulsive disorder that prevents you from
communicating without someone who has an alternative view without
being vitriolic. I don't expect you to appologise for incorrectly
calling me an idiot or a liar as, despite having no evidence for
either you view changing you mind as a weakness.
Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
> > >
> > > <usual stuff snipped>
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > Skippy, you're getting a mudhole stomped into you.
>
> Hello David.
>
> I've no idea what you mean.
I mean you've lost this argument, Skippy.
Tell me, how can one like you pretend to be so up to speed on so many
things and yet you seem to miss such obvious cultural nuances?
> It's probably an insult.
Take it however you like, Skippy. You lost this argument.
> I've already lambasted you for you vitriolic tendencies
> in past occurances.
"Lamblasted?" Funny, I've never felt like I was "lambasted." I guess
the closest I've ever come was when you ranted "fuck off, you moron"
at me. By the way, Skippy, does that mean that you lost that
argument?
But no, Skippy, you have never "lamblasted" me. You may feel that
way, but on this end, it was less than the impact of a powder puff
which, intellectually speaking, is pretty much what you are.
> At
> least you can post on topic.
I'm not sure what this means, Skippy. Of course I can post on topic.
Is this to imply that Dave does not? Hmmmm...
These all look topical:
Those appear to be topical to me, Skippy. Now, you may not appreciate
the tone, but I doubt if anyone is going to lose sleep over that.
> > You either have no
> > idea what's going on or you are dishonestly trying to recase the
> > debate.
>
> The 'debate' is not a debate.
Oh, of course it is, Skippy. When you have two parties arguing
opposing points of view, that's a debate. Debates are not limited to
formal affairs with structured rules - that's just ONE KIND of debate,
Skippy.
So this certainly is a debate.
> It's Dave not realising that there is no
> debate.
No, it's you not realizing that it IS a debate; and you're losing -
badly .
> A debate requires something to debate about. It also requires some
> understanding of you debate.
Well, there's definitely points of contention here and those are the
points of debate - everything from what is involved in posts that are
considered "Loki trolls" to whether or not you can keep a consistent
argument with regard to what others are saying or doing.
Dave understands and has rebutted your position quite well, as near as
I can see, even if his tone is a bit less patient even than mine.
YOU fail completely to understand what's going on and, as has been
pointed out, you keep changing your mind about what's going on.
> > It's actually quite entertaining, but if you're half as smart as you
> > think you are , which I admit is four times as smart as I think you
> > are, you'll move on. It's obvious you can't keep up.
>
> David, clearly state what it is I am missing. Otherwise I presume
> you're just doing a Dave.
What you presume is of no consequence to me, Skippy. It never has
been; and I've told you that many times.
> > Now if you do what I think you will do, you'll persist.
>
> Are you saying this is one long Loki? That's just incredible if it is.
What's incredible is your rather bizarre interpretation.
> To post thousands of messages in the same style just to catch me out,
> and then do it with no humour.
No one is claiming such a thing, Skippy. No one posts "thousands of
messages" with any intent with regard to YOU.
You're more arrogant than I ever imagined to even think such a stupid
thing.
Welcome to Conrad Town, Skippy. How's the view?
> My pet theory is 'grumpy old man'itus. If you're feeling frail and
> the world is getting you down, calling someone an idiot will perk up
> your frown.
In order for you to have a "pet theory," you have to have facts and
understanding. You have neither of these things. You are a poseur,
Skippy, and you're not even very good at THAT.
> > By all means,
> > do so. I'm having fun reading it and not being a part of it for a
> > change.
>
> Dave Horn is like you without any kind of substance.
Dave has plenty of substance. He's caught a number of your
inconsistencies and hypocrisies and what he seems to think are
outright lies. I don't know if THAT'S true, Skippy. I just think you
get confused very easily and can't keep things straight.
So I guess, in a way, Dave's giving you more credit than I am willing
to give, eh?
> As prevously
> stated you have redeaming features.
It's funny that I have no "redeaming features" when we are actually
engaged in an argument. Your opinion on a single issue changes more
frequently than the Italian government.
> > But DAMN, you are dumb.
>
> So you're now calling me an idiot.
No, I said you are DUMB. Learn to read, Skippy.
> The most stupid thing I do is
> respond to someone who's calling me an idiot.
My goodness! So what, then, is your explanation for your responses to
Dave, who insists that you ARE an idiot. If responding to him is the
"most stupid thing" that you do, why are you doing it?
Seems pretty stupid to me, especially since you blew it early in the
thread.
> As it stands you're going to have to explain what exactly you post was
> about.
I am?
Really?
Bad news, Skippy: I don't HAVE to do anything.
> So David, direct question, why do you think I'm dumb?
Did you actually sign on to be the straight man in this skit, Skippy,
or did you stumble into THAT one by accident?
David Sienkiewicz
> > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:03:19 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >
> > > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> > >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:48:53 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> > >> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [Snip]
> > >>
> > >> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
> > >> old thing.
> > >
> > > Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
> >
> > If Dean objects to being address by name, that's his problem.
>
> I've covered this. My name is Stewart or Stew or Stew Dean or Stewart
> Dean or Mr Dean. You claim it is commonly acceptable to refer to
> someone by their last name. In social conditions outside of politics
> and a few other areas it's not.
Skippy, there are many venues in which it is permissible to address
someone by last name alone and no one raises an eyebrow. At my
country club, it's rather common and no one gets their undies in a
bunch over it.
Relax.
> You continue to use my name in a way that indicates high contempt
Maybe that's because he holds you in contempt, Skippy. Good grief,
lad! Does someone have to hold up a sign for you?
> despite repeated requests that you do not use such deliberately
> provocative behavour. The only similair arrogance I have seen is David
> S with the use of Skippy which when questioned about would not admit
> why he used Skippy or what it meant.
Actually, Skippy, I explained it once.
In case you've forgotten - and no one should be surprised if you have
- I have said that no one should have to explain things to you more
than once. If you can't keep track, that's not the problem of the
person debating you.
It's YOUR problem, Skippy.
> > >> Dean doesn't get it and things that others must justify and
> > >> explain things to him.
> > >
> > > Once again the onus is on you.
> >
> > I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
> > thread.
>
> You currently have not addresssed the onus. I asked you why you used
> personal attack when you did not need to, you replied that you didnt
> think you need explain yourself to me.
Something tells me that you and Dave don't agree on what constitutes
the "onus."
> I replied....
>
> > > You either explain or, as far as I'm concerned, you've admited
> > > that you're in a logical dead end.
> >
> > Of course, if I don't explain *again*, this will be Dean's conclusion. He
> > is welcome to it.
>
> I think it would be anyones conclusion. I asked a straight question
> and it was avoided.
Well, let me tell you, Skippy, that it is not true that it would be
"anyones" conclusion, since it is not MY conclusion.
It is obvious that your question was answered, at least with respect
to you. In fact, it was directly answered. Dave attacks you
personally because he thinks you're an idiot, a liar, and a hypocrite.
Why he attacks other people is not something he has to justify to you.
In fact, you don't even care that he attacks other people.
> > It won't matter to me what he thinks. He's been shown
> > to be wrong on so many points that I am left with the conclusions as
> > stated: He's an idiot and a liar.
>
> Dave snips all the material where are ask him to show me what his
> points are.
It looks to me like he doesn't want to repeat himself and get caught
up in your misdirections, Skippy. He makes his points and then, three
or four messages later in the thread, you ask about the points.
Read the thread, Skippy. They're there. I can see them. They're
obvious.
No, I won't tell you where they are. Dave has already done that in
his original message and later when he referenced earlier messages.
> He claims I have snipped details in the past but when
> asked what those details are cannot repeat them or alude to them.
He's already repeated or alluded (two "l's," Skippy) a couple of
times. See above.
> The only aleged error I have made that he has mentioned is that I
> confused 'used' with 'rely upon' as in 'Dave relies upon personal
> attack as his mean argument technique'.
No, you confused the two when you made your statements about irony.
You told us that Dave relies on personal attack. He said he didn't
RELY on it - and it doesn't look like he does from here.
You then replied that he was being ironic because he said he didn't
USE personal attack. But that ISN'T what he said.
He never said that, Skippy. I see the point. Why can't you? Is it
because I'm right and you're not particularly bright and can't keep
up? Or is he right and it's because you want to deliberately
misdirect the argument?
> I did not confuse this
Yes, you did, Skippy. That was proven with this exchange:
[Dave]
>> >>In fact, I did not rely on personal attack.
< snip >
>> >>Like I said: It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
[Skippy]
>> > Well done, that's my first irony meter blown by an evolutionist.
[Dave]
>> Now *this* little bit of evasion is almost good enough for a "Chez
>> Watt," but obviously Dean just really doesn't get it. Furthermore,
I
>> doubt it he can or will bother to show the irony here.
[Skippy]
> I think I owe it to you to explain where the irony lies. You post a
> message saying that you did not use personal attack that was one long
> personal attack.
[Dave]
Dean needs to learn how to read. I did not write that I did not *use"
personal attack. I wrote that I did not *rely* on it.
< end >
So when you tell us now that the confusion about "use" and "rely" was
something other than what we see here, are you lying or are you
confused? Is Dave right or am I right?
> and in the snipped content explained that Dave
> is reliant on personal abuse to try and win his arguments, as a quick
> google of his posts demonstrates.
That's funny. I find something quite different. I find facts and
evidence often brought up, and I find personal attack, sarcasm and
some anger. I don't see a reliance on personal attack and frankly,
the only reason that YOU do is because you have become a target for
it.
Isn't that so, Skippy?
The fact is that you have used the personal attack subject to divert
the debate you two were having from the errors you had made both
presently and in the past.
That's what *I* see, Skippy, and I wonder how many readers who aren't
commenting see the same thing.
> No error was made on my part, only
> on Dave's part for claiming he is not reliant on personal attack.
I have seen enough to know that he isn't.
You need to get a clue, Skippy. Look at who he responds to: Tony
Pagano, Mike Goodrich, sheldon and you. All of you are generally
irritating and abrasive personalities and I tend to think that you all
deserve to have your knuckles rapped once in a while.
Let's face it, Skippy, you don't give a DAMN about "personal attack"
in principle. You only care because you have become a target for it
lately. If you really cared about it, you'd be a lot more universal
in your complaints.
Look at what Lenny's been saying to people lately. Lenny is a smart
guy, knows his stuff, is a good writer and, usually, in the past, has
been pretty patient with folks, just as Dave was many years ago.
Ah, but these days, Lenny's pretty abusive. So is Boikat and a few
others I can name.
You're silent to THEM, which means you're selective as far as whom you
will criticize. Frankly, I think that weakens your case.
And there is another thing you haven't address, Skippy, and that's the
idea that if you want to claim that an argument is lost because of the
use of personal attack, that means that you have lost every argument
in which YOU used it; and that's a lot of arguments.
You have used personal attack against me, gen2rev, Ed Conrad and a
host of others. Your standards say you lost those arguments, but your
claims at the time were that you weren't.
Oh, and I did enjoy that bit where you got caught on the subject of
"winning." That's funny stuff, Skippy.
But I admit I'm rambling. The simple fact, Skippy, is that your own
confusion and inability to keep up with what others are saying is not
an indication of a weakness in the factual or logical basis for their
arguments.
It simply means that you aren't quite the debate wunderkind that you
think you are.
< snip >
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
> > I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
> > thread.
>
> You currently have not addresssed the onus. I asked you why you used
> personal attack when you did not need to, you replied that you didnt
> think you need explain yourself to me.
Interestingly, Skippy, this caught my eye as I was closing windows
after my last reply. Dave wrote:
"I never denied attacking Dean. He's still getting a taste of his own
medicine because I want to make sure that the lesson is driven home
forcefully..."
Here's your reference:
Now it seems to me that this is the answer to why there is personal
attack, at least against you, though I admit that I think it also is
obvious that someone who thinks you're an idiot, a liar and a
hypocrite would not hesitate to use personal attack against you.
Now here are two things of note that you have said in this thread,
Skippy:
"The most stupid thing I do is respond to someone who's calling me an
idiot.
"It really doesnt matter. This is not a competition. This is also not
debate."
So, once again, you're telling us that you shouldn't be responding to
this thread because it's "the most stupid thing" you do (because
you're being insulted) and "it really doesn't matter."
Skippy, why do you push in threads in which you admit it "really
doesn't matter?"
Is it because I am right and you just want attention? Your topical
comments usually occur late in threads that fizzle out quickly after
your input, so you can't seem to generate any attention in those.
But you DO seem to garner a lot of attention in threads that are off
topic and nothing more than what are sometimes called "personality
wars."
Why do you suppose that is, Skippy?
< snip >
By the way, Skippy, you should stop pretending to diagnose
psychological issues in others. You have no idea what you're talking
about.
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>...
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:03:19 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
>> >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:48:53 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
>> >> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [Snip]
>> >>
>> >> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
>> >> old thing.
>> >
>> > Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
>>
>> If Dean objects to being address by name, that's his problem.
>
> I've covered this. My name is Stewart or Stew or Stew Dean or Stewart
> Dean or Mr Dean. You claim it is commonly acceptable to refer to
> someone by their last name. In social conditions outside of politics
> and a few other areas it's not.
I've already said that if Dean doesn't like being addressed by his *name*,
that's his problem. The fact is that there are a number of venues outside
of those he lists in which addressing by last name is common, permissible,
and doesn't cause problems.
> You continue to use my name in a way that indicates high contempt
> despite repeated requests that you do not use such deliberately
> provocative behavour. The only similair arrogance I have seen is David
> S with the use of Skippy which when questioned about would not admit
> why he used Skippy or what it meant.
The difference is that I actually use Dean's *name* and not some "pet
name" I've come up with (and I do have a few I could use if that would
make Dean quit whining on this issue). And if Dean detects contempt in my
tone toward him, well, someone should hand him a cigar.
>> >> Dean doesn't get it and things that others must justify and
>> >> explain things to him.
>> >
>> > Once again the onus is on you.
>>
>> I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
>> thread.
>
> You currently have not addresssed the onus. I asked you why you used
> personal attack when you did not need to, you replied that you didnt
> think you need explain yourself to me.
Which is the answer I choose to give. Dean would prefer that this is not
an answer. It is; and it is all Dean is going to get. It is certainly
much more than he's worth.
[Snip]
>> Of course, if I don't explain *again*, this will be Dean's conclusion. He
>> is welcome to it.
>
> I think it would be anyones conclusion. I asked a straight question
> and it was avoided.
It wasn't avoided. The answer is that I don't have to justify my actions
to a hypocritical liar like Dean.
>> It won't matter to me what he thinks. He's been shown
>> to be wrong on so many points that I am left with the conclusions as
>> stated: He's an idiot and a liar.
>
> Dave snips all the material where are ask him to show me what his
> points are.
This is where I baited Dean again and he fell for it. Dean usually snips
a great deal from past exchanges with different people, including with me
in this very thread. In most cases, these snippages include material that
rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues. Now that I have taken to
snipping away large parts of Dean's material, he wants to whine about it.
How special.
The fact is that I have addressed all issues and all points, showing where
Dean has failed to understand what was said or has avoided what was said.
That, in fact, is the difference between us. I snip now simply because I
know I have answered these points and made all of my points in previous
messages in the thread. I provided my rebuttals and used references.
Dean snips and whines about personal attack. I've shown where Dean has
been a hypocrite in applying his standards and here we see it again. Dean
snips (often without marking) and when someone else does it, he wants to
complain. How typical.
[Snip remaining, including an ill-advised attempt to play "psychologist"]
stew dean
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
> > > >
> > > > <usual stuff snipped>
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > Skippy, you're getting a mudhole stomped into you.
> >
> > Hello David.
> >
> > I've no idea what you mean.
>
> I mean you've lost this argument, Skippy.
How exactly is that David? And what does skippy mean again?
Stew Dean
stew dean
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>...
> > > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:03:19 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> > >
> > > > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> > > >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:48:53 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> > > >> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> [Snip]
> > > >>
> > > >> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
> > > >> old thing.
> > > >
> > > > Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
> > >
> > > If Dean objects to being address by name, that's his problem.
> >
> > I've covered this. My name is Stewart or Stew or Stew Dean or Stewart
> > Dean or Mr Dean. You claim it is commonly acceptable to refer to
> > someone by their last name. In social conditions outside of politics
> > and a few other areas it's not.
>
> Skippy, there are many venues in which it is permissible to address
> someone by last name alone and no one raises an eyebrow.
And this is not one of them.
> At my
> country club, it's rather common and no one gets their undies in a
> bunch over it.
>
> Relax.
David - the intent is not obscured. The intent is to sound
patronising. This is not a country club.
I wouldnt come to you for yoga lessons either. Rest of your drivel
snipped out of pure contempt.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>...
>
> < snip >
>
> > > I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
> > > thread.
> >
> > You currently have not addresssed the onus. I asked you why you used
> > personal attack when you did not need to, you replied that you didnt
> > think you need explain yourself to me.
>
> Interestingly, Skippy, this caught my eye as I was closing windows
> after my last reply. Dave wrote:
>
> "I never denied attacking Dean. He's still getting a taste of his own
> medicine because I want to make sure that the lesson is driven home
> forcefully..."
>
> Here's your reference:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2924274351d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=pan.2003.12.13.12.06.38.414851%40cox.net
Let's be clear here. Both of you are wrong in your use of personal
attack. David.
Calling me an idiot isnt teaching anyone a lesson and all it drives
home is how reliant both of you on ad hominem.
I know I'm not an idiot or a liar. From my perspective there is one
big thing neither of you understand which I have stated repeatedly and
clearly throughout this arguement.
Neither of you can justify yourself and fall fowl of your own actions.
> Now it seems to me that this is the answer to why there is personal
> attack, at least against you, though I admit that I think it also is
> obvious that someone who thinks you're an idiot, a liar and a
> hypocrite would not hesitate to use personal attack against you.
Then may I suggest you avoid politics. The world is full of idiots,
calling them idiots unfortunatly puts them exactly where they are.
Why? Because you may be wrong.
Look at it this way. Newton was an idiot - after all he believed in
alchemy. How dumb is that?
> Now here are two things of note that you have said in this thread,
> Skippy:
>
> "The most stupid thing I do is respond to someone who's calling me an
> idiot.
Exactly.
> "It really doesnt matter. This is not a competition. This is also not
> debate."
Exactly.
> So, once again, you're telling us that you shouldn't be responding to
> this thread because it's "the most stupid thing" you do (because
> you're being insulted) and "it really doesn't matter."
Exactly.
> Skippy, why do you push in threads in which you admit it "really
> doesn't matter?"
Because it doesnt. There is no real intellectual content here -
nothign important or relevent to this group.
> Is it because I am right and you just want attention?
Right about what? Why have you entered this thread?
> Your topical
> comments usually occur late in threads that fizzle out quickly after
> your input, so you can't seem to generate any attention in those.
I'm not expecting any. No realy I'm not. I'm just glad others have
ignored this so far. If there where complaints I'd stop it. Can you
understand this?
> But you DO seem to garner a lot of attention in threads that are off
> topic and nothing more than what are sometimes called "personality
> wars."
I do? If you're talking about the off topic bush thread the focus was
not on me.
> Why do you suppose that is, Skippy?
Quite frankly it's because others post more interesting content. There
are some very good debaters in this group and ones with interesting
things to say.
When I have a conversation with someone my objective is not to hog the
conversation, or to always get my view installed in their head. I talk
to share stuff. So it is with the vast majority of posts in this
group. Sure you can pull out a few vitriolic posts but you can also
find on topic and thoughtful posts.
Now you can dismiss this but you would be missing the point.
Use ad hominem and you have lost the arguement. And that includes
using skippy.
>
> < snip >
>
> By the way, Skippy, you should stop pretending to diagnose
> psychological issues in others. You have no idea what you're talking
> about.
This is, of course, unfounded.
Explain 'anchoring' to me David without looking it up.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>...
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>> > > I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
>> > > thread.
>> >
>> > You currently have not addresssed the onus. I asked you why you used
>> > personal attack when you did not need to, you replied that you didnt
>> > think you need explain yourself to me.
>>
>> Interestingly, Skippy, this caught my eye as I was closing windows
>> after my last reply. Dave wrote:
>>
>> "I never denied attacking Dean. He's still getting a taste of his own
>> medicine because I want to make sure that the lesson is driven home
>> forcefully..."
>>
>> Here's your reference:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2924274351d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=pan.2003.12.13.12.06.38.414851%40cox.net
>
> Let's be clear here. Both of you are wrong in your use of personal
> attack. David.
If that is so, then Dean, too, is wrong when *he* uses personal attack.
But Dean uses personal attack quite frequently, as can be seen in many
examples. We might expect Dean to respond with "I don't use it as much as
you," but this brings up the question: How many times before it's "too
many" times?
> Calling me an idiot isnt teaching anyone a lesson and all it drives
> home is how reliant both of you on ad hominem.
There is no reliance on _ad hominem_. Dean is a presumptuous twit (let's
watch him twist this into "irony"), it is true, but the various aspects of
the issues are addressed. If on relies on _ad hominem_, that means that
there is no substance in the arguments rendered or that the arguments
rendered by the supposed "victim" (and make no mistake, Dean is trying to
play the victim here) are presumably not being addressed. Again, my
declaration that Dean is an idiot (and a liar and a hypocrite) is a
*conclusion* based on his behavior as has been observed, identified and
explained in this forum. Furthermore, the subtelty of the "lesson" that
*includes* the use of personal attack (but is not entirely based on it)
is, not surprisingly, completely lost on Dean.
> I know I'm not an idiot or a liar.
And what Dean knows presumably supercedes what the rest of us might
"know." But this is no more convincing than Nameless "knowing" that he
never bet gen2rev or Ed Conrad "knowing" that he has something more than a
bunch of rocks. The readers can look and draw their own conclusions but
mine, based on what I have seen, remains that Dean is an idiot and a liar.
> From my perspective there is one big thing neither of you understand
> which I have stated repeatedly and clearly throughout this arguement.
Of course, it's not that anyone *does* understand and simply rejects
Dean's "perspective." It must be that no one understands it. How sweet.
But the fact is that I certainly understand Dean all too well.
> Neither of you can justify yourself...
To whom am I to justify myself? Dean? Certainly that is what he expects,
isn't it?
> ...and fall fowl of your own actions.
"Fall *fowl*?"
>> Now it seems to me that this is the answer to why there is personal
>> attack, at least against you, though I admit that I think it also is
>> obvious that someone who thinks you're an idiot, a liar and a
>> hypocrite would not hesitate to use personal attack against you.
>
> Then may I suggest you avoid politics. The world is full of idiots,
> calling them idiots unfortunatly puts them exactly where they are.
> Why? Because you may be wrong.
"Calling them idiots puts them exactly where they are...because you may be
wrong." It's occasionally something of an amusing exercise to try to
parse Dean's presumably intellectual ramblings (of course, he'd never
admit that he constructed the sentence badly and it can never be that he
didn't make sense...he just isn't "understood."
> Look at it this way. Newton was an idiot - after all he believed in
> alchemy. How dumb is that?
Watching Dean ultimately pretend that he is in an intellectual class with
Newton by this very bad example is ironic, in and of itself. But the fact
that Newton accepted any belief common to his day would not make him an
idiot. If he went into the 17th or 18th century equivalent of a newsgroup
and made a fool of himself as Dean has done, perhaps *then* he'd be an
idiot.
>> Now here are two things of note that you have said in this thread,
>> Skippy:
>>
>> "The most stupid thing I do is respond to someone who's calling me an
>> idiot.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> "It really doesnt matter. This is not a competition. This is also not
>> debate."
>
> Exactly.
>
>> So, once again, you're telling us that you shouldn't be responding to
>> this thread because it's "the most stupid thing" you do (because
>> you're being insulted) and "it really doesn't matter."
>
> Exactly.
>
>> Skippy, why do you push in threads in which you admit it "really
>> doesn't matter?"
>
> Because it doesnt. There is no real intellectual content here -
> nothign important or relevent to this group.
I guess this means that Dean fits right in.
So here we see that Dean admits that there is nothing of value here, yet
this is the longest thread in which he has participated in some time. As
noted elsewhere, *topical* threads in which Dean participates die quickly
after he enters a messsage into them; and generally, he adds little to
nothing of value. Dean will act to perpetuate these threads because he's
getting attention; and like the Conradesque sick little bird that he is,
he doesn't seem to care what kind of attention.
>> Is it because I am right and you just want attention?
>
> Right about what? Why have you entered this thread?
Sienkieiwicz asked a question with two components that made it clear what
he was asking. The "what" in Dean's "right about what" is "you just want
attention?" Again, we see that Dean simply cannot keep up or understand
the simplest of concepts as they are laid out for him in even the simplest
language. Sienkieiwicz seems to think that Dean does what he does for
attention (and I am rapidly coming to agree with that assessment). That
was clear enough.
>> Your topical
>> comments usually occur late in threads that fizzle out quickly after
>> your input, so you can't seem to generate any attention in those.
>
> I'm not expecting any. No realy I'm not. I'm just glad others have
> ignored this so far. If there where complaints I'd stop it. Can you
> understand this?
Here we see Dean pleaing for *someone* to complain. Then he'll have an
excuse to withdraw. It's not enough that *he* already claims that this
"doesn't matter" and has agreed that it's stupid for him to respond. He
can't stop himself. He needs some impetus from somebody else and then he
can pretend to make something resembling a graceful exit. In light of his
presumptions with respect to the psychology of others, I find that *very*
interesting.
>> But you DO seem to garner a lot of attention in threads that are off
>> topic and nothing more than what are sometimes called "personality
>> wars."
>
> I do? If you're talking about the off topic bush thread the focus was
> not on me.
What is Dean's problem here? Why can't he understand that this is *not*
the point? I'll tell you why: Dean is a liar and wastes no time trying
to misdirect what was said to him and recast it to mean something other
than what it plainly means.
>> Why do you suppose that is, Skippy?
>
> Quite frankly it's because others post more interesting content. There
> are some very good debaters in this group and ones with interesting
> things to say.
>
> When I have a conversation with someone my objective is not to hog the
> conversation, or to always get my view installed in their head. I talk
> to share stuff. So it is with the vast majority of posts in this
> group. Sure you can pull out a few vitriolic posts but you can also
> find on topic and thoughtful posts.
>
> Now you can dismiss this but you would be missing the point.
Was there *really* a point in that rambling bit of falderal, or did Dean
really have something substantial to say. Dean was asked why *he* seems
to wind up in a lot of these kinds of threads, *not* what happens in
other, more topical and less "vitriolic" threads. He was asked why he
seems to spend so much time and energy participating in *these* kinds of
threads. Notice that he didn't answer the question and again tried
misdirection.
> Use ad hominem and you have lost the arguement.
Dean again makes this statement and it again begs the question: Will Dean
accept that his use of _ad hominem_ in an argument means that *he* has
lost that argument? He claimed elsewhere and again that there was
validity in his arguments about Ed Conrad, but he also used what he would
define as _ad hominem_ in those arguments, freeling using words such as
"silly," "stupid" and "idiotic."
The fact is that Dean's statement is simply stupid. A debate that
includes a dozen points the opponent cannot answer is not decided by _ad
hominem_ either way. If I refuse or rebut Dean on a dozen different
points and come to the *conclusion* that he is an idiot, that does not
negate that I have exposed fallacies and errors on his part.
Besides, we will see in another reply that, again, this rule of Dean's
simply does not apply to him. That makes him a hypocrite.
> And that includes
> using skippy.
Does it also include making unqualified psychological "diagnoses" of
another person for rhetorical purposes? Does it include referring to
Sienkieiwiciz as a "moron?" What about when Ed Conrad was likewise called
a "moron?" Gen2rev was called "silly" and "stupid" in that debate. Did
Dean lose those, too? If one applies Dean's standard to him, it does.
But Dean is not willing to live by that standard.
>> < snip >
>>
>> By the way, Skippy, you should stop pretending to diagnose
>> psychological issues in others. You have no idea what you're talking
>> about.
>
> This is, of course, unfounded.
Oh, it's completely founded. Dean doesn't know what he's talking about.
But notice that he makes no effort to explain that he *does*. He simply
does and we are expected to accept that. Meanwhile, Dean demands
explanations from others. This is just another example of hypocrisy.
> Explain 'anchoring' to me David without looking it up.
Perhaps Dean will be good enough to explain the relevance; but I'm
guessing that he won't.
David Horn
> Path:
> news1.central.cox.net!central.cox.net!east.cox.net!filt01.cox.net!peer01.co
> x.net!cox.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.or
> g!there.is.no.cabal
> From: ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean)
> Newsgroups: talk.origins
> Subject: Re: What are Loki Points?
> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:07 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 44
> Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>
> References: <4f697f9f.03120...@posting.google.com>
> <pan.2003.12.24....@cox.net>
> <2b68957a.0312...@posting.google.com>
> <pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>
> <2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>
> <pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>
> <2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>
> <pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>
> <2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>
> <35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1072643347 27386 128.100.83.246 (28 Dec 2003
> 20:29:07 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:07 +0000 (UTC)
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.44.192.42
> Xref: east.cox.net talk.origins:875683
> X-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:31:19 EST (news1.central.cox.net)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain
But it *is* another place where people routinely call each other by last
name and it doesn't seem to bother anyone. What we have here is anothter
fact that is waved off by Dean.
> I wouldnt come to you for yoga lessons either.
Sienkieiwicz didn't say anything about yoga lessons and that's not
particularly relevant. He gave a *real* *world* example that Dean is
wrong to be so indignant at being addressed by his *name* and that the
claims he is making in association with that are simply wrong. Notice how
Dean waves that off, as he usually does.
> Rest of your drivel snipped out of pure contempt.
"Pure contempt" could easily be construed as _ad hominem_. And what did
Dean write elsewhere?
"Use ad hominem and you have lost the arguement."
Sienkieiwicz actually made a number of points and Dean snipped them away
without addressing them, as he usually does. But I'll let Sienkieiwicz
deal with that since he obviously has much more patience than I for
"Skippy."
David Horn
Once again, we see Dean's flagrant dishonesty. Not only does he snip away
the rest of Sienkieiwc'z comments, but he also asks about the "Skippy"
issue, which is addressed by Sienkiewiciz in the commentary that was
snipped. For readers who missed it or forgot, Sienkieiwicz said he
explained it once and saw no point in explaining it again. Yet if we let
Dean take control of these arguments, he snips away explanations and
doesn't deal with them and we find ourselves in a near-endless cycle of
repeating ourselves, getting the comments snipped (usually without
marking) and having Dean spew his idiocies. This is the inherent
dishonesty in Dean's "debate" style. Among other things, Dean also had
several errors exposed (such as the definition of "debate"). It's not
interesting, anymore, that Dean does this, but it *is* evidence of his
intended duplicity.
stew dean
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:11:01 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>...
> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:03:19 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >>
> >> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> >> >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:48:53 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.27....@cox.net>...
> >> >> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:13:56 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [Snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
> >> >> old thing.
> >> >
> >> > Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
> >>
<snip repeated Dean stuff>
> >> >> Dean doesn't get it and things that others must justify and
> >> >> explain things to him.
> >> >
> >> > Once again the onus is on you.
> >>
> >> I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
> >> thread.
> >
> > You currently have not addresssed the onus. I asked you why you used
> > personal attack when you did not need to, you replied that you didnt
> > think you need explain yourself to me.
>
> Which is the answer I choose to give. Dean would prefer that this is not
> an answer. It is; and it is all Dean is going to get. It is certainly
> much more than he's worth.
This changes nothing. You are avoiding what is now the main issue of
this argument, although the original one doesnt make any sense
(arguing about if I found Loki posts funny - which I didnt) .
> [Snip]
>
> >> Of course, if I don't explain *again*, this will be Dean's conclusion. He
> >> is welcome to it.
> >
> > I think it would be anyones conclusion. I asked a straight question
> > and it was avoided.
>
> It wasn't avoided. The answer is that I don't have to justify my actions
> to a hypocritical liar like Dean.
This alters nothing. As it stands I am not a hypocrite or a liar.
These are accusations that you have made but have never supported.
The onus is on you Dave.
> >> It won't matter to me what he thinks. He's been shown
> >> to be wrong on so many points that I am left with the conclusions as
> >> stated: He's an idiot and a liar.
> >
> > Dave snips all the material where are ask him to show me what his
> > points are.
>
> This is where I baited Dean again and he fell for it. Dean usually snips
> a great deal from past exchanges with different people, including with me
> in this very thread.
>
> In most cases, these snippages include material that
> rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues.
But I don't do that.
> Now that I have taken to
> snipping away large parts of Dean's material, he wants to whine about it.
> How special.
Dave, think about what you've just done for a few seconds. You have
done what you have accused me of doing, yet I did not do it. That is I
have not deliberatly snipped content to remove rebuttals or points. I
have summed up a couple of posts because of time contraints (and to
save typing out a long post again) and I have snipped you vitriol and
justified doing it as well.
You have just made yourself guilty of something that you have been
attacking me of doing - yet only you have done it.
If this was football you would have just scored an own goal. That was
special.
> The fact is that I have addressed all issues and all points, showing where
> Dean has failed to understand what was said or has avoided what was said.
The fact is you havnt. Something doesnt become a fact if you say it
is, no matter how many times you do it. Rebuttals don't appear because
you say you have provided them. You havnt.
The onus is on you. I can happily show you rely upon personal attack
as I did but snipping all personal attack in a previous message
leaving one sentence. Even that wasnt sentence true.
> That, in fact, is the difference between us. I snip now simply because I
> know I have answered these points and made all of my points in previous
> messages in the thread.
But you havnt. You delberately choose not at answer my points instead
prefering insults to reason.
> I provided my rebuttals and used references.
> Dean snips and whines about personal attack.
I snipped no rebuttals. You referenced youself (again no rebuttals)
and made some bad assumptions based upon my past posts. These, as I
explained, where not objective despite your erronous claims they
where.
Again the word whine is not appropiate here. I maintain that if you
remove the personal attacks you have no argument and no rebuttals.
This one point you cannot answer.
> I've shown where Dean has
> been a hypocrite in applying his standards and here we see it again.
Again I remind you that you can say you've done something as many
times as you want - this doesnt change the fact you havnt. I remind
you an insult is not a rebuttal.
> Dean
> snips (often without marking) and when someone else does it, he wants to
> complain. How typical.
You are wrong about me complaining. I did not complain, I simply
stated what you did. Just to requote myself.
"Dave snips all the material where are ask him to show me what his
points are."
This stands. What is you point Dave - other than you think I'm an
idiot etc. The following sentence was....
"He claims I have snipped details in the past but when
asked what those details are cannot repeat them or alude to them."
This also stands. Provide me with an example of a rebuttal that I have
snipped. One will do. Please don't repeat the use/rely thing. I stand
by the accusation and did not misread what you said.
Just to make things clear. Things you have not addressed in this
thread.
What rebuttals and provide me an example where I have snipped one.
Why use personal attack at all?
What was the original argument and why was it not a objective matter?
What is my current argument?
I will repeat these at will if I feel you are avoiding them. Any
reciplical questions I will answer.
The onus is on you Dave Horn. I currently perceive you has having
painted yourself into a logical corner.
< snip snip>
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>...
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:11:01 +0000, stew dean wrote:
[Snip]
>> >> >> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
>> >> >> old thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
>
> <snip repeated Dean stuff>
In other words, rebuttal material was snipped.
[Snip]
> This changes nothing. You are avoiding what is now the main issue of
> this argument,...
"What is now the main issue of this argument" as unilaterally decided by
Dean, who recasts the argument in order to avoid answering specific points
that were made, while pretending that those points *weren't* made.
[Snip]
>> It wasn't avoided. The answer is that I don't have to justify my actions
>> to a hypocritical liar like Dean.
>
> This alters nothing.
It wasn't intended to "alter" anything. Perhaps Dean should spend less
time trying to evade with presumptions at flowery speech.
> As it stands I am not a hypocrite or a liar.
As it stands, I have proven hypocrisy with several specific examples that
Dean has not answered for; and I am convinced that he his a liar.
> These are accusations that you have made but have never supported.
This, too, is a lie. I have provided specific examples and Dean has
avoided them, then pretends:
> The onus is on you Dave.
Which, of course, is Dean's way of trying to avoid the onus, himself.
[Snip]
>> This is where I baited Dean again and he fell for it. Dean usually snips
>> a great deal from past exchanges with different people, including with me
>> in this very thread.
>>
>> In most cases, these snippages include material that
>> rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues.
>
> But I don't do that.
Another bare-faced lie, as anyone who has watched Dean in action can see.
>> Now that I have taken to
>> snipping away large parts of Dean's material, he wants to whine about it.
>> How special.
>
> Dave, think about what you've just done for a few seconds. You have
> done what you have accused me of doing, yet I did not do it. That is I
> have not deliberatly snipped content to remove rebuttals or points.
And he continues to lie. Over and over again, Dean has been accused of
this; and not just by me. Earlier in this thread, I provided specific
examples of Dean's evasions and he simply avoided them again, pretending
several messages later that this never happened. I am simply getting more
disgusted with this unrepentent liar/
[Snip]
>> The fact is that I have addressed all issues and all points, showing where
>> Dean has failed to understand what was said or has avoided what was said.
>
> The fact is you havnt. Something doesnt become a fact if you say it
> is, no matter how many times you do it.
Dean would do well to remember this, but let's remember that Dean is also
a hypocrite; and does not follow standards he presumes to impose on
others.
[Snip]
>> I provided my rebuttals and used references.
>> Dean snips and whines about personal attack.
>
> I snipped no rebuttals.
The lie continues yet again and again.
[Snip]
> Again the word whine is not appropiate here. I maintain that if you
> remove the personal attacks you have no argument and no rebuttals.
>
> This one point you cannot answer.
It is a point I have answered several times.
[Snip]
> This also stands. Provide me with an example of a rebuttal that I have
> snipped. One will do. Please don't repeat the use/rely thing. I stand
> by the accusation and did not misread what you said.
As we have seen yet again today, Dean *did* misread that incident, so it
will do.
[Snip more claims of things not addressed by me]
Dean presumes that by asking me to repeat again and again (while snipping
and running of course), he can place the onus on me; but I am under no
obligation to accept the onus of a thread from an established liar and
hypocrite; and I can play this game indefinitely. Dean is getting a taste
of anothe aspect of his "debate" tactics. And let's remember that Dean
also told us that it is stupid of him to respond to someone who thinks
he's an idiot (as I do) and that it "doesn't matter." So guess what Dean
gets to hear now? That's right!
Drop it.
I think Dean is a liar and I've shown him to be a hypocrite. He's as done
as an overcooked Christmas ham. He's just too stupid to realize it.
stew dean
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:25:42 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>...
> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:11:01 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> >> >> Dean seems to be trying a different tactic; but it boils down to the same
> >> >> >> old thing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dean hasnt as far as I am aware. Could we stop with the Dean thing?
> >
> > <snip repeated Dean stuff>
>
> In other words, rebuttal material was snipped.
The content was repeated. It was about your use of 'Dean'. It is
intended to be disrespectful and is disrespectful. You yourself have
admited it is intended as such. It is repeated content.
It was not a rebuttal as the true intent has already been stated. If
anything it was an excuse presumably to justify your continued use of
personal attack. The excuse is not accepted. If it is intended to
cause offence is it personal attack.
> > This changes nothing. You are avoiding what is now the main issue of
> > this argument,...
>
> "What is now the main issue of this argument" as unilaterally decided by
> Dean, who recasts the argument in order to avoid answering specific points
> that were made, while pretending that those points *weren't* made.
If you had been paying attention the main argument has been the same
from about the second post in this group.
Once again I see you fail to mention what the nature of these points
are.
> >> It wasn't avoided. The answer is that I don't have to justify my actions
> >> to a hypocritical liar like Dean.
> >
> > This alters nothing.
>
> It wasn't intended to "alter" anything. Perhaps Dean should spend less
> time trying to evade with presumptions at flowery speech.
I does not alter the fact you are avoiding things. You avoid
questions, avoid answers and avoid requests to back up you unsupported
claims. The best you can do is say you have supported your claims.
Where?
> > As it stands I am not a hypocrite or a liar.
>
> As it stands, I have proven hypocrisy with several specific examples that
> Dean has not answered for; and I am convinced that he his a liar.
You have only proven you are reliant on personal attack. You have yet
to prove anything other than that. No you have not proven my
hypocrisy, that I'm very clear on. Also what exactly have I lied
about? That is a very strong accusation that you have yet to provide
any evidence for. What if I am not a liar?
> > These are accusations that you have made but have never supported.
>
> This, too, is a lie. I have provided specific examples and Dean has
> avoided them, then pretends:
You have never provided an example of me being a hypocrite. I have
already stated that I have done X and Y and I think that is not what I
should have done. To tell others that I don't think you should do what
I have done in the past is not hypocricy. If I continued to do it and
told others off for it whilst defending my actions then I would be a
hypocrite. As it stands that is not the case. I've already gone
through this. When I say using personal attack is bad I avoid using
personal attack and simply stick to facts and deny you false
accusations, as I have just done above.
I do not justify my use of personal attack because you have done it.
That is not justification for anything.
> > The onus is on you Dave.
>
> Which, of course, is Dean's way of trying to avoid the onus, himself.
No Dave, you argument is one long personal attack - my rebuttal is a
constant reminder than your statements are unjustified and without
support.
Attempting to defend the user of personal attacks, as you have in the
case of using 'Dean' is not a rebuttal. It remains a personal attack.
In certain social situations it's expected to call you friends
barstards (or worse) but it is not acceptable here. And yes that
includes past cases when I have used such language.
> >> This is where I baited Dean again and he fell for it. Dean usually snips
> >> a great deal from past exchanges with different people, including with me
> >> in this very thread.
> >>
> >> In most cases, these snippages include material that
> >> rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues.
> >
> > But I don't do that.
>
> Another bare-faced lie, as anyone who has watched Dean in action can see.
Prove it's a lie. Provide and example.
> >> Now that I have taken to
> >> snipping away large parts of Dean's material, he wants to whine about it.
> >> How special.
> >
> > Dave, think about what you've just done for a few seconds. You have
> > done what you have accused me of doing, yet I did not do it. That is I
> > have not deliberatly snipped content to remove rebuttals or points.
>
> And he continues to lie.
No I continue to wait for you to demonstrate what is very clearly
wrong.
You are wrong Dave and rather than admit that you prefer to call
people a liar.
> Over and over again, Dean has been accused of
> this; and not just by me.
Actualy at the moment it is only you. Previously Gen2rev accused me of
snipping. I explained he had a habit of going off at tangents that
where not important. I had to go back and show why those tangents
where not important and explain why they where snipped. In David S I
snipped his points because of time and because of the over use of ad
hominem. In theory I'm justified to snip anything after the first
'skippy' in his case.
> Earlier in this thread, I provided specific
> examples of Dean's evasions and he simply avoided them again, pretending
> several messages later that this never happened. I am simply getting more
> disgusted with this unrepentent liar/
No you did not. You are doing exactly the same thing again - claiming
to did something that you did not. It doesnt matter how many times you
claim you did something, if you cannot provide evidence you did, which
in this case I cannot find, then you did not do what you say you did.
Why you think you did do it I'm not going to cover.
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> The fact is that I have addressed all issues and all points, showing where
> >> Dean has failed to understand what was said or has avoided what was said.
> >
> > The fact is you havnt. Something doesnt become a fact if you say it
> > is, no matter how many times you do it.
>
> Dean would do well to remember this, but let's remember that Dean is also
> a hypocrite; and does not follow standards he presumes to impose on
> others.
Remember? It has never been shown. You claimed and I demonstated, as I
have done in this post, that your view is subjective and wrong.
Let me also repeat that I follow general standards - defacto standards
if you will. These standards are just applicable to me as to you or
anyone else.
If I am attempting to 'impose' anything then it is one simple thing in
the case of yourself and David S - if you use personal attack you have
lost the argument.
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> I provided my rebuttals and used references.
> >> Dean snips and whines about personal attack.
> >
> > I snipped no rebuttals.
>
> The lie continues yet again and again.
It is not a lie. I have snipped no rebuttals. By all means demonstrate
I am wrong. I don't think you can.
>
> > Again the word whine is not appropiate here. I maintain that if you
> > remove the personal attacks you have no argument and no rebuttals.
> >
> > This one point you cannot answer.
>
> It is a point I have answered several times.
So you should be able to answer it again. You have said you don't need
to justify your use of personal attack because, and here's the irony,
you don't think I'm worth explaining it to, or words to that effect.
There is even a personal attack in your defence of using personal
attack.
At least you're consistant.
You have also claimed that I am liar because I deny snipping your
rebuttals deliberately in order to misrepresent you. As I have never
done such a thing in this thread or knowingly elsewhere then I am not
a liar.
Any rebuttals I have snipped please present again.
>
> [Snip]
>
> > This also stands. Provide me with an example of a rebuttal that I have
> > snipped. One will do. Please don't repeat the use/rely thing. I stand
> > by the accusation and did not misread what you said.
>
> As we have seen yet again today, Dean *did* misread that incident, so it
> will do.
You stated you do not rely on personal attack but do admit to using
it. That I read very clearly. Having read your posts I can see you are
reliant on personal attack. This has nothing to do with misreading you
- it is to do with believing you to be wrong. So it will not do
becuase I did not misread anything. I have never said you claimed to
be reliant on personal attack. I am the one who is claiming that.
<snip snip>
> Dean presumes that by asking me to repeat again and again (while snipping
> and running of course),
I snip personal attacks - and that includes the Dean content.
> he can place the onus on me;
That I have done.
> but I am under no
> obligation to accept the onus of a thread from an established liar and
> hypocrite;
I am not an established liar or hypocrite. You think I am but you are
very wrong. You also think I'm an idiot. My defence is my use of
reasoning in this thread, not appeals to authority, posting my CV or
threats of IQ tests at dawn.
> and I can play this game indefinitely.
Then I will just have to repeat the same things over and over until
you present some kind of evidence for your empty and unfounded
accusations. My argument is water tight whilst yours is full of holes.
I noticed you snipped the passage about the home goal.
> Dean is getting a taste
> of anothe aspect of his "debate" tactics.
What is that exactly. If you are deliberatly doing what you are
accusing me of doing then that is un justifiable.
I repeat - I have done nothing dishonest, have not lied nor
misrepresented you in this thread. This I stand by and you have yet to
rebuke in any form.
> And let's remember that Dean
> also told us that it is stupid of him to respond to someone who thinks
> he's an idiot (as I do) and that it "doesn't matter."
No not thinks, tells me. The wording is important. Please don't
misrepresent me like that again.
> So guess what Dean
> gets to hear now? That's right!
>
> Drop it.
The chances of that are slim Dave. I'm going to see how you get
yourself out of you own trap without the user or personal attack.
> I think Dean is a liar and I've shown him to be a hypocrite.
And this is personal attack that I could snip. I will return to
snipping passages like the one above in future posts to keep them
shorter (I've had some time to fully respond over the holidays but I'm
back to work soon).
> He's as done
> as an overcooked Christmas ham.
We don't have Christmas ham in the UK, we eat Turkey. Atleast those
who are who do eat meat.
> He's just too stupid to realize it.
But if I'm not stupid what does that mean to you.
To sum up once again this whole argument is now about Dave Horn's use
of personal attack. Here are the questions he snipped about this
debate...
What rebuttals and provide me an example where I have snipped one.
Why use personal attack at all?
What was the original argument and why was it not a objective matter?
What is my current argument?
I will repeat these at will if I feel you are avoiding them. Any
reciplical questions I will answer.
Stew Dean
David Horn
[Snip more of Dean's whining, evasion, self-importance, lies and
hypocrisy]
Dean told us yesterday that responding to someone who calls him an idiot,
as I do, is a stupid thing for him to do. He also told us that this
doesn't matter.
He is therefore best served to drop it. He's lost all points, and the
best he can do is perpetuate his lies. He is free to repeat himself if he
wishes. I did not read this reply and will read no more of his lies and
evasions in this thread or on this subject. He lost. He's an idiot, a
liar and a hypocrite.
He's done. He's just too stupid to see it.
stew dean
>
> [Snip more of Dean's whining, evasion, self-importance, lies and
> hypocrisy]
None of the above is true. David you are evading the central argument.
> Dean told us yesterday that responding to someone who calls him an idiot,
> as I do, is a stupid thing for him to do.
The most stupid is the words
> He also told us that this
> doesn't matter.
Mispresenting again. 'This' refers to this whole thread, not that one
argument.
> He is therefore best served to drop it.
Bad conclusion.
> He's lost all points, and the
> best he can do is perpetuate his lies.
First I have told no lies, not one. Secondly you appeared to have lost
your points as when queried you cannot appear to remember what your
points actualy where or what your rebuttals where.
> He is free to repeat himself if he
> wishes.
Do you always talk to someone by using the third person? It is a very
condesending thing to do.
> I did not read this reply and will read no more of his lies and
> evasions in this thread or on this subject. He lost. He's an idiot, a
> liar and a hypocrite.
Again. No lies. Not one. You have never stated what my allegide lies
are. I am also not an idiot.
> He's done. He's just too stupid to see it.
Like I said, you don't win an argument by calling someone an idiot. As
that's all you've appeared to have done (and semi defended you use of
personal attack) then if this was judged as a competition...
Let's just revisit the questions that Dave has evaded and see where
things lie.
To sum up once again this whole argument is now about Dave Horn's use
of personal attack. Here are the questions he snipped...
What rebuttals and provide me an example where I have snipped one.
Why use personal attack at all?
What was the original argument and why was it not a objective matter?
What is my current argument?
I will repeat these at will if I feel you are avoiding them. Any
reciplical questions I will answer.
You could give up if you want or continue to stick your fingers in
your ears and go 'la la - not listening'.
Stew Dean
David Horn
[Snip]
Dean continues to dishonestly claim that he's never snipped rebuttal
points, has never shown hypocrisy and is not a liar. His argument is "did
*not* in response to evidence already provided. Dean assumes that if he
repeats himself incessantly, his lies become the truth, whicn makes him as
bad as any creationist and puts him in an intellectual class with Ed
Conrad. If Dean wants to continue to repeat himself and make himself look
still more foolish, juvenile and arrogant, he is free to do so. I have
demolished his "arguments," refuted what few specific claims he has made
and exposed him, at least, as a hypocrite.
Dean claims that I have never exposes his hypocrisy and never provided
evidence for his shortcomings. Dean, of course, will never honestly
represent what has occurred because he is a liar. Therefore, it cannot be
left to him. Google provides a decent archive and all any interested
reader needs to do is check it and read the associated threads found at
these references:
One must read these threads so that the exchanges are kept in context, but
anyone who does will see Dean's tactics quite clearly. I suspect that the
current thread (which is first on the above list) has continued this long
because Dean is smarting so much from being exposed in all of the previous
threads that he will tenaciously hang on until he gets the last word. The
problem with that is that it's the guy with facts and evidence who gets
the last substantive word and all that we are left with is, well, Dean
trying to get the last word.
Dean has, himself, claimed that responding to someone who calls him an
idiot, as I have done, is the most stupid thing he can do, yet he
continues to do it. Dean has further said that it doesn't matter. But
Dean isn't smart enough to drop it. So be it. I can do this
indefinitely.
stew dean
>
> [Snip]
>
> Dean continues to dishonestly claim that he's never snipped rebuttal
> points, has never shown hypocrisy and is not a liar.
Do you finally have some evidence then? You've made this claim
countless times but never backed it up.
> His argument is "did
> *not* in response to evidence already provided.
You're just claiming you've done something you have not again.
> Dean assumes that if he
> repeats himself incessantly, his lies become the truth, whicn makes him as
> bad as any creationist and puts him in an intellectual class with Ed
> Conrad.
Put it like this. If you ask me 'have you stopped beating your wife' I
reply I have no wife. You reply you a liar. I reply I have no wife. So
if you are correct you would have to prove I have a wife and that I am
indeed beating her. In your case first you have to state your argument
that is not a personal attack (that includes all accusations of
hypocricy, being a liar etc) then you have to show why you are
correct.
<snip usual chest beating stuff>
> Dean claims that I have never exposes his hypocrisy and never provided
> evidence for his shortcomings.
Exactly. You have not.
> Dean, of course, will never honestly
> represent what has occurred because he is a liar.
This is a personal attack. It is not true nor is it any way to reason
with someone. What you have to do is demonstrate why my argument is a
lie. My argument is that you rely on personal attack - as you continue
to demonstrate without pause.
> Therefore, it cannot be
> left to him.
Bad logic again. Personal attack is not a rebuttal. How many times do
I have to repeat this? Now if you want to claim personal attack is an
acceptable reasoning techique I can demonstrate otherwise. Imagine if
you will Galieo facing those who doubt him 'I can demonstate the Earth
goes around the sun' to which opponents reply 'You are a idiot and a
liar'.
My claim is you rely on personal attack as you main means of
'debating'. I also claim all your bad assumptions about myself are
totally incorrect and without justification. You can find past posts
where I have used personal attack - that is without doubt. I have
admitted many times that this is unacceptable behavour and apply this
to myself as much, if not more, than others.
> Google provides a decent archive and all any interested
> reader needs to do is check it and read the associated threads found at
> these references:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3dho7
Your reply has nothing to do with my message.
I wrote
" Loki points are gained when you fool someone into thinking you are
serious when you're not in this group. In the US some appear to think
this is funny."
By this group I mean which ever alternative side of the fence you sit
on. In this group (different meaning) the usual Loki posts ape
creationists. As I stated I don't find them funny or in any way
worthwhile, they are just irritating. This is a personal view that
cannot be corrected in the same way as any subjective view. In his
reply Dave makes the first of many mistakes.
"It's actually a common
instructional method used in secondary school and first-semester
college
speech classes. "
He he confuses Loki points - intended to fool - with the deliberate
exercise of arguing an atlernative view in the form of a debate
intended to develope an sense of perspective. I pointed out this
mistake at the time.
He also incorrectly assumes some 'implications'
"The first implication is that Dean has been taken in by such a
trick." this is incorrect. The second I stated already - I don't find
loki posts funny (this is, of course, subjective). The third Dave
makes another comprehension error (and a basic logical one at that).
Dave wrote..
"Third, apparently the
appreciation for the humor inherent in loki-troll posts (and the
associated responses) is limited to "some in the US," while, by
implication, no one else finds it funny."
Note the use of limited - his own addition. The implication is also
his own fabrication. I wrote 'some in the US find them funny'. No
limitation or implication that no one else find them funny are
contained in that sentence or implied.
So out of three implications two he gets wrong and one is not a
implication but a subjective view already expressed by myself.
This is to do with me stating that someone had posted off topic and
they should take it to a religous group. This is the old hypocricy
argument which is a personal attack and not an argument of any kind.
Again he is wrong.
This is where a post mysterously shows up after some time. I originaly
thought someone had reposted it, this was incorrect. It turns out it
was probably down to some bug in google. I'm still not sure why or how
this happened. What ever the reason it was a post out of time. Dave
doesnt believe me but others did not make the same mistake.
This I stated something was a blank cheuque when it wasnt. You'll
notice I admit the mistake and correct it in the next post in the
thread.
Where are you going with this Dave? So far you have demonstrated we
both make mistakes but I admit mine, often without prompting. Did you
notice how I appologised to Gen2rev for incorrectly calling him a
liar?
This I ignored at the time as I was quite amazed that Dave thought I
was somehow refering to him. I wasnt. This reflects badly on you Dave.
This was a truely awful example of Dave's use of personal attack that
had nothing to do with the original message. I accused someone who
claimed to be a christian of not acting like a christian. I was not
alone in this view. Dave, on the otherhand, just launches in to a
string of unconnected abuse. My reponse sums things up nicely.
And here Dave claims that because I didnt know who Wallace is I must
be a complete idiot. This is truly awful logic. Even if I didnt know
who Darwin was this would not affect my understanding of evolution as
evolution is not Darwinism. As I have often stated to creationists, if
you remove Darwin you do not remove evolution. I hadntread up on
Wallace and still havnt. I presume it has something to do with the
history of who discovered evolution and Wallace predated Darwin. Who
discovered evolution is infinitly less important than how evolution
works.
> One must read these threads so that the exchanges are kept in context, but
> anyone who does will see Dean's tactics quite clearly.
The posts you have posted display only your tactics. It shows me
makeing a few self confessed mistakes and exposes something I don't
know anything about. I make mistakes and don't pretend to know
everything. No news here Dave.
What any of your posts fail to demonstrate is that I am a hypocrite or
a liar. I feel the reflect many times worse on you than on myself and
show you assuming something unconnected to you was a stab at you and
also shows you launching into a totally unprevoked personal attack in
a thread that had nothing to do with you. You are so reliant on
personal attack you sought me out just to carry on your compulsive
behavour.
> I suspect that the
> current thread (which is first on the above list) has continued this long
> because Dean is smarting so much from being exposed in all of the previous
> threads that he will tenaciously hang on until he gets the last word.
Another bad conclusion in a string of bad conclusions. Go back to my
previous debates of this kind and I state why I continue posting. Why
do people play chess. It's not the winning the matters most of the
time but the exercise.
> The
> problem with that is that it's the guy with facts and evidence who gets
> the last substantive word and all that we are left with is, well, Dean
> trying to get the last word.
I'm just trying to make you see sense. The above posts demonstrate you
have no facts or evidence. It shows no rebuttals to anything I have
written and support my now fairly solid view you have a compulsive
disorder.
I have been avoiding using external threads as evidence for this but
here is a great example. Compare the reasoned responces in this thread
with your '2004 is not going to be a good year for the Pennsylvania
Pontificator; and
I have no "mercy rule."'
If you wanted to show no mercy you would have posted up arguments as
well thougt out as others in that thread.
> Dean has, himself, claimed that responding to someone who calls him an
> idiot, as I have done, is the most stupid thing he can do, yet he
> continues to do it.
Exactly. I think there may have been an about in there as well as I've
done some dumber things before - that includes using personal attack
in this group.
> Dean has further said that it doesn't matter.
This thread doesnt matter. Again beware how you use 'it'. The
implication is incorrect in your usage above.
> But Dean isn't smart enough to drop it. So be it. I can do this
> indefinitely.
Good - so we can follow this through to some kind of conclusion or
until someone complains. At the moment this is costing me only time
but I'm enjoying this as a pshyocolgy experiment. I'm looking to see
how you get out of your logical dead end.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.12.29....@cox.net>...
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:28:25 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> Dean continues to dishonestly claim that he's never snipped rebuttal
>> points, has never shown hypocrisy and is not a liar.
>
> Do you finally have some evidence then? You've made this claim
> countless times but never backed it up.
[Snip]
I will take each of Dean's responses and show just why he is both a
hypocrite and a liar. The hypocrite part will be easier to prove. The
liar part is tougher because intent is a very big part of whether or not a
person is a liar. It is possible that Dean simply can't read very well for
comprehension--or he could just be stupid.
I will break these up into parts, selected at my convenience based on the
time that I have for this sort of thing.
>> His argument is "did *not* in response to evidence already
>> provided.
>
> You're just claiming you've done something you have not again.
Well, in fact, we will see below that I *have* provided evidence; and Dean's
response was and is essentially a form of "did not."
>> http://tinyurl.com/3etsm
>
> This is to do with me stating that someone had posted off topic and
> they should take it to a religous group. This is the old hypocricy
> argument which is a personal attack and not an argument of any kind.
> Again he is wrong.
Let's consider what was said above before we got to the link and the Dean's
response. Dean claimed that I have never provided evidence for hypocrisy.
The thread shows *clearly* that Dean is a hypocrite. Dean replies to tell
us that my criticism of him was nothing more than a "personal attack" and
that I was wrong. He never tells us *why* I was wrong and, if one looks a
the actual exchanges as shown in the thead, he never tells us there,
either. What he did try to do was misdirect the issue away from his
obvious hypocrisy into the more general issue of off-topic posting, which
is something that is quite common and which was *not* the point of my
criticisms. As I wrote at the time, Dean chastized another person for
posting off-topic, but Dean posts off-topic often, if not as a matter of
routine. It is, therefore, the height of hypocrisy to post off-topic
material and then insist that another post his off-topic article elsewhere.
That's such a simple and obvious thing and yet Dean not only dodged it
consistently, he snipped away the actual criticism several times while
attempting to dodge the issue--and snippage of pertinent material is
something else Dean has done, claims I haven't evidenced, and yet appears
in the thread to which the link above direct us.
To summarize on this point:
1. Dean claimed that I have never provided evidence of his hypocrisy.
2. The link above provides that evidence in a thread.
A. Dean chided another party for posting off-topic material
B. Dean posts off-topic on a fairly regular basis.
3. Part of my criticism is that Dean responded with what is nothing more
than a "did not," that is, he simply denies that he was being a hypocrite.
Dean offered no mitigation at the time or since the exchange to show that
what he did was *not* a hypocritical action.
4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
*why*. I have said that Dean is a hypocrite and provided the "why" as well
as evidence. Dean dodged that evidence, provided a rather pathetic
"summary" of the thread as we see above, and has no response but to deny.
Dean *is* a hypocrite. The thread above provides only a single example.
Many others are available and will be dealt with in detail in the coming
days.
Dean *is* a liar. By deliberately avoiding specifics of the discussions and
misdirecting them, he demonstrates intent to deceive. That, too, will
become clearer as I dissect each of Dean's recent responses in this thread.
Whether Dean is an idiot or not will depend on the perspective of the
reader.
David Horn
[Snip]
>> >> In most cases, these snippages include material that
>> >> rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues.
>> >
>> > But I don't do that.
>>
>> Another bare-faced lie, as anyone who has watched Dean in action can see.
>
> Prove it's a lie. Provide and example.
We're going to take a minute and explore this subject. The fact is that
Dean is in the habit of snipping and removing things that rebut or refute
his claims, and often he is left with repeating those claims while the
other party winds up repeating himself. Dean will often then continue to
remove rebuttal material and refuse to address it, blindly repeating his
claims in a fashion that is almost Conrad-like in its bot-like quality.
There are, in fact, several examples of this in this very thread.
I direct the attention of the readers to the following article by David
Sienkiewicz:
David wrote a fairly lengthy article that included direct rebuttal to many
things Dean had claimed. For example, David asked Dean if Dean's "fuck
off, you moron," direct at David, meant that Dean lost that argument. If
Dean's standards are to be applied to Dean, himself, that is precisely what
that means. David also responded to Dean's allusion that I do not post
topically by referencing five recent articles of mine. In response to
Dean's declaration that this is not a debate, David pointed out quite
rightly that this is a debate, that is, an exchange of parties holding and
expressing different viewpoints on an issue. Then Dean pretended to wonder
if my presence in talk.origins wasn't "one long Loki" that included
"thousands of messages...just to catch me out." David responded by
pointing out what an arrogant presumption that was.
These are all substantive points rendered in rebuttal to Dean's direct
statements. So while Dean may try to excuse his evasions by pretending
that he simply snips away "tangents," the facts are otherwise. With that
in mind, consider Dean's response as found here:
Note that Dean snipped away the comments David had rendered in rebuttal to
Dean's statements--something Dean says he does not do. Dean was corrected
on several points and snipped them away.
Here's another example. Here is another of David's articles:
In this article, David makes several rebuttal points to some of Dean's
statements. Most of them are substantive, but if we view Dean's response
here:
We see that Dean only deals with the first point David addresses, that of
the addressing of another person by his last name. David suggested that
Dean relax and that it is common for parties to address one-another by last
name and that this occurs in lots of places, including his country club.
In response to the fact that people address one-another by last name in
many places and it's considered acceptable, Dean replied, "and this is not
one of them." He never explained *why* that is the case, so all he did was
use a variation of "is *not*." Dean then decided to be offended by David's
suggestion that he relax on the issue, and he snipped the remainder of
David's comments "out of pure contempt," declaring it to be "drivel."
Dean, of course, would never dream of using personal attack, would he? So
was his comment to David about "pure contempt" some sort of empirically
supportable, emotionally-neutral conclusion? Of course not. Declaring
David's comments to be "drivel," especially without rebutting them and
showing *why* they are "drivel," is no less personal attack than if I refer
to Dean as an idiot. So what we see here is yet another example of Dean's
hypocrisy.
Now if we return to this idea that Dean does not snip rebuttal points, well,
we see the same thing that we saw with the first example. The only
difference is that, this time, Dean told us he snipped. David made several
substantive observations about this thread, all in response to Dean's
comments, and Dean removed them from the context and refused to address
them. Remember--he declared them to be "drivel."
The first point David made that was not addressed was what is quickly
becoming a notorious tendency on the part of Dean to forget (conveniently,
I suspect) that things have been explained in the past. This was with
respect to the "Skippy" thing that is going on between the two of them.
This proceeds nicely to the second point, that is, that if something is
explained once, it need not be explained again. Dean's conclusion will be
the same because he will not accept his errors or his misinterpretations.
I wrote that Dean is welcome to his conclusions. Dean replied that his
conclusions would be "anyones [sic] conclusions" and David responded by
saying that, in fact, they were not necessarily "anyones conclusions" if
they are not *his* conclusions. I won't push this point further, since
that kind of language is almost certain to confuse Dean very quickly. The
point is that David, as a reader, stated that he disagreed with Dean's
conclusions and so it was incorrect for Dean to presume that *his*
conclusions would be shared by "anyone."
Dean then complains that I snip out material--an interesting complaint in
light of his own dishonest snippages as one of the subjects of this
article. David pointed out that, as a reader of the exchanges, he saw the
pertinent explanations and that Dean ignores them, only to demand
explanation "three or four messages later."
There is then a rather lengthy exchange in which Dean brings up his
confusion over the "use of" versus "rely upon" issue. The fact is that
Dean *did* get that confused and David provided the specific quoted
material from that exchange (Dean has since decided that the issue is about
something else rather than is original claim that it was "ironic," which is
an example of Dean's shifting of goalposts that I will discuss in more
detail later.). David quoted the exchange and demonstrated that Dean got
it wrong.
David then responded to Dean's comments about personal attack and suggested
that Dean's own use of personal attack weren't always as he represents
them, and then he suggested that the issue has to include the persons whom
are the objects of attack (and this *is* pertinent). David then points out
that other personalities in the group use personal attack but Dean is
ignoring them, almost certainly because Dean doesn't care so much about
personal attack in general (even though that is what he appears to be
trying to claim) but the fact that *he* has been the object of attack.
Let's remember that Dean has told us that there is no evidence that he snips
rebuttal material and that no evidence has been presented in the past.
Let's remember that I have been challenged to provide that evidence
(again). Above, we see that evidence. Elsewhere, Dean claims he snipped
rebuttal material (specifically in his debate with Gen2rev) because that
material was tangential to the argument. That is a lie. Rebuttal material
snipped by Dean is almost always material that has been written and entered
into the group in rebuttal to Dean's comments.
Dean is a stupid person--hypocritical and dishonest. But he views himself
as some sort of intellect and "debate wunderkind," to use David's phrase.
The fact is that he uses evasion, assertion, pompous declarations ("this
thread is now about...") and arrogance to get by. The problem is that he's
got nothing to back it up.
David Sienkiewicz
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
> > > > >
> > > > > <usual stuff snipped>
> > > >
> > > > < snip >
> > > >
> > > > Skippy, you're getting a mudhole stomped into you.
> > >
> > > Hello David.
> > >
> > > I've no idea what you mean.
> >
> > I mean you've lost this argument, Skippy.
>
> How exactly is that David? And what does skippy mean again?
I've already explained that, Skippy. I suggest you do some research.
I am curious, however, and I see that it's come up in Dave's
responses, so I won't press the issue.
Just how is it that you can claim that you don't snip things that are
said in rebuttal to you or that refute you; and then you do it in this
part of the thread?
Are you that confused?
Skippy, I pointed out several places where I found you to be wrong.
None of those things were tangents. As Dave has pointed out, they are
direct responses to things you said.
So on the one hand, you tell us that you don't snip away this kind of
thing.
On the other hand, you not only did that in the message that I am
respond to now, you failed to note the snip.
Would you like to know why you've lost the argument, Skippy?
Really?
Well, it's precisely because you do things you say you didn't or don't
do; and that's only in addition to all of the things that have been
exposed as errors that you have made.
When you can't get ANYTHING right, Skippy, or you get it right after
someone else has explained it - such as the thing about Lokis being
parodies - THAT, quicker than anything, will lose you the argument.
Personal attack notwithstanding, Skippy.
I was going to go ahead and enter lengthy and substantive rebuttals;
but Dave is well on his way to a complete evisceration of you, so I'll
leave you to his tender mercies - such as they are.
I think you'll find my approach preferable even though, as I said, I
give you less credit than he does. He thinks you've figured it out
and you're being deliberately evasive through the use of obfuscation
and misdirection.
I think you're just dumb and unable to keep up with even the simplest
points.
Skippy, if you had any sense - and you don't - you'd drop out for a
while and let this blow over. Actually, if you had any sense, you
would disappear for good. Something tells me talk.origins is never
going to be the same for you.
One thing is certain: It's going to be interesting to watch.
You have a nice day, Skippy. I think you're going to need it.
David Sienkiewicz
> stew dean wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> >> In most cases, these snippages include material that
> >> >> rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues.
> >> >
> >> > But I don't do that.
> >>
> >> Another bare-faced lie, as anyone who has watched Dean in action can see.
> >
> > Prove it's a lie. Provide and example.
>
> We're going to take a minute and explore this subject.
< snip >
Well challenged, Dave, but if my recommendation means anything, don't
drag this out too long. If you do, you'll be just as bad as Skippy -
worse, in fact, because you are clearly way over his head and it would
be like challenging a legless man to an ass-kicking contest.
Remember that Skippy likens what goes on in talk.origins to that of
debates and discussions that occur in the local pub or, in Skippy's
case, certainly among those who pass the pipe around. Don't expect
him to follow too closely or too much; and do allow that he may not be
lying. He has always had a problem following arguments that have too
many big words or that go longer than a few sentences.
And don't let his arrogance get to you. In case you haven't noticed,
the normal contingent of the self-righteous in this group haven't had
anything to say. Let that be an indicator that Skippy doesn't have
much in the way or moral support from the howlers. He's cut off a few
toes in his day.
Having said that, have fun!
HDS
David Sienkiewicz
> stew dean wrote:
> > David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<R6IBb.6410$US3.3089@okepread03>...
> >
> >>It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
> >
> >
>
> As usual, Dean snipped every point made and every rebuttal and
> refutation to his claims, his misdirections, his misunderstandings and
> his ego-centric musings. And, as usual, Dean decides that his opponent
> in the exchange cannot "be sensible for a change." Yes, the discussion
> is over, but that is because Dean had nowhere else to go. He loses.
> Again.
I think we should put an underscore here, if only because Skippy
insists that doesn't do this sort of thing and has insisted further
down the thread that evidence be provided.
Skippy, the evidence is right here.
You post using Google, Skippy, just as I do, and so we can both see
the thread. Dave's response here is to a two-sentence response to his
lengthy refutation and rebuttal of you in the post immediately
previous in this thread.
Yet YOU tell us that you don't do that sort of thing and demand
evidence.
My explanation is that your memory is short, you have trouble with
details or logical sequences of events, and that you can't keep up.
Dave's explanation is that you are lying.
Which is it, Skippy? "I don't snip rebuttals" will not do as a reply.
We can see right here that you did and that you do.
Which is it, Skippy?
stew dean
> stew dean wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> >> >> In most cases, these snippages include material that
> >> >> rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues.
> >> >
> >> > But I don't do that.
> >>
> >> Another bare-faced lie, as anyone who has watched Dean in action can see.
> >
> > Prove it's a lie. Provide and example.
>
> We're going to take a minute and explore this subject.
The royal we I take it.
> The fact is that
> Dean is in the habit of snipping and removing things that rebut or refute
> his claims, and often he is left with repeating those claims while the
> other party winds up repeating himself.
This is not a fact. It's worth noting that you are now doing exactly
what you accuse I do, but I do not. Notice that in the last few
messages I have snipped next to nothing and marked what I snipped just
to prevent you avoiding issues.
> Dean will often then continue to
> remove rebuttal material and refuse to address it, blindly repeating his
> claims in a fashion that is almost Conrad-like in its bot-like quality.
Again - this is not true. I see examples. Lets see if you've got even
close, I strongly doubt it.
> There are, in fact, several examples of this in this very thread.
There are not I can tell you now. Remember I say that I have not
snipped any content deliberatly in such a way to misrepresent you. I
did snip David's post simply to cut the thread short. I'm not getting
into a argument with him - as you'll notice.
>
> I direct the attention of the readers to the following article by David
> Sienkiewicz:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2sbkj
>
> David wrote a fairly lengthy article that included direct rebuttal to many
> things Dean had claimed.
Frankly once he used skippy he lost his argument. I snipped the rest
without reading it so any rebuttals you claim are lost.
> For example, David asked Dean if Dean's "fuck
> off, you moron," direct at David, meant that Dean lost that argument.
That would be a yes. In that case there was no argument. I was
attempting to try some subtle pshycology with Ed Conrad as a last
attempt. David hasnt got a clue about physycology so sabotaged the
whole thing out of sheer bloody mindedness. The level of is lack of
perception I found staggering.
> If
> Dean's standards are to be applied to Dean, himself, that is precisely what
> that means.
Please start paying attention - I have stated the 'yes' several times
in this thread.
> David also responded to Dean's allusion that I do not post
> topically by referencing five recent articles of mine.
Five? That many. Let me have a quick look. Let's see if you managed to
avoid personal attack in all of these messages.....
First message is a sarcastic comment.
Second one starts
"The evolution of species?" Would this self-styled "doctor" who seems
to
be afraid to talk about the source of his "doctorate" actually be
willing
to discuss actual speciation events?"
The on topic content is quoted. We've seen that before. It is on topic
but not free of your usual reliance.
Third - "Pagano got caught in a lie; and he compounds the lie
further below." There is some potentialy good on topic content here
but it's spoilt by a large mount of unteathered vitriol
Forth - starts with a personal attack..
"Pagano has no business criticizing the attempt by others to discuss.
Would that Pagano was as honorable in his approach to this newsgroup
as
Joe."
You continue in the same style, call him a liar, use appeals to
authority etc. This is not looking good at all for you Dave. Remember
these are posts picked by David who is supposed to be on your side and
defending you.
Fifth - Yep starts with a personal attack.
So there you go. My theory remains much the same. You are dependent
and rely upon personal attack. Now note I have never claimed you are
an idiot and don't know something about evolution.
My argument is that you feel personal attack is an accepted means of
refuting. It's not - it makes you look bad and in debating it would
undermine any points you make. To be more strict - if you use personal
attack you loose the debate.
> In response to
> Dean's declaration that this is not a debate, David pointed out quite
> rightly that this is a debate, that is, an exchange of parties holding and
> expressing different viewpoints on an issue.
This is not a debate. David makes the same mistake as yourself. There
is a topic to a debate that is debated. You currently lack any
argument other than 'get Dean'. As my arguement is you use of personal
attack is counter productive and is not valid you have no topic to
debate.
The original topic appears to be wether I find loki posts funny -
which is like debating if I like red wine or not. I either do or don't
- it's a subjective matter you cannot debate.
> Then Dean pretended to wonder..
Pretend? Personal attack noted, yet again.
.. if my presence in talk.origins wasn't "one long Loki" that included
> "thousands of messages...just to catch me out." David responded by
> pointing out what an arrogant presumption that was.
You've snipped the context here. It appears the David misses is as
well.
> These are all substantive points rendered in rebuttal to Dean's direct
> statements.
Unfortunatly they don't come close. Prevously I have stated the vast
majority of you posts are off topic. This remains true. Secondly I
stated that you rely on personal attack. This also remains
increasingly true and is supported by the posts that David provided.
Remember previously I used one of his posts to allow you and others to
compare your posting style to the reasoned and eliqent posting styles
of others.
> So while Dean may try to excuse his evasions by pretending
> that he simply snips away "tangents," the facts are otherwise.
Again - I did not pretend. This is not true. This is what I did.
Discussions often get very off the central thread - as you so clearly
demonstrate.
> With that
> in mind, consider Dean's response as found here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2o877
>
> Note that Dean snipped away the comments David had rendered in rebuttal to
> Dean's statements--something Dean says he does not do. Dean was corrected
> on several points and snipped them away.
David lost the argument by using Skippy.
> Here's another example. Here is another of David's articles:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3y96t
My responce ... "Rest of your drivel
snipped out of pure contempt."
It is pure drivel and free of any objective content. I note he claims
you are not reliant on personal attack yet he also is.
> In this article, David makes several rebuttal points to some of Dean's
> statements. Most of them are substantive, but if we view Dean's response
> here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3fsld
Exactly.
<snip stuff to get to the point>
> Declaring
> David's comments to be "drivel," especially without rebutting them and
> showing *why* they are "drivel," is no less personal attack than if I refer
> to Dean as an idiot. So what we see here is yet another example of Dean's
> hypocrisy.
I stand by this. Why? Because it was drivel. It was content free chest
beating. I am attacking the arguement not David. I did not call David
an idiot. I called what he wrote as drivel, which I felt it was. Much
of what you write is also drivel.
False accusations are again noted and refuted.
> Now if we return to this idea that Dean does not snip rebuttal points, well,
> we see the same thing that we saw with the first example.
No we don't. This, incidently counts as personal attack. I'm going to
scan read the rest and snip any repeated points. Again let me state.
If someone insults me I am justified to snip any content as I feel
they have lost the debate. If they stick to an arguement that is not
about personal attack then it would be wrong from me to misrepresent
them. I have snipped branches of an argument previously but this is
because of time constraints and I thought they got away from the
central arguement - these where always marked.
I snipped the usual subjective accusations to get to the repeated
error Dave makes.
> There is then a rather lengthy exchange in which Dean brings up his
> confusion over the "use of" versus "rely upon" issue.
Dave, I have covered this in such a way as to remove any doubt. There
was no confusion on my part. None at all.
> The fact is...
It is not a fact because you say it is.
> that
> Dean *did* get that confused and David provided the specific quoted
> material from that exchange (Dean has since decided that the issue is about
> something else rather than is original claim that it was "ironic," which is
> an example of Dean's shifting of goalposts that I will discuss in more
> detail later.). David quoted the exchange and demonstrated that Dean got
> it wrong.
Sorry - but without a reference I can only think that you and David
got it wrong.
> David then responded...
I snipped David's post out of contempt due to his use of personal
attack. The rest has been covered several times. None of theis snipped
material is correct and all of it is a personal attack. Again there is
the usual accusation of lying.
<snip personal attack volley at end>
Once again you have demonstrated you are reliant on personal attack.
This whole post is a personal attack and you have attempted to add
David's personal attacks to yours. Two wrongs don't make a right.
As long as you keep getting things wrong and making badly built straw
men I will keep on telling you you are wrong and lack evidence.
Meanwhile my central points keep on being supported.
Now let's go back to those questions you keep on avoiding.
To sum up once again this whole argument is now about Dave Horn's use
of personal attack. Here are the questions he snipped (three times I
think so far)...
What rebuttals? Provide me an example where I have snipped one.
Why use personal attack at all?
What was the original argument and why was it not a objective matter?
What is my current argument?
Next post I will promise to remove all personal attack in my responce
to demonstrate your reliance, just as I did previously so please
attempt a post without it.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<1qrIb.5724$6l1.5295@okepread03>...
>> stew dean wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> >> >> In most cases, these snippages include material that
>> >> >> rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues.
>> >> >
>> >> > But I don't do that.
>> >>
>> >> Another bare-faced lie, as anyone who has watched Dean in action can see.
>> >
>> > Prove it's a lie. Provide and example.
>>
>> We're going to take a minute and explore this subject.
>
> The royal we I take it.
The only person in this thread who has any connection to royalty--presumed
or otherwise--is Dean.
>> The fact is that
>> Dean is in the habit of snipping and removing things that rebut or refute
>> his claims, and often he is left with repeating those claims while the
>> other party winds up repeating himself.
>
> This is not a fact.
So Dean is back to "is *not*" arguments. We have already seen that it
*is* a fact.
[Snip more denial and repetition]
>> There are, in fact, several examples of this in this very thread.
>
> There are not I can tell you now. Remember I say that I have not
> snipped any content deliberatly in such a way to misrepresent you. I
> did snip David's post simply to cut the thread short. I'm not getting
> into a argument with him - as you'll notice.
So now we have excuses. Dean *does* snip away content, but it is to "cut
the thread short" or avoid an argument. See how Dean's story changes?
The fact is that Dean snipped away substantive commentary that was *in
direct rebuttal* to things Dean had claimed. It's that simple. But
because Dean is a liar, he must avoid that and try to obfuscate.
>> I direct the attention of the readers to the following article by David
>> Sienkiewicz:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2sbkj
>>
>> David wrote a fairly lengthy article that included direct rebuttal to many
>> things Dean had claimed.
>
> Frankly once he used skippy he lost his argument.
Well, no, David's arguments did not hinge on Dean's aversion to the
nickname he has been given any more than my substantial points disappear
because of the use of personal attack. Evidence remains evidence, and
rebuttal material is still rebuttal material until rebutted in and of
itself.
I will be getting further into this idea that the use of specific
nicknames and "personal attack" mean that the argument is lost. I have
specific evidence that Dean has used personal attack quite frequently and
this does remind me of yet another of Dean's hypocritical actions, that
is, that he tells us that the use of personal attack means we lose an
argument, but it apparently doesn't apply to him. I have several articles
I will cite in which Dean uses very vitriolic language; but I have already
asked if Dean's standards apply to him and he seems very reluctant to deal
with that question.
> I snipped the rest
> without reading it so any rebuttals you claim are lost.
Of course, that's nonsense since David's post is in Google. If Dean *can*
rebut it, he should. I submit that Dean cannot rebut it because
everything that David said was true; and it was true in David's
distinctive, no-nonsense style, which gives Dean very little room for
evasion.
>> For example, David asked Dean if Dean's "fuck
>> off, you moron," direct at David, meant that Dean lost that argument.
>
> That would be a yes. In that case there was no argument. I was
> attempting to try some subtle pshycology with Ed Conrad as a last
> attempt. David hasnt got a clue about physycology so sabotaged the
> whole thing out of sheer bloody mindedness. The level of is lack of
> perception I found staggering.
So now we have more _ad hominem_ from Dean as well as an apparent
admission, but Dean has tried to confuse the issue again. Dean attacks
David as not having a clue about psychology (I'll bet that David can at
least *spell* it correctly) but it wasn't the argument with *David* that
was lost, but the argument with Conrad. Is that what Dean is trying to
say? If so, it is not what was asked. Dean called David a "moron" and
told him to "fuck off."
The referenced article is here: http://tinyurl.com/3y5u9
Dean seems to be admitting that he lost the argument, but if we look
closely, we will see that he is *not* admitting that he lost the argument
*with* David, but that the argument he was trying to present with respect
to Conrad's claims was lost; and it was not lost due to Dean's ineptness
and dishonesty with respect to his approach, but because David presumably
sabotaged it. Readers are invited to check the article and the associated
thread and see for themselves. Dean is admitting nothing here.
>> If Dean's standards are to be applied to Dean, himself, that is precisely what
>> that means.
>
> Please start paying attention - I have stated the 'yes' several times
> in this thread.
Dean never makes any "yes" answers to specific examples. But let's see if
he can do that.
In an article on a subject near and dear to Dean's heart--hatred of the
United States and especially the sitting president, Dean went off on a
tear and got into a rather heated argument with another person that
included considerable invective. See http://tinyurl.com/2ef7a
Here are some of Dean's comments:
"Look moron - you want to take out the man - fine do that. On the other
hand if you want to justify carpet bombing like last time you can just
fuck of you shit for brains..."
"You on the other hand appear to like the concept of death and suffering - you
twisted fuck."
"Hell - do your own poll moron."
Dean says that as soon as you use personal attack, you lose the argument.
Will Dean apply that standard to himself and say that he lost the argument
referenced above? Did all of the things he might presume are facts and
evidence in that argument disappear because he decided to throw a tantrum
on top of it?
In response to the idiot who calls himself "Roadrunner," Dean wrote this:
"And you still didnt answer the question. You're a bloody moron." (Ref.,
http://tinyurl.com/2bnvd) Will Dean tell us that he lost an argument to
"Roadrunner?"
With respect to Ed Conrad, and in another episode of his hypocrisy, Dean
wrote this in a response to Conrad:
"(Argh - I'm doing it again - trying to reason with a moron)." (See:
http://tinyurl.com/3dcc8)
Is Dean going to tell us that he lost an argument to Ed Conrad?
This can go pretty far and there are *lots* of examples. Two things are
illustrated. First is Dean's hypocrisy in several ways (one is in
responding to Conrad while insisting that others not do that). The other
is in the selective application of his "rule."
>> David also responded to Dean's allusion that I do not post
>> topically by referencing five recent articles of mine.
>
> Five? That many. Let me have a quick look. Let's see if you managed to
> avoid personal attack in all of these messages.....
Let's note that Dean did not do the readers the courtesy of providing the
references, so I'll do that. Let's also note that David's point in
response to Dean was *topicality*, not "personal attack." Dean has once
again tried to dishonestly shift the goalposts associated with this
specific point.
> First message is a sarcastic comment.
This would be http://tinyurl.com/yqv6g. In that one, part of the quoted
material is my previous commentary in which I challenge "Dr" Jason
Gastrich with a specific article on the subject of cichlid speciation. I
provided a reference and the abstract. There was a sacastic comment added
to which I responded with mild sarcasm of my own, but the point is that
the message was topical.
> Second one starts
>
> "The evolution of species?" Would this self-styled "doctor" who seems
> to be afraid to talk about the source of his "doctorate" actually be
> willing to discuss actual speciation events?"
>
> The on topic content is quoted. We've seen that before. It is on topic
> but not free of your usual reliance.
Dean's claim is that there was "reliance," no doubt, on personal attack as
my "usual reliance." In fact, what was relied upon was the substance of
the article that I cited and the abstract that I provided. This is part
of the same challenge to "Dr" Gastrich. Perhaps Dean has some sympathy
for Gastrich and his "honorary" doctorate, particularly after taking a
beating over his "degree involving psychology." Gastrich misrepresents
his education and so does Dean, so perhaps that's some automatic sympathy
there. Regardless, again, the *point* of David's reference is that the
article is topical, which rebuts Dean's implication that I do not post
topical material ever.
> Third - "Pagano got caught in a lie; and he compounds the lie
> further below." There is some potentialy good on topic content here
> but it's spoilt by a large mount of unteathered vitriol
Yet again, we see Dean dodging the point of the references, that is, that
they offer that there is topical material. The article in question is a
response to Pagano who, in my view, is an established and unrepentent
liar; and I make no apologies for that. If Dean feels that my facts and
evidence are "spoilt" by "large amounts of unteathered vitriol," he is
free to have that opinion. That, too, has been rebutted.
> Forth - starts with a personal attack..
>
> "Pagano has no business criticizing the attempt by others to discuss.
> Would that Pagano was as honorable in his approach to this newsgroup
> as Joe."
>
> You continue in the same style, call him a liar, use appeals to
> authority etc. This is not looking good at all for you Dave. Remember
> these are posts picked by David who is supposed to be on your side and
> defending you.
This will be http://tinyurl.com/2bvfl
These are posts picked in rebuttal to Dean's implication that I do not
post topically. Again, I make no apology for the manner in which I
address Pagano or his claims. Dean again misdirects the point so that he
can cover the fact that his implication was refuted. Yes, I use personal
attack, but hey, I've never denied that. And, of course, I don't post
with a concern for what "looks good" to the likes of a hypocrite and a
liar like Dean.
> Fifth - Yep starts with a personal attack.
Notice Dean doesn't quote this time. Let's take a look.
Dean says this post starts with a personal attack. Here's how that post
starts:
[Begin reposted segment]
For the previous message in this series, which includes other references,
see msg ID c2%Bb.2$z74.0@okepread03
Pagano's original message with his seven "facts:"
e9isrv49k1b8rihuk...@4ax.com
The statement that prompted this series:
"Secularists should be hedging their bets because in our
life times they will be in the minority. The facts will
overtake their world views."
Let's keep in mind that, in Pagano's world, "secularists" are scientists.
My challenge:
"One wonders if Pagano will be good enough to discuss
some of the 'facts' that he presumes will 'overtake'
the 'world views' of those nasty 'secularists' -- particularly
the 'credentialed secularists.'"
So far, there has been no discussion, and it took considerable prompting
to get Pagano to list his "facts." Pagano now seems to have retreated
from the group yet again and, in the past, I usually dropped these kinds
of things if Pagano wasn't actively participating; but as I am convinced
he is reading, I will continue to rebut and refute his "facts."
[End reposted segment]
If there's personal attack in there, it's so mild as to be almost
unnoticable, but it's something Dean emphasizes, even though it wasn't
even *Dean*'s implied point (that I don't post topically). David's point
in providing the references was that I do post topically. Dean's
implication is refuted.
> So there you go. My theory remains much the same. You are dependent
> and rely upon personal attack. Now note I have never claimed you are
> an idiot and don't know something about evolution.
Dean's "theory" will remain the same no matter what he is told. He
doesn't care about facts or evidence, after all. But though I use
personal attack and have never denied it, I do not rely on it. I rely on
facts and evidence and personal attack comes if my conclusions based on
the actions of the other person tell me it's warranted. Dean's "theory"
collapses on a simple point: I use *evidence*. All of my arguments taken
in context require facts and evidence. I did not decide out of the blue
that Dean is a hypocrite and then seek out evidence. The evidence was
there *first* (so far, Dean seems to be ignoring the reposting of that
evidence, but this is a long message and he may say something below). I
came to the conclusion that Dean is a hypocrite based on observation of
empirical evidence found in this newsgroup. Dean didn't like that, views
it as personal attack, and has tried to divert attention from his own
shortcomings in this regard. That's fine. I can deal with that. But
it's clear that Dean's refusal to be up front about his faults is the
reason this thread has dragged on as long as it has.
[Snip redundant assertions]
>> In response to Dean's declaration that this is not a debate,
>> David pointed out quite rightly that this is a debate, that
>> is, an exchange of parties holding and expressing different
>> viewpoints on an issue.
>
> This is not a debate. David makes the same mistake as yourself. There
> is a topic to a debate that is debated. You currently lack any
> argument other than 'get Dean'. As my arguement is you use of personal
> attack is counter productive and is not valid you have no topic to
> debate.
There are several reasons why this is wrong. First, of course, is Dean's
argument by denial, in other words, "is *not*." The fact is that David is
right and this is a debate. There are opposing viewpoints on issues being
expressed and that is the definition of debate. Consequently, we do have
"a topic to a debate that is debated." By Dean's own, rather peculiarly
worded definition, this is a debate. Of course, my arguments are far more
detailed and empirical than "get Dean." I have provided evidence of
Dean's hypocrisy and his duplicity. I have shown that Dean is not honest
with the readers, with me, and probably is not even honest with himself.
I have shown that he snips away material even though he claims he doesn't.
I have shown that he misdirects (we see that again above with David's five
references) when he is rebutted on a point. We see that he gets confused
on simple issues (was it really "ironic" when I said I don't "rely" on
personal attack and Dean said it was because I said I don't *use* personal
attack?). Dean's character and intellectual flaws are manifested in this
thread and in several others.
There is a topic to this debate -- several, in fact. This is a debate.
Dean will not get away with "is *not*."
> The original topic appears to be wether I find loki posts funny -
More accurately, the original topic was the definition of Loki posts.
> which is like debating if I like red wine or not. I either do or don't
> - it's a subjective matter you cannot debate.
Which is why it really wasn't the subject of debate. Yes, I criticized
Dean mildly for thinking they weren't funny; but most of my criticism of
Dean was for his inability to understand their utility and his arrogant
presumptions, indicated by his own words, that only a few people in the US
found them funny. If one looks back in the thread, that's where most of
the early challenges occurred, as well as my point that a form of debate
training includes having a student take on a subject and defend it even
though he or she doesn't necessarily agree with the viewpoint that is
assigned. Dean didn't understand that and still doesn't understand it.
>> Then Dean pretended to wonder..
>
> Pretend? Personal attack noted, yet again.
If Dean actually wondered what follows, he's more arrogant than I could
ever imagine.
>> .. if my presence in talk.origins wasn't "one long Loki" that included
>> "thousands of messages...just to catch me out." David responded by
>> pointing out what an arrogant presumption that was.
>
> You've snipped the context here. It appears the David misses is as
> well.
Notice that Dean does not provide the context, so I will do that for him:
David wrote:
> > Now if you do what I think you will do, you'll persist.
To which Dean responded:
> Are you saying this is one long Loki? That's just incredible if it is.
> To post thousands of messages in the same style just to catch me out,
> and then do it with no humour.
Now, what is Dean saying here if *not* that he seemed to think I would
post thousands of messages just to "catch" him "out?"
David responded with:
"No one is claiming such a thing, Skippy. No one posts 'thousands of
messages' with any intent with regard to YOU."
I interpreted this the same way that David did, yet Dean did not bother to
disabuse either of us of the impression that had been given. There has
been no issue of context here. Dean felt he needed to respond to this,
but his response is effectively a non-response. He says nothing other
than a vague comment about context. But there is no issue of context.
The representation is accurate, and it is what Dean wrote and what David
said in response. Dean snipped it away and did not reply to it. If there
was a problem with context, Dean should have said so then. Saying so now
is simply another example of Dean's inherent dishonesty when his hand is
caught in the cookie jar.
>> These are all substantive points rendered in rebuttal to Dean's direct
>> statements.
>
> Unfortunatly they don't come close.
In fact, they are true to the mark. These are all rebuttals to statements
Dean made; and Dean snipped them. Let's remember that Dean claims that he
doesn't do this.
> Prevously I have stated the vast majority of you posts are off
> topic. This remains true.
What is true is that Dean's evaluation of the topicality of my posts has
changed a few times. The percentage of topical posting by me is somehow
tied to Dean's moods, if his comments on the subject are any indication.
But if we're coming back to this point, I can probably go through and
search and find lots of topical posts going back years. It would take a
while, but I suspect that my ratio of topical to off-topic posts is
pretty close to normal.
The fact is that Dean has not done a reasonable survey. He says his
declaration is "true" because it is a Dean declaration. Until he does an
actual survey and shows his results, it's not "true." It's an assertion.
> Secondly I stated that you rely on personal attack. This also remains
> increasingly true and is supported by the posts that David provided.
The posts that David provided were intended to address the implication
that I never post on-topic. I do not rely on personal attack; but I use
it and make no apologies for that. The only reason that Dean cares about
that at all is because he has become a target--and rightfully so. He will
continue to be a target.
> Remember previously I used one of his posts to allow you and others to
> compare your posting style to the reasoned and eliqent posting styles
> of others.
Dean would probably prefer that I not take his posts and compare them to
the "eliqent" (whatever *that* is) styles of others. Dean's yammerings
are barely legible.
>> So while Dean may try to excuse his evasions by pretending
>> that he simply snips away "tangents," the facts are otherwise.
>
> Again - I did not pretend. This is not true. This is what I did.
> Discussions often get very off the central thread - as you so clearly
> demonstrate.
No, once again it must be pointed out that if threads get off on tangents,
it is Dean who takes them there. I stress that Dean snips away material
that is in direct rebuttal to *his* statements.
>> With that in mind, consider Dean's response as found here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2o877
>>
>> Note that Dean snipped away the comments David had rendered in rebuttal to
>> Dean's statements--something Dean says he does not do. Dean was corrected
>> on several points and snipped them away.
>
> David lost the argument by using Skippy.
None of David's points, facts, evidence or truths are affected by the use
of "Skippy." Dean uses that as an excuse to run.
>> Here's another example. Here is another of David's articles:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3y96t
>
> My responce ... "Rest of your drivel
> snipped out of pure contempt."
This has been noted, of course. Both the use of "drivel" and "out of pure
contempt" constitute personal attack, and are therefore more evidence of
Dean's hypocrisy. This I will deal with further in the next message.
[Snip remaining of Dean's lies and evasions for later]
David Horn
[Snip]
>> In this article, David makes several rebuttal points to some of Dean's
>> statements. Most of them are substantive, but if we view Dean's response
>> here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3fsld
>
> Exactly.
>
> <snip stuff to get to the point>
Let's take a look at something Dean snipped:
[Reposted segment]
We see that Dean only deals with the first point David addresses, that of
the addressing of another person by his last name. David suggested that
Dean relax and that it is common for parties to address one-another by last
name and that this occurs in lots of places, including his country club.
In response to the fact that people address one-another by last name in
many places and it's considered acceptable, Dean replied, "and this is not
one of them." He never explained *why* that is the case, so all he did was
use a variation of "is *not*." Dean then decided to be offended by David's
suggestion that he relax on the issue, and he snipped the remainder of
David's comments "out of pure contempt," declaring it to be "drivel."
Dean, of course, would never dream of using personal attack, would he? So
was his comment to David about "pure contempt" some sort of empirically
supportable, emotionally-neutral conclusion? Of course not.
[End reposted segment]
Dean then resumes quoting below, but in his nearly 300-line response, Dean
snipped this important point. Yet another example of Dean's
double-standard was exposed and placed in proper context.
Let's continue.
>> Declaring David's comments to be "drivel," especially without rebutting them and
>> showing *why* they are "drivel," is no less personal attack than if I refer
>> to Dean as an idiot. So what we see here is yet another example of Dean's
>> hypocrisy.
>
> I stand by this. Why? Because it was drivel.
To call something "drivel" without explaining why is nothing short of
personal attack. "Drivel" is not a word used in kind tones to refer to
the thoughts and writing of another person. It is a term used to be
derisive and critical. Dean is simply being a hypocrite again.
> It was content free chest beating.
If it was "content free," then so were the comments by Dean that prompted
David's responses. The fact is that it was not "content free," as has
been shown. A number of Dean's errors and the problems wish his arguments
were exposed. To Dean, that's "content free," because Dean cannot and
will not honestly deal with criticism, though he reserves for himself the
right to be critical of others.
> I am attacking the arguement not David. I did not call David
> an idiot.
What Dean did was declare David's thoughts, as expressed in the writing,
to be "drivel" and he did so with contempt. How does one do that kindly,
empirically, or without emotion? The fact is that David refuted a number
of Dean's claims and, to Dean, that's "drivel."
The rest of us call it something else.
> I called what he wrote as drivel, which I felt it was. Much
> of what you write is also drivel.
I have no doubt that I write drivel. But I *rely* on evidence, facts, and
truth. These are concepts that are very alien to Dean.
> False accusations are again noted and refuted.
Well, there were no false accusations and Dean has refuted nothing. If
nothing else, he's dug himself a deeper hole.
>> Now if we return to this idea that Dean does not snip rebuttal points, well,
>> we see the same thing that we saw with the first example.
>
> No we don't.
Yes, we do.
> This, incidently counts as personal attack.
Of course, exposing Dean will always count as "personal attack."
> I'm going to scan read the rest and snip any repeated points.
Of course, if *I* do that, Dean complains. That's interesting...
> Again let me state.
Is this a sentence?
> If someone insults me I am justified to snip any content as I feel
> they have lost the debate.
And I am justified to return the material and deal with it appropriately.
Dean feels that challenging him is insulting. Dean also feels that
exposing his errors and his stupidity is also insulting. More power to
him. I'm going to keep doing it.
> If they stick to an arguement that is not
> about personal attack then it would be wrong from me to misrepresent
> them.
Dean doesn't let that stop him. He can and will misrepresent another.
He's done it repeatedly in this very thread.
> I have snipped branches of an argument previously but this is
> because of time constraints and I thought they got away from the
> central arguement - these where always marked.
We have seen two things. One, Dean's snips are *not* always marked.
Secondly, we have seen Dean go from claiming that he does not snip
material to claiming that, well, okay, he *does* snip some material, but
it's to keep things flowing, or the material he snips is tangential, or
the material he snips is "content free chest beating."
Once again, Dean can't keep his story straight.
> I snipped the usual subjective accusations to get to the repeated
> error Dave makes.
Well, no one else seems to know about this "error." As far as I can see,
there were no errors.
>> There is then a rather lengthy exchange in which Dean brings up his
>> confusion over the "use of" versus "rely upon" issue.
>
> Dave, I have covered this in such a way as to remove any doubt. There
> was no confusion on my part. None at all.
Dean claimed that I relied on personal attack. I replied that I do not
rely on it. Dean made a comment about irony. I challenged Dean to
explain the irony. Dean replied by stating that the irony was that I
claimed not to *use* personal attack while using personal attack.
I never said I didn't use personal attack. Dean screwed that up and has
been squirming around it ever since.
>> The fact is...
>
> It is not a fact because you say it is.
Oh, but it is
>> that
>> Dean *did* get that confused and David provided the specific quoted
>> material from that exchange (Dean has since decided that the issue is about
>> something else rather than is original claim that it was "ironic," which is
>> an example of Dean's shifting of goalposts that I will discuss in more
>> detail later.). David quoted the exchange and demonstrated that Dean got
>> it wrong.
>
> Sorry - but without a reference I can only think that you and David
> got it wrong.
This is par for the course for Dean. If he really felt he could back up
what he claims, he'd provide a reference. I'll do that:
And here's the exchange as quoted by David:
[Repost]
> I did not confuse this
Yes, you did, Skippy. That was proven with this exchange:
[Dave]
>> >>In fact, I did not rely on personal attack.
< snip >
>> >>Like I said: It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
[Skippy]
>> > Well done, that's my first irony meter blown by an evolutionist.
[Dave]
>> Now *this* little bit of evasion is almost good enough for a "Chez
>> Watt," but obviously Dean just really doesn't get it. Furthermore, I
>> doubt it he can or will bother to show the irony here.
[Skippy]
> I think I owe it to you to explain where the irony lies. You post a
> message saying that you did not use personal attack that was one long
> personal attack.
[Dave]
Dean needs to learn how to read. I did not write that I did not *use"
personal attack. I wrote that I did not *rely* on it.
< end >
So when you tell us now that the confusion about "use" and "rely" was
something other than what we see here, are you lying or are you
confused? Is Dave right or am I right?
[End repost]
This is not the first time this has been pointed out and reposted. Dean
keeps dodging it by pretending (after his confusion was exposed) that this
is about something else.
>> David then responded...
>
> I snipped David's post out of contempt due to his use of personal
> attack.
How convenient. Of course, since the point of this is that Dean snips
away rebuttal material, you'd think Dean would be smart enough not to do
that and to endure those terrible personal attacks and deal with the
substantive issues.
> The rest has been covered several times.
In Dean's world, "covered" means "misrepresented" and "avoided."
> None of theis snipped material is correct...
If someone said this to Dean, he might be inclined to tell that person
that such an assertion is not so simply because it is claimed to be so
(see above). But then, Dean is a hypocrite.
> and all of it is a personal attack.
*All* of it? Well, it seems to me that we are seeing a clear admission
here. If you rebut Dean, you are personally attacking him. Gee, that's
awful convenient.
> Again there is the usual accusation of lying.
I believe that Dean tries to misrepresent and deceive others. If he has
another word for that, I'm sure I'll hear it.
> <snip personal attack volley at end>
>
> Once again you have demonstrated you are reliant on personal attack.
No, once again, I have decided to personally attack *Dean*, whom I feel
deserves it for being a pompous ass and unrepentent liar.
> This whole post is a personal attack...
No, it was a post that *included* personal attack but also provided
evidence for Dean's duplicitous nature as well as rebuttal to things he
has claimed. Futhermore, I'll point out that other posts that include
more rebuttals to Dean appear to have been ignored. But Dean won't be
allowed to dictate the course of these exchanges nor will he be allowed to
ignore being exposed. I find Dean to be a reprehensible person and so he
an spent a little time in my cross-hairs.
> and you have attempted to add
> David's personal attacks to yours.
Asked and answered. David's comments included many substantive rebuttals
to thinks Dean claimed; and Dean has run from them.
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
Three. Let's add Dean's "fuck off, moron" to David.
> As long as you keep getting things wrong...
I have gotten nothing wrong with respect to Dean.
> ...and making badly built straw
> men I will keep on telling you you are wrong and lack evidence.
Dean will keep telling me I'm wrong and lack evidence regardless as to how
much evidence I can provide and how right I happen to be. The fact is
that Dean is a hypocrite and that has been exposed. He wanted evidence
posted and it got posted, but Dean ignored it and evaded it. Dean will
never honestly face the evidence.
> Meanwhile my central points keep on being supported.
Dean has one central point: That I rely on personal attack. He is wrong
about that, but that doesn't stop him, so what the hell. Let him
criticize me for that until the cows come home. I don't care. I'll slam
him anyway.
> Now let's go back to those questions you keep on avoiding.
I have avoided nothing, as we have seen. Dean is lying.
> To sum up once again this whole argument is now about Dave Horn's use
> of personal attack.
Notice how the argument is "now about" because Dean says so. I say it's
about his hypocrisy, his lies, his misdirection and his duplicity.
Now, if Dean wants to say that this argument is about my "use of personal
attack," then, hey! Game over. I use personal attack. I've never denied
that. But the fact is that Dean unilaterally decided that this is the
"argument" because he needed to run from being exposed as a liar and a
hypocrite.
> Here are the questions he snipped (three times I
> think so far)...
I feel that snipping when I have answered is appropriate and that's the
difference between Dean and I.
> What rebuttals? Provide me an example where I have snipped one.
So Dean is still asking for examples of snipped rebuttals? Well, plenty
were provided and he dodged them. The problem is compounded, however, by
this: Dean has *admitted* that he snips rebuttals, allegedly to keep the
replies short or to remove tangential material or personal attack. So
what is Dean asking here?
The fact is that evidence for Dean snipping substantive rebuttal and
refutation has been provided as recently as this morning, but certainly
was provided yesterday. Dean's "challenge" here is disingenuous.
> Why use personal attack at all?
Given that Dean uses personal attack quite frequently, my answer to this
is the same as it was when I answered the first time: Dean has no
business asking the question and I feel absolutely no obligation to
justify myself to him. He's a hypocrite.
> What was the original argument and why was it not a objective matter?
Asked and answered. The original argument was about what constituted a
Loki post and how one obtained Loki points. See:
http://tinyurl.com/2jca5 (Notice that Dean doesn't really answer the
question that started the thread, and also notice the phrase "In the US some appear to think
this is funny." This was what got me interested in refuting Dean on this
issue and related issues.)
Then follow the thread.
> What is my current argument?
Who cares?
> Next post I will promise to remove all personal attack in my responce
> to demonstrate your reliance, just as I did previously so please
> attempt a post without it.
No way. Dean is a liar, a hypocrite and, as far as I'm concerned, a
coward. None of the facts or evidence that show these things is negated
by the verbalization of the conclusion.
David Horn
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > > > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.19....@cox.net>...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > <usual stuff snipped>
>> > > >
>> > > > < snip >
>> > > >
>> > > > Skippy, you're getting a mudhole stomped into you.
>> > >
>> > > Hello David.
>> > >
>> > > I've no idea what you mean.
>> >
>> > I mean you've lost this argument, Skippy.
>>
>> How exactly is that David? And what does skippy mean again?
>
> I've already explained that, Skippy. I suggest you do some research.
How much research does it take? Good grief.
> I am curious, however, and I see that it's come up in Dave's
> responses, so I won't press the issue.
>
> Just how is it that you can claim that you don't snip things that are
> said in rebuttal to you or that refute you; and then you do it in this
> part of the thread?
It's more amazing than that as of this morning. What we got was a lot of
evidence of snipped rebuttals, and interspersed among *more* denial was
the claim that what was snipped was "content free," or an excuse that he
feels it's okay to snip anything when he feels he's being "personally
attacked," or...well, the story just keeps changing. Ask him? He'll tell
you he doesn't snip but, okay, yes he does, but it's "drivel," oh, wait,
it's tangential to the discussion, but no, it's actually that he's been
attacked and it doesn't matter that they are substantial rebuttals to his
comments, he has the right to snip because he's been personally attacked.
It's freakin' amazing! It blows me away that someone so obviously
mentally deficient thinks he's such a great intellect. Such is the power
of delusion.
> Are you that confused?
>
> Skippy, I pointed out several places where I found you to be wrong.
> None of those things were tangents. As Dave has pointed out, they are
> direct responses to things you said.
No, no, no, they're *all* personal attack...oh, wait, no, that's not it,
they just need to be snipped to streamline the thread...uh, actually, they
need to be snipped because...
> So on the one hand, you tell us that you don't snip away this kind of
> thing.
>
> On the other hand, you not only did that in the message that I am
> respond to now, you failed to note the snip.
No, Dean always marks his snips. He told us that and Dean never
lies...right?
> Would you like to know why you've lost the argument, Skippy?
>
> Really?
>
> Well, it's precisely because you do things you say you didn't or don't
> do; and that's only in addition to all of the things that have been
> exposed as errors that you have made.
>
> When you can't get ANYTHING right, Skippy, or you get it right after
> someone else has explained it - such as the thing about Lokis being
> parodies - THAT, quicker than anything, will lose you the argument.
I noticed that. Dean had no idea how to answer what a Loki was; but the
day after someone posts a link with the actual explanation, there was Dean
telling us that they are parodies and pretending that he knew it all
along. Oh, brother!
> Personal attack notwithstanding, Skippy.
It's just more of Dean's hypocrisy. He can make all of the platitudes
that he wants about how he's admitting he's used personal attack but he
won't anymore; but it's a song-and-dance we've seen before.
> I was going to go ahead and enter lengthy and substantive rebuttals;
> but Dave is well on his way to a complete evisceration of you, so I'll
> leave you to his tender mercies - such as they are.
I have no tender mercies when it comes to the likes of liars and
hypocrites like Dean.
> I think you'll find my approach preferable even though, as I said, I
> give you less credit than he does. He thinks you've figured it out
> and you're being deliberately evasive through the use of obfuscation
> and misdirection.
Oh, I don't think Dean realizes where he's at most of the time, but the
problem is that he posts and then screws it all up. When confronted with
all of the errors and stupidity, he makes excuses, snips away rebuttal or
out-right lies about what's occurred (the use/reliance thing is an
example)
> I think you're just dumb and unable to keep up with even the simplest
> points.
Why does this sound like Denis Leary's "I think you want me" comments in
"Lock and Load?" ;)
> Skippy, if you had any sense - and you don't - you'd drop out for a
> while and let this blow over. Actually, if you had any sense, you
> would disappear for good. Something tells me talk.origins is never
> going to be the same for you.
Something is telling you correctly; and as long as Dean is incapable of
using a real NNTP client, I suppose it will be a problem for him.
> One thing is certain: It's going to be interesting to watch.
>
> You have a nice day, Skippy. I think you're going to need it.
Happy New Year.
David Horn
> David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<1qrIb.5724$6l1.5295@okepread03>...
>> stew dean wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> >> >> In most cases, these snippages include material that
>> >> >> rebuts or refutes Dean on several issues.
>> >> >
>> >> > But I don't do that.
>> >>
>> >> Another bare-faced lie, as anyone who has watched Dean in action can see.
>> >
>> > Prove it's a lie. Provide and example.
>>
>> We're going to take a minute and explore this subject.
>
> < snip >
>
> Well challenged, Dave, but if my recommendation means anything, don't
> drag this out too long. If you do, you'll be just as bad as Skippy -
> worse, in fact, because you are clearly way over his head and it would
> be like challenging a legless man to an ass-kicking contest.
I guess. But the fact is that I rendered my initial criticisms, Dean
dodged them and decided the focus of the thread must "now" be my use of
personal attack. In other words, instead of owning up to his mistakes,
Dean has decided that this thread must now be something other than it was.
That's fine with me. I can deal with an inbred mouth-breather like Dean;
and it will "drag out" as long as Dean contiues to lie, misrepresent and
obfuscate any issue that has occured and will occur. So really, it's not
up to me--it's up to Dean.
> Remember that Skippy likens what goes on in talk.origins to that of
> debates and discussions that occur in the local pub or, in Skippy's
> case, certainly among those who pass the pipe around.
Yes, but when it's convenient for him to argue otherwise, he wants to
pretend that this is some sort of formal debating society.
> Don't expect him to follow too closely or too much; and do allow that he may not be
> lying. He has always had a problem following arguments that have too
> many big words or that go longer than a few sentences.
That's true. I read something the other day where he chided you for long
posts and demanded that you respond to some idiocy or another of his with
something short.
> And don't let his arrogance get to you. In case you haven't noticed,
> the normal contingent of the self-righteous in this group haven't had
> anything to say. Let that be an indicator that Skippy doesn't have
> much in the way or moral support from the howlers. He's cut off a few
> toes in his day.
I saw that, too. One of the most arrogant things I've ever seen out of
him was to tell Chris Ho-Stuart he "needs to get out more" in response to
a criticism. What was that if not a mild form of personal attack, since
he didn't really deal with the statements Chris was making?
> Having said that, have fun!
Oh, I do; and I will. It's good to get the rousing going again sometimes,
but Dean is so bad at it, that I sometimes wonder whatever happened to
Nyikos. Hell, even Pagano's got more on the ball than Dean. The best
Dean can seem to do lately is a Newbie, i.e., "your evidence isn't
evidence."
Well, I guess it will just have to do.
stew dean
attacks?
David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<FHoIb.5707$6l1.3122@okepread03>...
<snip>
No content is left.
No logical arguments where snipped.
Personal attack is not a logical argument.
Here are some brief snippets taken from the wikipeadia..
Ad homimem.
An ad hominem argument, or argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally
"argument against the man [or person]"), is a fallacy that involves
replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the
person offering the argument or assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Logical Fallacy (redirected from fallacy).
A logical fallacy is an error of argument; it is a mistake in the way
that the propositions (in the argument) are inter-related.
Here are more references.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
And don't forget the excellent carl Sagan Balony detection kit (from
the demon haunted world). Weasel words are also applicable to your
posts Dave.
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
My point is you rely on personal attack. You continue to blindly use
it. Even if I was a hypocrite it would be wrong to use that as an
argument against anything I said as that has nothing to do with the
argument.
Do you understand this Dave?
Stew Dean
David Sienkiewicz
> What happens if I carry out, as promised, the removal of all personal
> attacks?
>
> David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<FHoIb.5707$6l1.3122@okepread03>...
>
> <snip>
>
> No content is left.
> No logical arguments where snipped.
> Personal attack is not a logical argument.
< snip >
Skippy, I find myself beginning to be persuaded by Dave's argument
that you are a liar.
Let's consider: The post we see above appears in the thread AFTER the
post in which Dave provides evidence for your hypocrisy - evidence YOU
claim doesn't exist and has never been presented.
Dave did NOT rely on personal attack, Skippy. He showed yet again
that you engaged in hypocrisy.
He did that in answer to YOUR challenge that he provide that evidence,
Skippy.
Now, let's consider also that you have been saying that you do not
snip rebuttal material, yet here you did just that.
You said that "no logical arguments were snipped." That's not true,
Skippy. What was snipped was the evidence that you commited a
hypocritical act, and the rationale for that evidence.
You cannot just snip it away, declare it to be something it isn't, and
expect us to buy it. You chided earlier in the thread for a presumed
argument from authority, but here you are doing just that - again.
You snipped the content that YOU demanded be provided. You snipped
logical arguments showing that supported Dave's contention about your
hypocrisy. If you TRULY were interested in logical argument, you'd
provide rebuttal. Instead, you snipped it away.
Your statement that "personal attack is not a logical argument" is a
non sequitur, Skippy, because no one here has claimed that it is.
I believe that Dave is right. You've gone off on a tangent because
you simply refuse to intelligently answer the evidence against you.
You have to have intent to do that, Skippy - you have to MEAN to do
it.
Do you mean to do it? Yes or no.
Can you provide any evidence in mitigation that explains what appears
to be hypocritical behavior on your part? You post off topic, but you
directed another to post his off topic message elsewhere. That
certainly LOOKS hypocritical to me.
Can you explain it? The fact is that you have avoided it for quite a
while now. You even pretended that this evidence has never been
presented before. But it has been presented, and you have never
explained it.
Do so now.
David Sienkiewicz
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.28....@cox.net>...
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > I took the onus that I felt was mine and addressed it appropriately in the
> > > > thread.
> > >
> > > You currently have not addresssed the onus. I asked you why you used
> > > personal attack when you did not need to, you replied that you didnt
> > > think you need explain yourself to me.
> >
> > Interestingly, Skippy, this caught my eye as I was closing windows
> > after my last reply. Dave wrote:
> >
> > "I never denied attacking Dean. He's still getting a taste of his own
> > medicine because I want to make sure that the lesson is driven home
> > forcefully..."
> >
> > Here's your reference:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2924274351d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=pan.2003.12.13.12.06.38.414851%40cox.net
>
> Let's be clear here. Both of you are wrong in your use of personal
> attack. David.
Skippy, that's not the point at the moment.
You said that Dave had not addressed the "onus" and here we see that
he did.
You were wrong, Skippy.
> Calling me an idiot isnt teaching anyone a lesson and all it drives
> home is how reliant both of you on ad hominem.
If all that Dave did was call you an "idiot," I'd agree. But he's
doing much more than that, Skippy.
> I know I'm not an idiot or a liar.
You also "know" that you have a "degree involving psychology" and are
some sort of expert. You "know" that you do not snip rebuttal
material. You "know" that you did not commit acts of hypocrisy. You
seem to "know" lots of things that no one else seems to "know," Skippy
- at least not in the same way.
I think you're an idiot, Skippy. I've never been impressed with that
third-rate intellect of yours, so I "know" that you are.
Of course, no one expects you to ADMIT to being an idiot and a liar,
so why do you think your denial would mean anything?
> From my perspective there is one big thing neither of you understand
> which I have stated repeatedly and clearly throughout this arguement.
>
> Neither of you can justify yourself and fall fowl of your own actions.
Over the last several months, we've tangled off and on, Skippy, and
I've always been able to justify my statements quite well.
That's why YOU are always on the defensive and always in retreat.
The same thing is happening here. Oh, and you need to understand that
no one needs to justify themselves here - only their arguments.
> > Now it seems to me that this is the answer to why there is personal
> > attack, at least against you, though I admit that I think it also is
> > obvious that someone who thinks you're an idiot, a liar and a
> > hypocrite would not hesitate to use personal attack against you.
>
> Then may I suggest you avoid politics.
Skippy, you really should give up telling me irrelevant things in
response to my comments. I'm older and smarter than you - and much
more experienced in all things. Do try to remember that.
> The world is full of idiots,
You may think this is some sort of revelation to me, Skippy, but all I
see is rhetoric.
> calling them idiots unfortunatly puts them exactly where they are.
And where is that, Skippy?
> Why? Because you may be wrong.
Wait.
If the world is full of idiots and we call them idiots and put them
"exactly where they are," whatever THAT means, then we're not wrong,
are we?
You know, Skippy, if you could actually make a coherent argument, you
might not have half the problems you do in this newsgroup.
But you can't. Oh, well, eh?
> Look at it this way. Newton was an idiot - after all he believed in
> alchemy. How dumb is that?
Why would that make Newton an idiot, Skippy?
Now, if Newton were shown the evidence that alchemy is a load of
hoo-ha, and then still adhered to alchemy, I suppose he'd be an idiot
then.
Do you have any evidence that that happened, Skippy?
No?
So much for your - eh - "argument."
> > Now here are two things of note that you have said in this thread,
> > Skippy:
> >
> > "The most stupid thing I do is respond to someone who's calling me an
> > idiot.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > "It really doesnt matter. This is not a competition. This is also not
> > debate."
>
> Exactly.
I can't argue with the first point, Skippy. But the second is
clearly wrong.
> > So, once again, you're telling us that you shouldn't be responding to
> > this thread because it's "the most stupid thing" you do (because
> > you're being insulted) and "it really doesn't matter."
>
> Exactly.
Funny. You're actually trying to get around this elsewhere in the
thread over pedantic yammerings about "it."
> > Skippy, why do you push in threads in which you admit it "really
> > doesn't matter?"
>
> Because it doesnt. There is no real intellectual content here -
> nothign important or relevent to this group.
Did you even bother to READ the question that was put to you before
you presumed to respond to it, Skippy?
You actually push in these threads BECAUSE it doesn't matter? Is this
the same Skippy who once had the audacity to criticize me because of
an alleged injudicious use of MY time in responding to Ed Conrad?
So basically what we're seeing here is that you have yet another
standard that you would impose on someone else but which you cannot
abide by yourself.
Interesting.
> > Is it because I am right and you just want attention?
>
> Right about what? Why have you entered this thread?
I asked if you are doing this to get attention.
Answer the question, Skippy.
> > Your topical
> > comments usually occur late in threads that fizzle out quickly after
> > your input, so you can't seem to generate any attention in those.
>
> I'm not expecting any. No realy I'm not.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: You enter comments into
threads EXPECTING no responses?
> I'm just glad others have ignored this so far.
Oh, *I* see. You were misdirecting us from those TOPICAL comments
that *I* was talking about into something else?
I see.
> If there where complaints I'd stop it. Can you
> understand this?
Yes, Skippy, all too well. You are looking for acceptance and
approval and so far, you haven't gotten it. So you will push this
thread from your end as long as it takes to get someone to complain.
Then you will pretend to be the gracious and reasonable party and make
some noises about how it's "affecting others [sic] enjoyment of the
group," if I remember right.
But, Skippy, if you already know that this is a useless venture on
your part, and if you already know that, sooner or later, someone will
complain, why wait?
I think it's all part of your rather pathetic needs, Skippy.
> > But you DO seem to garner a lot of attention in threads that are off
> > topic and nothing more than what are sometimes called "personality
> > wars."
>
> I do?
Of course, Skippy. You get into those more than anything else that
you do.
> If you're talking about the off topic bush thread the focus was
> not on me.
No, Skippy, I wasn't talking about that thread.
Nice try at misdirection, though.
> > Why do you suppose that is, Skippy?
>
> Quite frankly it's because others post more interesting content.
Skippy, the question was why YOU seem to get into those kinds of
personality-war, off topic threads. It has nothing to do with what
others are doing.
Do try to keep up.
> There are some very good debaters in this group and ones with interesting
> things to say.
No doubt, but that's not relevant at the moment.
> When I have a conversation with someone my objective is not to hog the
> conversation, or to always get my view installed in their head. I talk
> to share stuff.
So you no longer want others to see the world as you do?
When did THAT happen?
> So it is with the vast majority of posts in this
> group. Sure you can pull out a few vitriolic posts but you can also
> find on topic and thoughtful posts.
No doubt, but that isn't relevant either.
> Now you can dismiss this but you would be missing the point.
No, Skippy, I'm not missing the point. YOU are dodging the point.
> Use ad hominem and you have lost the arguement.
That's simply not true, Skippy. If that's ALL you do, then you've
never rendered an argument; but the use of ad hominem does not negate
the value of any facts of evidence that may have been rendered.
Besides, let's remember that if this is your standard, you've lost
arguments to me, gen2rev, Average Joe, Roadrunner and Ed Conrad.
And since no one else has ever lost an argument with Ed Conrad or
Roadrunner, Skippy, that puts you in a rather unique position.
> And that includes using skippy.
"Skippy" is starting to become an endearment for me, Skippy. You're
so entertaining that it's not quite possible for me to dislike you. I
think you're a loon, of course. I'm not impressed with your intellect
or your debating skills. You're hardly literate. But you ARE
entertaining.
Regardless, the use of "Skippy" does nothing to my arguments either
way. Facts are facts, Skippy, and when I use facts, you are out of
the pool.
This thread is a prominent example.
> > < snip >
> >
> > By the way, Skippy, you should stop pretending to diagnose
> > psychological issues in others. You have no idea what you're talking
> > about.
>
> This is, of course, unfounded.
Not at all. My undergraduate degree was a dual major that included
psychology - "included" in the real sense in that I completed all of
the requirements for a bachelor's degree.
Furthermore, I have exposed both your intellectual and educational
deficiencies in any alleged knowledge you might possess about the
subject.
So no, it's not "unfounded." It's a fact. The fact that I can play
you like a cheap harmonica is an example.
> Explain 'anchoring' to me David without looking it up.
"Anchoring" is what happens when you tie a piece of rope to the handle
of an iMac and throw it overboard, Skippy.
Everyone knows that!
But, really, Skippy, this isn't your game; and presuming to quiz your
intellectual and educational betters on elementary concepts is
presumptuous.
Actually, you might try to engage Mike Goodrich on that discussion.
He seems to imply that the "secularists" in the newgroup tend to
adhere to that heuristic.
But don't waste MY time trying to misdirect this thread. I'll catch
you every time. You should know that by now.
stew dean
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03123...@posting.google.com>...
> > What happens if I carry out, as promised, the removal of all personal
> > attacks?
> >
> > David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<FHoIb.5707$6l1.3122@okepread03>...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > No content is left.
> > No logical arguments where snipped.
> > Personal attack is not a logical argument.
>
> < snip >
<snip>
>
> Let's consider: The post we see above appears in the thread AFTER the
> post in which Dave provides evidence for your hypocrisy
First no evidence has been provided. Dave repeated a claim I refutted
at the time. I also draw attention to Dave's 'own goal' on the
subject. I know what I have done in the past and do not deny it,
something Dave doesnt appear to understand.
> Dave did NOT rely on personal attack
He did and does. His continued insistance that I am a liar is
unquestionable evidence of that. Incidently you make the same mistake.
> He did that in answer to YOUR challenge that he provide that evidence,
Evidence for what though? He believes he should carry on the personal
attack. He is missing the point.
> You said that "no logical arguments were snipped." That's not true,
No logical arguments were snipped. This is true according to the
accepted rules of logic. I have snipped all the vitriol form your post
David as I did with Dave's.
> You cannot just snip it away, declare it to be something it isn't, and
> expect us to buy it.
Just as well that's not what I have done. You don't need to buy it,
it's free information.
> You chided earlier in the thread for a presumed
> argument from authority, but here you are doing just that - again.
I have used no argument from authority. Using commonly accepted rules
of logic is not appealing to authority.
> Your statement that "personal attack is not a logical argument" is a
> non sequitur,
This is where you, David and Dave are incorrect. Personal attack is
not a logical argument. It is a logical fallacy to use personal attack
in any argument.
These are not my rules but rules that lead to meaningfull arguments
that are logically sound.
Any personal attacks I have refutted already. Dave doesnt want to
accept that and contiues with his reliance on personal attacks. I
refute the use of any personal attack according to the references
quoted (and snipped without comment) in the previous post. These
references provided clear evidence that personal attack is not a
logical arguement.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> What happens if I carry out, as promised, the removal of all personal
> attacks?
It would be more accurate for Dean to ask what would happen if he *also*
removed rebuttal material and appropriate context that was entered into
the exchanges for the purpose of answering his demand for evidence for
something I have claimed.
> David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<FHoIb.5707$6l1.3122@okepread03>...
>
> <snip>
>
> No content is left.
[Reposted segment]
>> http://tinyurl.com/3etsm
>
> This is to do with me stating that someone had posted off topic and
> they should take it to a religous group. This is the old hypocricy
> argument which is a personal attack and not an argument of any kind.
> Again he is wrong.
Let's consider what was said above before we got to the link and the Dean's
response. Dean claimed that I have never provided evidence for hypocrisy.
The thread shows *clearly* that Dean is a hypocrite. Dean replies to tell
us that my criticism of him was nothing more than a "personal attack" and
that I was wrong. He never tells us *why* I was wrong and, if one looks a
the actual exchanges as shown in the thead, he never tells us there,
either. What he did try to do was misdirect the issue away from his
obvious hypocrisy into the more general issue of off-topic posting, which
is something that is quite common and which was *not* the point of my
criticisms. As I wrote at the time, Dean chastized another person for
posting off-topic, but Dean posts off-topic often, if not as a matter of
routine. It is, therefore, the height of hypocrisy to post off-topic
material and then insist that another post his off-topic article elsewhere.
That's such a simple and obvious thing and yet Dean not only dodged it
consistently, he snipped away the actual criticism several times while
attempting to dodge the issue--and snippage of pertinent material is
something else Dean has done, claims I haven't evidenced, and yet appears
in the thread to which the link above direct us.
[End reposted segment]
In response to Dean's demand for evidence of his hypocrisy, I wrote the
above and provided a reference. This is not the first time I have replied
with similar material proving that Dean is a hypocrite. There are other
examples that I will provide (again). This is the content, in reply to
Dean's own demands. He then snips the answer that *he* wanted and claims
that there is no content.
> No logical arguments where snipped.
[Reposted segment]
To summarize on this point:
1. Dean claimed that I have never provided evidence of his hypocrisy.
2. The link above provides that evidence in a thread.
A. Dean chided another party for posting off-topic material
B. Dean posts off-topic on a fairly regular basis.
3. Part of my criticism is that Dean responded with what is nothing more
than a "did not," that is, he simply denies that he was being a hypocrite.
Dean offered no mitigation at the time or since the exchange to show that
what he did was *not* a hypocritical action.
4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
*why*. I have said that Dean is a hypocrite and provided the "why" as well
as evidence. Dean dodged that evidence, provided a rather pathetic
"summary" of the thread as we see above, and has no response but to deny.
Dean *is* a hypocrite. The thread above provides only a single example.
Many others are available and will be dealt with in detail in the coming
days.
[End reposted segment]
Notice that Dean does not tell us why what we see above is not "logical."
It is interesting that I rely on evidence and a sequential series of
logical steps to reach my conclusions (which Dean dismisses as "personal
attack") and argues from his own authority. There was "no content." Why?
Because Dean says so. There was "no logical argument." Why? Because
Dean says so.
Dean is a hypocrite. He calls that personal attack so that he can try to
evade the evidence that he is a hypocrite. But when I tell assert that
it's a conclusion based on observation of his behavior, he demands
evidence. He even *insisted* when I decided that I had posted that
evidence enough, so in response to his demands, I post it *again*.
Does Dean respond to the evidence? No, he snips it away and declares that
there is no "content" and no "logical argument."
This is why Dean is also a liar.
> Personal attack is not a logical argument.
I have never said that personal attack is a "logical argument," so this is
an entirely irrelevant line of reasoning, especially if it is meant to be
a rebuttal to my evidence.
[Snip]
> And don't forget the excellent carl Sagan Balony detection kit (from
> the demon haunted world). Weasel words are also applicable to your
> posts Dave.
> http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
I would challenge Dean to explain just how that would be so, but I am
confident that "weasel words" are more appropriate to Dean's postings and
that he will never explain, anyway.
> My point is you rely on personal attack.
I think we already know that Dean often doesn't read particularly well or
understand what is being said to him. But I have already answered this
point. All Dean can do in reply to my denials is continue to whine about
it.
That's just too bad.
> You continue to blindly use it. Even if I was a hypocrite it
> would be wrong to use that as an argument against anything I
> said as that has nothing to do with the argument.
If *my* argument at the moment is that Dean is a hypocrite and I provide
evidence in response to Dean's demand for evidence, it obviously has
*everything* to do with the argument.
> Do you understand this Dave?
I understand that Dean is trying to slip away and refuse to live by the
standards he demands of others (notice that there is no response to the
examples provided of Dean's own use of personal attack and whether or not
it applies to him. This is just more evidence of hypocrisy.)
I understand that Dean cannot counter my evidence, so he has decided that
"the arguement" is about something that I am not arguing. I understand
that Dean is a reprehensible little toad who needs to be squished. So
he's going to get squished.
David Horn
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03123...@posting.google.com>...
>> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03123...@posting.google.com>...
>> > What happens if I carry out, as promised, the removal of all personal
>> > attacks?
>> >
>> > David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<FHoIb.5707$6l1.3122@okepread03>...
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > No content is left.
>> > No logical arguments where snipped.
>> > Personal attack is not a logical argument.
>>
>> < snip >
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Let's consider: The post we see above appears in the thread AFTER the
>> post in which Dave provides evidence for your hypocrisy
>
> First no evidence has been provided.
That is a lie. See my previous response in this thread today as well as
the article at http://tinyurl.com/3y453. A reference was provided and
rationale explained. Dean snipped it away and declared that there was "no
content" and no "logical argument" without even attempting to explain how
he came to that conclusion.
That's the difference between us. Dean is a hypocrite. I believe that
emphatically based on observation of his behavior. In response to his own
demands, I have provided evidence and an explanation. Dean waves that all
off and uses the Newbiesque "your evidence is no evidence." I'm pretty
sure Dean, as a minimum, isn't anywhere near as intelligent as *he* thinks
he is, but if the best he can do in these cases is emulate Newbie, he's
done.
> Dave repeated a claim I refutted at the time.
Well, since I have had to repeat my evidence and rationale in response to
Dean's demands, perhaps he will also provide the refutation he allegedly
delivered, because I seem to have missed it. In order to do that, Dean
will have to explain why the episode in question was not an act of
hypocrisy on his part.
> I also draw attention to Dave's 'own goal' on the
> subject.
My "'goal' on the subject" was to show that Dean is a hypocrite and to
explain why. I've done those things.
> I know what I have done in the past and do not deny it,
> something Dave doesnt appear to understand.
I don't recall seeing Dean *ever* follow up to my evidence and accept that
he was being a hypocrite. Dean is free to point out exactly where he did
that; but he won't. Note the weasely use of "I know what I have done in
the past and do not deny it." Dean wants to be vague and general but this
is a specific incident, which Dean tells us above that he "refutted at the
time." Okay, so which is it? Did Dean refute that he was being a
hypocrite, or did he admit this incident as one of the examples of
something he has "done in the past" and does not deny?
I understand that Dean has made some vague statements about his own use of
personal attack against others in the past. That's not the issue. The
issue here is Dean's hypocrisy; and he still hasn't answered for it.
>> Dave did NOT rely on personal attack
>
> He did and does. His continued insistance that I am a liar is
> unquestionable evidence of that.
My insistence that Dean is a liar is based on my reliance on the
*evidence* of Dean's dishonest behavior. I don't deny that being called a
liar can be viewed as a personal attack and I never have. But it is not
the argument. It is a conclusion from the argument. That's a distinction
that Dean cannot understand, but Dean is always fuzzy on distinctions that
seem to contradict his rather simplistic thinking.
> Incidently you make the same mistake.
Exactly where and how is not explained, of course.
>> He did that in answer to YOUR challenge that he provide that evidence,
>
> Evidence for what though? He believes he should carry on the personal
> attack. He is missing the point.
The point of the exchange in question was to respond to Dean's demands for
evidence for his hypocrisy. I *nailed* the point.
>> You said that "no logical arguments were snipped." That's not true,
>
> No logical arguments were snipped. This is true according to the
> accepted rules of logic.
Let's look again:
[Begin reposted segment]
To summarize on this point:
1. Dean claimed that I have never provided evidence of his hypocrisy.
2. The link above provides that evidence in a thread.
A. Dean chided another party for posting off-topic material
B. Dean posts off-topic on a fairly regular basis.
3. Part of my criticism is that Dean responded with what is nothing more
than a "did not," that is, he simply denies that he was being a hypocrite.
Dean offered no mitigation at the time or since the exchange to show that
what he did was *not* a hypocritical action.
4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
*why*. I have said that Dean is a hypocrite and provided the "why" as well
as evidence. Dean dodged that evidence, provided a rather pathetic
"summary" of the thread as we see above, and has no response but to deny.
Dean *is* a hypocrite. The thread above provides only a single example.
Many others are available and will be dealt with in detail in the coming
days.
[End reposted segment]
Notice that there is again no attempt to explain why this was not logical.
> I have snipped all the vitriol form your post
> David as I did with Dave's.
It is tough to be called a liar and a hypocrite, especially if you are
not; but if you are not, you *explain* why you are not. You don't just
dismiss the evidence. The prisons are full of innocent people.
>> You cannot just snip it away, declare it to be something it isn't, and
>> expect us to buy it.
>
> Just as well that's not what I have done. You don't need to buy it,
> it's free information.
Which, of course, is not what David meant.
>> You chided earlier in the thread for a presumed
>> argument from authority, but here you are doing
>> just that - again.
>
> I have used no argument from authority. Using commonly accepted rules
> of logic is not appealing to authority.
Everything Dean claims is an argument from authority except the more
obvious things (he has been and is being personally attacked, but hey,
being a liar and a hypocrite seems to be part of his personality). He has
declared that there was no "content" and no "logical argument" in my
response to his demands for evidence. He did not explain *why* that was
so--he simply declared it _ex cathedra_.
You know, in a way, Dean's right. I have to admit: It wasn't an argument
from authority. That's because Dean didn't give us an argument at all.
He just waved off the evidence.
>> Your statement that "personal attack is not a logical argument" is a
>> non sequitur,
>
> This is where you, David and Dave are incorrect. Personal attack is
> not a logical argument. It is a logical fallacy to use personal attack
> in any argument.
Dean apparently doesn't know what a logical fallacy or a _non sequitur_ is
supposed to be. Let's keep it simple for Dean, even though I am sure he
will still confuse it: Personal attack is a "logical fallacy" if it is
used *as* the argument. This is the crux of the _ad hominem_ fallacy. A
_non sequitur_ ("it does not follow") occurs when someone responds with a
statement or conclusion that does not address the argument or debate
under way at the time. Dean's response is a _non sequitur_ for precisely
the reason David indicated. No one is arguing that personal attack is a
logical argument. Consequently, Dean's response, as well as his whole
line of "reasoning" (which is really an effort to misdirect) to my
evidence and explanations is a _non sequitur_.
Personal attacks on Dean are not the argument. They are the conclusions
of observations of his behavior. Dean will continue to deliberately
obfuscate that point. That is just one reason he's a liar, as well as a
hypocrite. And I will remind the reader that Dean's alleged "refutation"
of that argument was his pathetic attempt to turn that thread into a
general debate on off-topic posting. But the issue the whole time was
Dean's hypocritical demand that another party take his off-topic post to
another forum, while Dean posts off-topic frequently (if not usually) with
no thought that what he is doing is off-topic). Dean's excuses simply
didn't hold up. See http://tinyurl.com/3bvfk for the relevant thread.
Note, particularly, how Dean's story about how often I post topically
changes (he starts by saying I don't post topically at all, something that
has been claimed again in this thread, was refuted, and which Dean has not
answered).
Dean gets it all wrong, over and over and over again, and dismisses all
content and logical argument with snippages and (figuratively) a wave of
the hand.
> These are not my rules but rules that lead to meaningfull arguments
> that are logically sound.
>
> Any personal attacks I have refutted already.
Dean considers being called a hypocrite a personal attack, yet he has
never refuted it. Dean considers being called a liar a personal attack,
and he has likewise never provided mitigation or evidence to refute it.
Dean considers being called an idiot a personal attack. That, I have
concluded based on his inability to understand simple and logical
arguments, particularly when they apply to him, but I have already said
that this is something that each reader must decide. At any rate, Dean
has never "refutted" anything. Denial is not refutation.
> Dave doesnt want to accept that...
If Dean can explain to me how I must accept something that I am not
persuaded is true, he is free to do so.
> ...and contiues with his reliance on personal attacks.
Asked and answered.
> I refute the use of any personal attack according to the references
> quoted (and snipped without comment) in the previous post. These
> references provided clear evidence that personal attack is not a
> logical arguement.
Dean went to a couple of web dictionaries and copied and pasted some
definitions. No one disputes those definitions. It's the application in
the present situation that is questionable.
Dean stands accused of being a hypocrite and a liar and the evidence is
still coming in.
Now, let's look at the things that Dean snipped and declared to be
"vitriol:"
"Skippy, I find myself beginning to be persuaded by Dave's argument
that you are a liar."
I can certainly sympathize with the idea that being called a liar is a
personal attack, but here we see David telling Dean that my arguments are
beginning to persuade him. Dean decided that this is "vitriol" and
snipped it, but it seems to be a reasonably-worded statement to me. What
we are seeing is that my comments on the subject are persuasive to another
reader -- a former lawyer, to boot! Consequently, the crux of David's
post is to get Dean to provide counter-evidence and mitigation. Needless
to say, Dean does not even attempt this in his reply.
David also wrote:
"You snipped the content that YOU demanded be provided. You snipped
logical arguments showing that supported Dave's contention about your
hypocrisy. If you TRULY were interested in logical argument, you'd
provide rebuttal. Instead, you snipped it away."
Why was this snipped away and declared "virtiol?" Dean doesn't say. It
seems to me to be a reasonable observation by another reader in the group.
[Begin repost of segment of David's comments that was snipped]
I believe that Dave is right. You've gone off on a tangent because
you simply refuse to intelligently answer the evidence against you.
You have to have intent to do that, Skippy - you have to MEAN to do
it.
Do you mean to do it? Yes or no.
[End reposted segment]
Here, David is pointing out to Dean that snipping away incriminating
evidence and comments indicates that there is intent of some sort and is
asked directly if this is Dean's intent. Dean snipped it away as part of
the "vitriol." Is there some reason Dean chose not to answer this simple
question? I submit that there is. Dean had intent.
[Begin repost of segment of David's comments that was snipped]
Can you provide any evidence in mitigation that explains what appears
to be hypocritical behavior on your part? You post off topic, but you
directed another to post his off topic message elsewhere. That
certainly LOOKS hypocritical to me.
Can you explain it? The fact is that you have avoided it for quite a
while now. You even pretended that this evidence has never been
presented before. But it has been presented, and you have never
explained it.
Do so now.
[End reposted segment]
Here we see David in seeming agreement with me that Dean's behavior was
hypocritical and, as a non-participating reader of that thread, David is
asking Dean to provide evidence or explanation. Dean snipped this away,
ostensibly as part of the "vitriol."
By now, I submit that most readers will find any snippages by Dean to be
suspicious, and well they should.
David Horn
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:02:31 +0000, David Sienkiewicz wrote:
[Snip]
>> > Discussion over. It was a mistake to think you could be
>> > sensible for a change.
(By the way, this was a personal attack and occurred very early in this
thread. It's another example of Dean's hypocrisy.)
>> As usual, Dean snipped every point made and every rebuttal and
>> refutation to his claims, his misdirections, his misunderstandings and
>> his ego-centric musings. And, as usual, Dean decides that his opponent
>> in the exchange cannot "be sensible for a change." Yes, the discussion
>> is over, but that is because Dean had nowhere else to go. He loses.
>> Again.
>
> I think we should put an underscore here, if only because Skippy
> insists that doesn't do this sort of thing and has insisted further
> down the thread that evidence be provided.
>
> Skippy, the evidence is right here.
>
> You post using Google, Skippy, just as I do, and so we can both see
> the thread. Dave's response here is to a two-sentence response to his
> lengthy refutation and rebuttal of you in the post immediately
> previous in this thread.
>
> Yet YOU tell us that you don't do that sort of thing and demand
> evidence.
>
> My explanation is that your memory is short, you have trouble with
> details or logical sequences of events, and that you can't keep up.
>
> Dave's explanation is that you are lying.
>
> Which is it, Skippy? "I don't snip rebuttals" will not do as a reply.
> We can see right here that you did and that you do.
>
> Which is it, Skippy?
The answer is that Dean's claims and stories change as a matter of
convenience. There is no thought to them; and when one lies as Dean does,
it's often hard to keep track of the lies. Since Dean's thought processes
seem rather caprious as well, it's no wonder that we see these
inconsistencies so often.
David Horn
to address:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:06:30 +0000, David Horn wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:26:08 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
>> David Horn <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<1qrIb.5724$6l1.5295@okepread03>...
[Snip]
According to Dean, if you use personal attack, you lose the argument. At
the time that Dean made that statement--and he's made it more than
once--there were no exceptions. This is an unequivocal standard that Dean
would presume to impose...
...on everyone except himself.
Dean has been asked specifically about those incidents in which he
argued with someone and used personal attack. Specific examples are
provided above and many more can be provided. The question is simple
enough: If one loses an argument when one uses personal attack, did Dean
lose the arguments that are referenced above? If he had facts and
evidence, "content" and "logical argument," did all of that disappear when
he attacked the parties as seen above?
Dean has specifically avoided this question more often than not. His
"yes" answer that we see is deceptive. This is a reference to a single
event in which he told David to "fuck off" and called him a "moron." This
was Dean's explanation of that event:
"In that case there was no argument. I was attempting to try some subtle
pshycology with Ed Conrad as a last attempt. David hasnt got a clue about
about physycology so sabotaged the whole thing out of sheer bloody
mindedness The level of is lack of perception I found staggering."
"Hasnt [sic] got a clue," "bloody mindedness" and "lack of perception"
could easily be interpreted in context as personal attack, providing yet
another example of Dean's hypocrisy, but the point here is that Dean
appears to be admitting he lost that argument, but he also says there was
no argument, so his "yes" is disingenuous.
Regardless of that, specific examples were given to Dean to address with
respect to the idea that one loses an argument if one uses personal
attack. Specifically, we wanted to know if Dean is willing to apply this
standard to himself. Dean has avoided these specifics and will not answer
the question. That is because Dean will not ever admit that he lost an
argument--not really. Consequently, Dean would presume to demand a
standard that is not applicable to him.
That's hypocrisy.
I think we can all agree that a single hypocritical act does not make one
a hypocrite since it does not demonstrate a pattern of behavior. But
Dean clearly does display a pattern of hypocrisy. This will continue to
be demonstrated and evidenced.
stew dean
Quick note. Due to David's entry into this thread things have got a
bit messy. I'm going to focus on Dave for the sake of time.
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:07:28 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > What happens if I carry out, as promised, the removal of all personal
> > attacks?
>
> It would be more accurate for Dean to ask what would happen if he *also*
> removed rebuttal material and appropriate context that was entered into
> the exchanges for the purpose of answering his demand for evidence for
> something I have claimed.
Your claims - for example that I am a hypocrite - are personal attack,
no matter how factual you think they are. It is attacking the person
not the argument and will be treated as a logical fallacy.
<snip elongated personal attack>
> > Personal attack is not a logical argument.
>
> I have never said that personal attack is a "logical argument," so this is
> an entirely irrelevant line of reasoning, especially if it is meant to be
> a rebuttal to my evidence.
Not at all. If you don't have a logical argument then how can you
reason with me? In essence you have no argument.
I am not a hypocrite. You think I am but that's just your view. It's
not factual or logical.
>
> [Snip]
>
> > And don't forget the excellent carl Sagan Balony detection kit (from
> > the demon haunted world). Weasel words are also applicable to your
> > posts Dave.
> > http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
>
> I would challenge Dean to explain just how that would be so, but I am
> confident that "weasel words" are more appropriate to Dean's postings and
> that he will never explain, anyway.
I have pulled you up perviously for your use of weasel words. For
example you use of 'pretend' that was an unfounded addition of your
own invention.
> > My point is you rely on personal attack.
>
> I think we already know that Dean often doesn't read particularly well or
> understand what is being said to him.
You are avoiding the point with a personal attack. This indicates your
continued reliance.
> But I have already answered this
> point.
You have answered by saying you don't need to explain why you use
personal attack. You also claim "I have never said that personal
attack is a "logical argument," so this is an entirely irrelevant line
of reasoning,"
It doesnt matter if you said it or not. If you don't use some kind of
logic then how can your posts make sense?
> All Dean can do in reply to my denials is continue to whine about
> it.
Whine is a weasel word. Dean is intended to be insulting, it is
another form of personal attack. These are continued examples of the
use of logical fallacies in this thread Dave.
If you remove all your personal attacks and other logical fallacies
what do you have left Dave?
> > You continue to blindly use it. Even if I was a hypocrite it
> > would be wrong to use that as an argument against anything I
> > said as that has nothing to do with the argument.
>
> If *my* argument at the moment is that Dean is a hypocrite and I provide
> evidence in response to Dean's demand for evidence, it obviously has
> *everything* to do with the argument.
But it's not an argument. It is a personal attack. You cannot use
personal attack to defend an argument. You cannot have personal attack
the core of an argument as it will always be subjective.
> > Do you understand this Dave?
>
> I understand that Dean is trying to slip away and refuse to live by the
> standards he demands of others
'Slip away' - I havnt gone anywhere. I am sticking to the core
argument I have used in this thread since it begun. You have attempted
to defend yourself by using personal attack, which is not a defence
but logical suicide.
> (notice that there is no response to the
> examples provided of Dean's own use of personal attack and whether or not
> it applies to him. This is just more evidence of hypocrisy.)
This is not correct. I have already answered that quesion several
times in that thread. Namely - yes if I use personal attack I am
wrong. I repeat that the defacto standard of correct debating as I
have referenced apply equally to myself as anyone else.
For that reason I have not used personal attack in this thread and
have avoided all other forms of logial fallacies, such as appeals to
authority.
> I understand that Dean cannot counter my evidence,
It's not evidence. It's subjective nonsense.
> so he has decided that
> "the arguement" is about something that I am not arguing.
It is about what you are saying - it's about how you rely on personal
attack in the misunderstanding that you can use it for an argument.
> I understand
> that Dean is a reprehensible little toad who needs to be squished. So
> he's going to get squished.
How exactly are you going to 'squish' me if you choose not to use
reason? Do you think you can insult me into submission? You know that
can't work as I'll just snip away your insults when I've had enough of
them. You will then insist these are rebuttals, I will say they where
not, they where personal attacks. You will then call me a liar and
we're back where we started.
Let me repeat my message dated 11th of December.
"No David, you lost because of your reliance on personal attack.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html"
Since then you have only compounded your logical mistake. This whole
thread is not a discussion or a debate, it is about you defending your
incorrect use of personal attack. You essentialy lost when you used
the phrase 'It's like shooting fish in a barrel'.
What I am attempting to do is explain to you why personal attack
should not be used and why it only reflects badly on the person who
uses it (and yes that would includes myself).
This thread will end only when one of us gives up, if you can use a
reasoned argument I admit is correct or if I see others complain. In
your position I would have thrown the towel and admitted I was
logically incorrect. But I am not you.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.01....@cox.net>...
>
> Quick note. Due to David's entry into this thread things have got a
> bit messy. I'm going to focus on Dave for the sake of time.
Things are a bit messy due to Dean's inept handling of the thread and the
subjects therein. Dean was utterly obliterated by David in
http://tinyurl.com/2p948, where Dean was shown to be inattentive to the
subjects in the discussion. Within that message we see exchanges such as
this:
[Begin reposted segment]
> > Interestingly, Skippy, this caught my eye as I was closing windows
> > after my last reply. Dave wrote:
> >
> > "I never denied attacking Dean. He's still getting a taste of his own
> > medicine because I want to make sure that the lesson is driven home
> > forcefully..."
> >
> > Here's your reference:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2924274351d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=pan.2003.12.13.12.06.38.414851%40cox.net
>
> Let's be clear here. Both of you are wrong in your use of personal
> attack. David.
Skippy, that's not the point at the moment.
You said that Dave had not addressed the "onus" and here we see that
he did.
You were wrong, Skippy.
[End reposted segment]
[Begin reposted segment]
Wait.
No?
[End reposted segment]
[Begin reposted segment]
Interesting.
[End reposted segment]
> > Is it because I am right and you just want attention?
>
> Right about what? Why have you entered this thread?
I asked if you are doing this to get attention.
Answer the question, Skippy.
[End reposted segment]
[Begin reposted segment]
David made a number of points and answered a number of questions that I
think Dean, through his fog, finally realizes he can't answer. He can't
answer *mine*, either--but David seems to be more direct and better at
this than I am. So it got "messy" because Dean is again avoiding things
he knows he cannot address. This, too, is something he's taken to
criticizing in others, the difference being that those others usually *do*
answer him. It's another example of hypocrisy.
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:07:28 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> > What happens if I carry out, as promised, the removal of all personal
>> > attacks?
>>
>> It would be more accurate for Dean to ask what would happen if he *also*
>> removed rebuttal material and appropriate context that was entered into
>> the exchanges for the purpose of answering his demand for evidence for
>> something I have claimed.
>
> Your claims - for example that I am a hypocrite - are personal attack,
That Dean is a hypocrite is not a *claim*. It is a conclusion based on
observation of his behavior. I've explained all of that. If Dean wants
to whine that he is being personally attacked, his solution is a simple
one: Stop being a hypocrite.
> <snip elongated personal attack>
The "elongated personal attack included rationale, content that Dean said
wasn't there, and a the evidence, including a reference. This is evidence
that Dean *insisted* I had not previously provided and demanded that I
provide again. Once I provide it, Dean consistently removes it and
refused to deal with it as he whines that he is being personally attacked.
This simply will not do. I am going to restore this content and will do
so every time Dean snips it. He will not be allowed to avoid it. He
demanded to see it. He must now address it.
[Begin reposted segment]
[Reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
[Reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
>> > Personal attack is not a logical argument.
>>
>> I have never said that personal attack is a "logical argument," so this is
>> an entirely irrelevant line of reasoning, especially if it is meant to be
>> a rebuttal to my evidence.
>
> Not at all. If you don't have a logical argument then how can you
> reason with me? In essence you have no argument.
Notice the subtle way Dean tries to avoid what I said. I agree that
personal attack is not a logical argument, but keep in mind two things.
First, Dean and I have different ideas of what constitutes "personal
attack" and two, I did *not* write that I didn't have a logical argument.
So "if you don't have a logical argument" in response to my statement is
disingenuous. When I tell Dean that he is an idiot, that is not a logical
argument. I have no problem with that. When I tell Dean that he is a
*hypocrite*, that's another matter. That's a conclusion based on
observed behavior. Dean has tried to excuse himself from being a
hypocrite in many ways. First, he ignored it. Then he tried to make
excuses for it. Then he tried to demand evidence for it and once that
evidence was presented, he's decided that it's all personal attack
containing no evidence, content or logical argument and is therefore of no
consequence. Furthermore, the shift in the exchange in which Dean engages
above is more evidence of dishonesty, as is his subsequent avoidance of
evidence that he demanded be presented.
> I am not a hypocrite. You think I am but that's just your view. It's
> not factual or logical.
Dean's response is nothing more than "am not" and that is certainly much
less "factual or logical" than any of the evidence presented that he is,
indeed, a hypocrite. One must consider that while a single episode of
hypocrisy does not mean that the person is a hypocrite, a pattern of
behavior such as that demonstrated by Dean is pretty strong evidence:
1. Dean told another write to take his off-topic post to another group.
Dean posts off-topic regularly, if not as a matter of routine.
2. Dean frequently chastizes others for responding to Ed Conrad, but
periodically responds to Ed Conrad. When challenged about that, Dean
periodically makes noises about how he shouldn't have done it, but he does
it all the same.
3. Dean tells us that as soon as you use personal attack, you lose the
argument. Dean has been asked if this is applicable to arguments in which
he uses personal attack. Dean has been given specific examples of his own
use of personal attack, most recently in http://tinyurl.com/2w3qh, but
Dean has specifically refused to address those examples and others that
have been provided.
These and more examples of Dean's general pattern of hypocrisy have been
provided. They show a pattern of behavior in which Dean tries to impress
others with standards with which he is not willing to abide. That's
classic, almost pathological hypocrisy.
Dean has no clear or logical answers for any of those. He has no contrary
evidence, no content to provide in rebuttal and no logical arguments to
use as mitigation. Dean further seems to confuse the difference between
response, rebuttal and refutation. Dean claims to have "refutted" these
kinds of examples, but, in fact, all he can muster is "am *not*" and has
never directly addressed any of them.
If Dean doesn't want to be called a hypocrite, he needs to stop being
hypocritical.
>> [Snip]
>>
>> > And don't forget the excellent carl Sagan Balony detection kit (from
>> > the demon haunted world). Weasel words are also applicable to your
>> > posts Dave.
>> > http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
>>
>> I would challenge Dean to explain just how that would be so, but I am
>> confident that "weasel words" are more appropriate to Dean's postings and
>> that he will never explain, anyway.
>
> I have pulled you up perviously for your use of weasel words. For
> example you use of 'pretend' that was an unfounded addition of your
> own invention.
"Pretend" was not a weasel word. It was a direct implication regarding
Dean's honesty in this newsgroup. But by all means, let's see Dean pull
up the specific examples and explain them.
>> > My point is you rely on personal attack.
>>
>> I think we already know that Dean often doesn't read particularly well or
>> understand what is being said to him.
>
> You are avoiding the point with a personal attack. This indicates your
> continued reliance.
No, I have directly addressed it and answered it over and over again.
>> But I have already answered this
>> point.
>
> You have answered by saying you don't need to explain why you use
> personal attack. You also claim "I have never said that personal
> attack is a "logical argument," so this is an entirely irrelevant line
> of reasoning,"
>
> It doesnt matter if you said it or not. If you don't use some kind of
> logic then how can your posts make sense?
I have said considerably more than Dean cites above, and since I am right,
it's pretty clear that my posts, regardless of the fact that Dean doesn't
like being a target for criticism (remember that medicine he's being
forced to take?) are quite logical and make sense. If Dean wants to see
some comments that didn't make sense, he can check the reference I
provided above and David's most recent rebuttals and examinations of
Dean's comments. Some of them are classic.
>> All Dean can do in reply to my denials is continue to whine about
>> it.
>
> Whine is a weasel word.
"Whine" is a "weasel word?" Not at all. I view Dean's perpetual
complaints to be nothing more than whining in response to the fact that
he's been caught. I doubt if anyone else would view "Dean is whining" as
a weasely statement, but Dean is certainly welcome to explain just how it
is that "whine is a weasel word."
We seem to be getting more of Dean's special brand of "argument from
authority."
> Dean is intended to be insulting, it is
> another form of personal attack.
"Dean" is Dean's *name*. Dean has already lost this point. In fact, when
provided with mitigating arguments, he ducked the point.
> These are continued examples of the
> use of logical fallacies in this thread Dave.
Dean has never provided any specific explanations for the so-called
"logical fallacies" that he has claimed. He just claims them. The fact
is that if he could show that any of my specific evidences and arguments
are fallacies, he would have done so. He hasn't.
> If you remove all your personal attacks and other logical fallacies
> what do you have left Dave?
What we have left is the evidence that Dean is a hypocrite. I've already
answered this.
[Snip redundance, Dean's arrogance and continued weaseling and evasions]
Dean makes a speech at the end about the "core argument" which, it must be
recalled, was decided unilaterally by him ("this argument is now about
Dave Horn's use of personal attack"). The argument is about actually
about Dean's dishonesty and hypocrisy and how he avoids addressing the
specific examples of them. Instead, he makes speeches and responds with
vague platitudes. The evidence clearly shows that Dean is a hypocrite and
it certainly indicates that Dean is dishonest. Dean has also unilaterally
decided to exclude David from the thread, but let's see his summary of
what he has observed"
"I believe that Dave is right. You've gone off on a tangent because
you simply refuse to intelligently answer the evidence against you."
Dean tells me that he'll quit when I "admit" my errors or when someone
complains. Dean has a long wait for the former since he has never
actually demonstrated that I am in error. And no one can predict the
latter, but David had a response for that, too:
[Begin reposted segment]
> If there where complaints I'd stop it. Can you
> understand this?
Yes, Skippy, all too well. You are looking for acceptance and
approval and so far, you haven't gotten it. So you will push this
thread from your end as long as it takes to get someone to complain.
Then you will pretend to be the gracious and reasonable party and make
some noises about how it's "affecting others [sic] enjoyment of the
group," if I remember right.
But, Skippy, if you already know that this is a useless venture on
your part, and if you already know that, sooner or later, someone will
complain, why wait?
I think it's all part of your rather pathetic needs, Skippy.
[End reposted segment]
I recommend David's rebuttal of Dean, again found at
http://tinyurl.com/2p948, and see how much Dean is just out of the loop on
what is going on here and how confused he is about his own arguments.
But I'm not going anywhere, either. Dean is going down. No one can stop
it any more.
David Horn
[Snip]
> Dean seems to want to avoid this question, too:
>
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:02:31 +0000, David Sienkiewicz wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
>>> > Discussion over. It was a mistake to think you could be
>>> > sensible for a change.
>
> (By the way, this was a personal attack and occurred very early in this
> thread. It's another example of Dean's hypocrisy.)
As usual, not a word from Dean about this. Dean renders a personal attack
and *later* declares that this thread is about *my* use of personal
attack.
The hypocrisies just keep on comin', folks!
[Snip]
David Horn
hypocrisy:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:36:54 +0000, stew dean wrote:
[Snip]
>> I understand that Dean is trying to slip away and refuse to live by the
>> standards he demands of others
[Snip to return my comments to context]
>> (notice that there is no response to the
>> examples provided of Dean's own use of personal attack and whether or not
>> it applies to him. This is just more evidence of hypocrisy.)
>
> This is not correct. I have already answered that quesion several
> times in that thread.
Dean is avoiding the issue. My comments are in reference to specific
examples of his own personal attacks on others that have been provided,
and Dean has not responded to them, namely because, as we see below, he id
dodging the point of providing those examples. Watch:
> Namely - yes if I use personal attack I am
> wrong. I repeat that the defacto standard of correct debating as I
> have referenced apply equally to myself as anyone else.
Except that this is not what was asked.
Yes, I know Dean yammers incessantly about personal attack and once in a
while, he'll toss us a bone and pretend that his own use is as bad as
anyone else's. We've seen that before, though, in his complaints about
those who respond to Ed Conrad. Yes, Dean told us, he shouldn't respond
to Ed Conrad. He even told us he'd refrain from doing it again. Then,
you guessed it, he did it again.
Dean tells us that, yes, it's bad that he has used personal attack. He'll
certainly wants us to believe he won't do it again (even though he has
several times in this thread as pointed out).
But what is Dean being asked by the examples I reference above? Is he
being asked if he should use personal attack? The answer is *no*, and
Dean knows it. Dean knows full well that the examples were provided to
ask Dean a very simple question with respect to his claims and his
standards as he would presume to demand of others. Dean told us that if
one uses personal attack, one loses the argument.
Dean was asked if the examples provided mean that he lost the arguments in
which those examples appear. Dean *knows* that and is deliberately
avoiding the question.
There's your intent.
> For that reason I have not used personal attack in this thread...
This, too, isn't true. Dean attacked me at the beginning of this thread
as one who, according to Dean, could not be "sensible for once." He
snipped David's commentary "with contempt." Those are just two examples
of Dean's personal attacks that have been pointed out and that he has not
reasonably addressed.
Dean's attacks are meaningless to me and I can guess that they are every
bit as meaningless and impotent to David--he has said as much several
times. One might consider that if David felt compelled to tell Dean that
his attacks are "impotent," that tells us that attacks occurred.
Dean admits he uses personal attack, but he tries to excuse it while
pretending to critcize it in others.
Dean is a hypocrite.
[Snip for later]
stew dean
Once again I remind you that personal attack is not acceptable.
I've snipped all the usual nonsense. Here's
> 4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
> accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
> *why*.
I better repeat myself then. You are wrong because personal attack is
wrong, this is what you are defending. It is not part of a logical
argument because it is a logical fallacy to use ad hominem.
I have not snipped any rebuttals because personal attacks are not
rebuttal. Both you and David make the same mistake. Compounding this
mistake will only only prove my point that you rely on personal
attack.
> Dean is a hypocrite. He calls that personal attack so that he can try to
> evade the evidence that he is a hypocrite.
It is personal attack. It is not acceptable and will always be a
subjective argument. The problem with a subjective argument is it will
always be one word against another. I am not a hypocrite. I don't
pretend to be doing the right thing when I know I am doing the wrong
thing. You think I have or do but you are wrong. You conclusion is
mistaken, much like your past conclusions about myself (for example
those in you first ever responce to myself - you said I was a web
designer for example. I am not.)
The only 'evidence' you have is your opinion and that is wrong.
<snip more nonsense>
> >> > Personal attack is not a logical argument.
> >>
> >> I have never said that personal attack is a "logical argument," so this is
> >> an entirely irrelevant line of reasoning, especially if it is meant to be
> >> a rebuttal to my evidence.
> >
> > Not at all. If you don't have a logical argument then how can you
> > reason with me? In essence you have no argument.
>
> Notice the subtle way Dean tries to avoid what I said.
Another weasel word. It's not 'subtle'. It does not avoid what you
have said but explains why you are wrong.
> I agree that
> personal attack is not a logical argument, but keep in mind two things.
> First, Dean and I have different ideas of what constitutes "personal
> attack" and two, I did *not* write that I didn't have a logical argument.
First a personal attack is anything that directly challanges the
person rather than the argument. If your idea of personal attack is
different to this then it is different from the commonly accepted
definition.
Secondly it doesnt matter if you did or did not write something for me
to claim it. I wrote that you don't have a logical argument.
> So "if you don't have a logical argument" in response to my statement is
> disingenuous. When I tell Dean that he is an idiot, that is not a logical
> argument.
Exactly.
> I have no problem with that.
Then you have no argument.
> When I tell Dean that he is a
> *hypocrite*, that's another matter. That's a conclusion based on
> observed behavior.
It's your conclusion and it's wrong.
I have addressed this points and am not going to repeat myself in
regards to this matter. I don't want to repost my responces. They do
exist.
Okay, let me just do an experiment to prove you wrong. Provide two
points that you think I have not covered and I will repost my
responces just to show that I'm not making this up. You can take them
from the stuff I've snipped if you want.
But be warned, my tolerance for personal attack is very low so this
may be your last chance.
> > You are avoiding the point with a personal attack. This indicates your
> > continued reliance.
>
> No, I have directly addressed it and answered it over and over again.
You addressed this by saying you don't need to explain it. You do
admit it is not acceptable behavour and is not logical (although you
also claim it is logical).
What is your argument? If it's a personal attack it is not an
argument.
> Dean has never provided any specific explanations for the so-called
> "logical fallacies" that he has claimed.
Calling me a hyopcrite is a logical fallacy. I provided references
previously to explain why. Any persoal attack is a logical fallacy.
> > If you remove all your personal attacks and other logical fallacies
> > what do you have left Dave?
>
> What we have left is the evidence that Dean is a hypocrite. I've already
> answered this.
Which is a personal attack which is a logical fallacy.
QED.
> Dean tells me that he'll quit when I "admit" my errors or when someone
> complains. Dean has a long wait for the former since he has never
> actually demonstrated that I am in error.
I just did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Please don't repost David's personal attacks as well. These will be
ignored.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
>
> Once again I remind you that personal attack is not acceptable.
>
> I've snipped all the usual nonsense. Here's
>
>> 4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
>> accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
>> *why*.
>
> I better repeat myself then. You are wrong because personal attack is
> wrong, this is what you are defending. It is not part of a logical
> argument because it is a logical fallacy to use ad hominem.
>
> I have not snipped any rebuttals because personal attacks are not
> rebuttal.
[Snip same old Dean evasions, misunderstandings and misdirection]
The fact is that Dean consistently snips evidence that shows his
hypocrisy, his duplicity and his dishonesty. However, the record is clear
in the thread. It is Dean's presumption that if he can label all evidence
and content that demonstrates his hypocrisy as "personal attack," he can
avoid having to answer for it. Dean relies on rhetoric and sophistry and
flees evidence, explanation, content and logical argument, even that which
is provided in response to his demands. Once he has done that, all Dean
can do is repeat his pathetic and weak form of argumentation and whine
that people are picking on him.
I remain singularly unimpressed with Dean's arguments. The evidence is
clear and easily found in this thread. It has been emphasized a number of
times and is inviolable and inescapable.
Dean's hypocrisy has been demonstrated by the consistent failure to abide
by standards he feels he may insist upon in others. Specific examples of
that have been pointed out and Dean has no answer for them. Dean is a
hypocrite.
Dean consistently snips the evidence of his hypocrisy and duplicity,
restates arguments, avoids specific questions and generates smoke screens
in order to confuse the issues. Dean is a liar.
Dean seems incapable of learning from these episodes and continues to
behave in a simpering, hypocritical and dishonest manner. Dean is an
idiot.
Let Dean continue to whine. It's a pathetic display, but it gratifies me
no end to see such an arrogant ass get his come-uppance has he has in
recent weeks; and he will continue to get that come-uppance. That he is
too stupid to see that this is what it is--or too dishonest and arrogant
to change--will only make it that much sweeter and more enjoyable for me.
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
>
> Once again I remind you that personal attack is not acceptable.
>
> I've snipped all the usual nonsense. Here's
[Snip]
And I put it all back:
[Begin reposted segment]
You were wrong, Skippy.
[End reposted segment]
[Begin reposted segment]
Wait.
No?
[End reposted segment]
[Begin reposted segment]
Interesting.
[End reposted segment]
Answer the question, Skippy.
[End reposted segment]
[Begin reposted segment]
> <snip elongated personal attack>
[Begin reposted segment]
[Reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
[Reposted segment]
4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
*why*. I have said that Dean is a hypocrite and provided the "why" as well
as evidence. Dean dodged that evidence, provided a rather pathetic
"summary" of the thread as we see above, and has no response but to deny.
Dean *is* a hypocrite. The thread above provides only a single example.
Many others are available and will be dealt with in detail in the coming
days.
[End reposted segment]
Notice that Dean does not tell us why what we see above is not "logical."
It is interesting that I rely on evidence and a sequential series of
logical steps to reach my conclusions (which Dean dismisses as "personal
attack") and argues from his own authority. There was "no content." Why?
Because Dean says so. There was "no logical argument." Why? Because
Dean says so.
Dean is a hypocrite. He calls that personal attack so that he can try to
evade the evidence that he is a hypocrite. But when I tell assert that
it's a conclusion based on observation of his behavior, he demands
evidence. He even *insisted* when I decided that I had posted that
evidence enough, so in response to his demands, I post it *again*.
Does Dean respond to the evidence? No, he snips it away and declares that
there is no "content" and no "logical argument."
This is why Dean is also a liar.
[End reposted segment]
>> > Personal attack is not a logical argument.
>>
>> I have never said that personal attack is a "logical argument," so this is
>> an entirely irrelevant line of reasoning, especially if it is meant to be
>> a rebuttal to my evidence.
>
> Not at all. If you don't have a logical argument then how can you
> reason with me? In essence you have no argument.
Notice the subtle way Dean tries to avoid what I said. I agree that
personal attack is not a logical argument, but keep in mind two things.
First, Dean and I have different ideas of what constitutes "personal
attack" and two, I did *not* write that I didn't have a logical argument.
So "if you don't have a logical argument" in response to my statement is
disingenuous. When I tell Dean that he is an idiot, that is not a logical
argument. I have no problem with that. When I tell Dean that he is a
*hypocrite*, that's another matter. That's a conclusion based on
> You are avoiding the point with a personal attack. This indicates your
> continued reliance.
No, I have directly addressed it and answered it over and over again.
>> But I have already answered this
>> point.
>
> You have answered by saying you don't need to explain why you use
> personal attack. You also claim "I have never said that personal
> attack is a "logical argument," so this is an entirely irrelevant line
> of reasoning,"
>
Dean has never provided any specific explanations for the so-called
"logical fallacies" that he has claimed. He just claims them. The fact
is that if he could show that any of my specific evidences and arguments
are fallacies, he would have done so. He hasn't.
> If you remove all your personal attacks and other logical fallacies
> what do you have left Dave?
What we have left is the evidence that Dean is a hypocrite. I've already
answered this.
[Snip redundance, Dean's arrogance and continued weaseling and evasions]
Dean makes a speech at the end about the "core argument" which, it must be
recalled, was decided unilaterally by him ("this argument is now about
Dave Horn's use of personal attack"). The argument is about actually
about Dean's dishonesty and hypocrisy and how he avoids addressing the
specific examples of them. Instead, he makes speeches and responds with
vague platitudes. The evidence clearly shows that Dean is a hypocrite and
it certainly indicates that Dean is dishonest. Dean has also unilaterally
decided to exclude David from the thread, but let's see his summary of
what he has observed"
"I believe that Dave is right. You've gone off on a tangent because
you simply refuse to intelligently answer the evidence against you."
Dean tells me that he'll quit when I "admit" my errors or when someone
complains. Dean has a long wait for the former since he has never
David Horn
[Snip]
>> When I tell Dean that he is a
>> *hypocrite*, that's another matter. That's a conclusion based on
>> observed behavior.
>
> It's your conclusion and it's wrong.
>
> I have addressed this points and am not going to repeat myself in
> regards to this matter. I don't want to repost my responces. They do
> exist.
Dean again confused "response" with "refutation" and even "rebuttal."
Dean is under the impression that once he has made one of his vague _ex
cathedra_ evasions, that should tend the matter. It doesn't.
> Okay, let me just do an experiment to prove you wrong. Provide two
> points that you think I have not covered and I will repost my
> responces just to show that I'm not making this up. You can take them
> from the stuff I've snipped if you want.
What? Again?
Let's remind the reader of Dean's Paganoesque record in this regard. The
*last* time Dean insisted that I provide or repost evidence and I did, he
kept snipping it away. What was particularly comical about that is that
it was while Dean was also insisting that he doesn't snip away rebuttal
points but, oh, wait! Yeah, he does, but it's to keep the threads
management. No, no, that's not it...it's because the evidence is really
just "personal attack."
Puh-leeze.
The evidence of Dean's evasiveness is in this thread. It's been pointed
out again and again. Dean knows where it's at. If he can refute it, let
him refute it.
> But be warned, my tolerance for personal attack is very low so this
> may be your last chance.
Just as my tolerance for liars and hypocrites is also quite low, as Dean
has discovered. And, of course, I can't help but be amused at Dean's
comments about how this may be my "last chance?" I'm sure that will keep
me up nights. Then again, it may not. Dean will remain a target for as
long as I find it in any way useful. He has no say in the matter. And if
his tolerance for personal attack were so low, he wouldn't use it.
Let me tell you a story: Dean seems to have forgotten that we have had
this conversation before. A couple of years ago, Dean was giving me grief
during some exchanges I was having with Newbie. "Just be nice to him and
not use personal attack," Dean whimpered, "and he'll come around to your
way of thinking." Now, Dean can barely remember what's going on in a
single thread, let alone what's happened a few years ago, but I remember
it rather well. What happened then was what's happening now. I pointed
out several examples of Dean's use of "personal attack" and got the same
song and dance. "I know I shouldn't have done it and I won't do it any
more," Dean told us; but here we are a couple of years later and I was
able to provide some relatively recent examples. Isn't that somethin'?
So Dean is still at it--lecturing and doing precisely the opposite of what
he demands of others. Such a long-standing pattern of behavior is
perfectly amenable to critcism, just as Dean presumes to criticize others
for their behavior.
This talk of "last chance" is simply because Dean is getting ready to duck
the thread. He will *never* accept that he is a hypocrite, a liar or an
idiot but then, I would never *expect* a hypocrite, a liar or an idiot to
admit to being those things. Consequently, I don't expect Dean to admit
to those things. But they are true, nevertheless, and I intend to point
it out at every opportunity.
[Snip]
David Horn
[Snip]
> Please don't repost David's personal attacks as well. These will be
> ignored.
The fact is that most of what David had to say was not personal attack,
but clearly showed that Dean was not following what was going on. The
following is an excellent example that Dean, quite naturally, snipped:
[Begin reposted segment]
David Horn
[Snip]
[Begin reposted segment]
> Please don't repost David's personal attacks as well. These will be
> ignored.
> Then may I suggest you avoid politics.
Wait.
No?
[End reposted segment]
Seems to me that the above are David's observations that Dean's arguments
aren't particularly coherent and contain inherent flaws. Dean's analogies
are particularly off-target, as pointed out by the example above. Neither
of these things is really "personal attack," unless you're Dean and you're
having the vacuous nature of your arguments exposed.
David Horn
[Snip]
> Please don't repost David's personal attacks as well. These will be
> ignored.
[Begin reposted segment]
> > Your topical
> > comments usually occur late in threads that fizzle out quickly after
> > your input, so you can't seem to generate any attention in those.
>
> I'm not expecting any. No realy I'm not.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: You enter comments into
threads EXPECTING no responses?
> I'm just glad others have ignored this so far.
Oh, *I* see. You were misdirecting us from those TOPICAL comments
that *I* was talking about into something else?
I see.
> If there where complaints I'd stop it. Can you
> understand this?
Yes, Skippy, all too well. You are looking for acceptance and
approval and so far, you haven't gotten it. So you will push this
thread from your end as long as it takes to get someone to complain.
Then you will pretend to be the gracious and reasonable party and make
some noises about how it's "affecting others [sic] enjoyment of the
group," if I remember right.
But, Skippy, if you already know that this is a useless venture on
your part, and if you already know that, sooner or later, someone will
complain, why wait?
[End reposted segment]
David Horn
[Snip]
> Please don't repost David's personal attacks as well. These will be
> ignored.
[Begin reposted segment]
> > By the way, Skippy, you should stop pretending to diagnose
> > psychological issues in others. You have no idea what you're talking
> > about.
>
> This is, of course, unfounded.
Not at all. My undergraduate degree was a dual major that included
psychology - "included" in the real sense in that I completed all of
the requirements for a bachelor's degree.
Furthermore, I have exposed both your intellectual and educational
deficiencies in any alleged knowledge you might possess about the
subject.
So no, it's not "unfounded." It's a fact. The fact that I can play
you like a cheap harmonica is an example.
> Explain 'anchoring' to me David without looking it up.
"Anchoring" is what happens when you tie a piece of rope to the handle
of an iMac and throw it overboard, Skippy.
Everyone knows that!
But, really, Skippy, this isn't your game; and presuming to quiz your
intellectual and educational betters on elementary concepts is
presumptuous.
Actually, you might try to engage Mike Goodrich on that discussion.
He seems to imply that the "secularists" in the newgroup tend to
adhere to that heuristic.
But don't waste MY time trying to misdirect this thread. I'll catch
you every time. You should know that by now.
[End reposted segment]
David Horn
[Snip]
> Please don't repost David's personal attacks as well. These will be
> ignored.
[Begin reposted segment]
> Calling me an idiot isnt teaching anyone a lesson and all it drives
> home is how reliant both of you on ad hominem.
If all that Dave did was call you an "idiot," I'd agree. But he's
doing much more than that, Skippy.
> I know I'm not an idiot or a liar.
You also "know" that you have a "degree involving psychology" and are
some sort of expert. You "know" that you do not snip rebuttal
material. You "know" that you did not commit acts of hypocrisy. You
seem to "know" lots of things that no one else seems to "know," Skippy
- at least not in the same way.
I think you're an idiot, Skippy. I've never been impressed with that
third-rate intellect of yours, so I "know" that you are.
Of course, no one expects you to ADMIT to being an idiot and a liar,
so why do you think your denial would mean anything?
[End reposted segment]
There are actually lots of these. The next one is the best one.
stew dean
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 09:23:52 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
> >
> > Once again I remind you that personal attack is not acceptable.
> >
> > I've snipped all the usual nonsense. Here's
> >
> >> 4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
> >> accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
> >> *why*.
> >
> > I better repeat myself then. You are wrong because personal attack is
> > wrong, this is what you are defending. It is not part of a logical
> > argument because it is a logical fallacy to use ad hominem.
> >
> > I have not snipped any rebuttals because personal attacks are not
> > rebuttal.
>
> [Snip same old Dean evasions, misunderstandings and misdirection]
>
> The fact is that Dean consistently snips evidence that shows his
> hypocrisy, his duplicity and his dishonesty.
I snip you opinion - that is all. Accusations of hypocricy are
personal attack and is your opinion only. I will continue to snip away
what you call 'evidence' until you have a logical argument. It appears
you confuse the objective with the subjective. Perhaps you should read
up on basic philosophy and the scientific method if you have this
confusion.
Rest of the personal attack snipped.
You have already stated the argument you persue is not logical - so
how exactly are you going to reason you way out of it without the user
of personal atttack?
My view is there is no logical way out of your dead end. You cannot
use reason to support that which is nonsensical.
Yourself and David are reliant on personal attack and all the worst
non logical methods of 'argument'. I can only think that is because
you are unaware of the defacto standard for intellectual debate
despite my references.
I also can't help notice you appeared to have spammed multi posts all
with similair content. You really shouldnt have wasted your time as I
read two and they are much as I have snipped here.
Either post a logical argument or don't bother. I am going to become
increasingly strict on this requirement.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.03...@cox.net>...
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 09:23:52 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
>> >
>> > Once again I remind you that personal attack is not acceptable.
>> >
>> > I've snipped all the usual nonsense. Here's
>> >
>> >> 4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
>> >> accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
>> >> *why*.
>> >
>> > I better repeat myself then. You are wrong because personal attack is
>> > wrong, this is what you are defending. It is not part of a logical
>> > argument because it is a logical fallacy to use ad hominem.
>> >
>> > I have not snipped any rebuttals because personal attacks are not
>> > rebuttal.
>>
>> [Snip same old Dean evasions, misunderstandings and misdirection]
>>
>> The fact is that Dean consistently snips evidence that shows his
>> hypocrisy, his duplicity and his dishonesty.
>
> I snip you opinion - that is all.
That is a lie. Dean also snips the evidence; and the evidence that Dean
is a hypocrite is inescapable. That he is a hypocrite is not just my
opinion. It's established fact.
> Accusations of hypocricy are personal attack and is your opinion only.
This, too, is a lie that I have refuted many times. Accusations of
hypocrisy are based on observations and evidence. I didn't start out with
Dean one day saying to myself, "this guy's a hypocrite." No, I saw
repeated episodes of hypocrisy and *then* declared Dean to be a hypocrite.
The evidence is clear. Dean is a hypocrite. He can try to get around
that if he wants to; and clearly he wants to. But it doesn't change a
thing.
> I will continue to snip away what you call 'evidence...'
How convenient.
> ...until you have a logical argument.
I have provided the "logical arugment" several times. Dean has never
taken the argument or the evidence and shown *why* they are invalid and
don't meet the criteria. Dean is lying to the readers.
> It appears you confuse the objective with the subjective. Perhaps
> you should read up on basic philosophy and the scientific method
> if you have this confusion.
I don't think I'm confused at all, but Dean is certainly welcome to take
the specific evidence and show this confusion. In fact, he's had many
opportunties. He has run from them all.
> Rest of the personal attack snipped.
> You have already stated the argument you persue is not logical
That is *not* what I said. What I said was that I agreed that personal
attack is not a logical argument, but this is not a personal attack.
[Snip redundant and refuted arguments]
{Some restored "personal attack," which includes evidence of Dean's duplicity
and hypocrisy]
[Begin reposted segment]
[Reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
[Reposted segment]
4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
*why*. I have said that Dean is a hypocrite and provided the "why" as well
as evidence. Dean dodged that evidence, provided a rather pathetic
"summary" of the thread as we see above, and has no response but to deny.
Dean *is* a hypocrite. The thread above provides only a single example.
Many others are available and will be dealt with in detail in the coming
days.
[End reposted segment]
Notice that Dean does not tell us why what we see above is not "logical."
It is interesting that I rely on evidence and a sequential series of
logical steps to reach my conclusions (which Dean dismisses as "personal
attack") and argues from his own authority. There was "no content." Why?
Because Dean says so. There was "no logical argument." Why? Because
Dean says so.
Dean is a hypocrite. He calls that personal attack so that he can try to
evade the evidence that he is a hypocrite. But when I tell assert that
it's a conclusion based on observation of his behavior, he demands
evidence. He even *insisted* when I decided that I had posted that
evidence enough, so in response to his demands, I post it *again*.
Does Dean respond to the evidence? No, he snips it away and declares that
there is no "content" and no "logical argument."
This is why Dean is also a liar.
[End reposted segment]
>> > Personal attack is not a logical argument.
>>
>> I have never said that personal attack is a "logical argument," so this is
>> an entirely irrelevant line of reasoning, especially if it is meant to be
>> a rebuttal to my evidence.
>
> Not at all. If you don't have a logical argument then how can you
> reason with me? In essence you have no argument.
Notice the subtle way Dean tries to avoid what I said. I agree that
personal attack is not a logical argument, but keep in mind two things.
First, Dean and I have different ideas of what constitutes "personal
attack" and two, I did *not* write that I didn't have a logical argument.
So "if you don't have a logical argument" in response to my statement is
disingenuous. When I tell Dean that he is an idiot, that is not a logical
argument. I have no problem with that. When I tell Dean that he is a
*hypocrite*, that's another matter. That's a conclusion based on
> You are avoiding the point with a personal attack. This indicates your
> continued reliance.
No, I have directly addressed it and answered it over and over again.
>> But I have already answered this
>> point.
>
> You have answered by saying you don't need to explain why you use
> personal attack. You also claim "I have never said that personal
> attack is a "logical argument," so this is an entirely irrelevant line
> of reasoning,"
>
Dean has never provided any specific explanations for the so-called
"logical fallacies" that he has claimed. He just claims them. The fact
is that if he could show that any of my specific evidences and arguments
are fallacies, he would have done so. He hasn't.
> If you remove all your personal attacks and other logical fallacies
> what do you have left Dave?
What we have left is the evidence that Dean is a hypocrite. I've already
answered this.
[Snip redundance, Dean's arrogance and continued weaseling and evasions]
Dean makes a speech at the end about the "core argument" which, it must be
recalled, was decided unilaterally by him ("this argument is now about
Dave Horn's use of personal attack"). The argument is about actually
about Dean's dishonesty and hypocrisy and how he avoids addressing the
specific examples of them. Instead, he makes speeches and responds with
vague platitudes. The evidence clearly shows that Dean is a hypocrite and
it certainly indicates that Dean is dishonest. Dean has also unilaterally
decided to exclude David from the thread, but let's see his summary of
what he has observed"
"I believe that Dave is right. You've gone off on a tangent because
you simply refuse to intelligently answer the evidence against you."
Dean tells me that he'll quit when I "admit" my errors or when someone
complains. Dean has a long wait for the former since he has never
actually demonstrated that I am in error. And no one can predict the
latter, but David had a response for that, too:
[Begin reposted segment]
> If there where complaints I'd stop it. Can you
> understand this?
Yes, Skippy, all too well. You are looking for acceptance and
approval and so far, you haven't gotten it. So you will push this
thread from your end as long as it takes to get someone to complain.
Then you will pretend to be the gracious and reasonable party and make
some noises about how it's "affecting others [sic] enjoyment of the
group," if I remember right.
But, Skippy, if you already know that this is a useless venture on
your part, and if you already know that, sooner or later, someone will
complain, why wait?
I think it's all part of your rather pathetic needs, Skippy.
[End reposted segment]
I recommend David's rebuttal of Dean, again found at
http://tinyurl.com/2p948, and see how much Dean is just out of the loop on
what is going on here and how confused he is about his own arguments.
But I'm not going anywhere, either. Dean is going down. No one can stop
it any more.
[End reposted segment]
stew dean
>
> > I snip you opinion - that is all.
>
> That is a lie. Dean also snips the evidence; and the evidence that Dean
> is a hypocrite is inescapable. That he is a hypocrite is not just my
> opinion. It's established fact.
No Dave, it is just your opinion. I think you think it as fact because
you have convinced yourself by repeating your opinion. It was
subjective the first time and continues to be subjective.
> > It appears you confuse the objective with the subjective. Perhaps
> > you should read up on basic philosophy and the scientific method
> > if you have this confusion.
>
> I don't think I'm confused at all, but Dean is certainly welcome to take
> the specific evidence and show this confusion.
You claim not to be reliant on personal attack yet you continue to
rely upon it. Your whole argument is confused and nonsensical.
> In fact, he's had many
> opportunties. He has run from them all.
>
> > Rest of the personal attack snipped.
>
> > You have already stated the argument you persue is not logical
>
> That is *not* what I said.
You said..
"I have never said that personal attack is a "logical argument," so
this is
an entirely irrelevant line of reasoning, especially if it is meant to
be
a rebuttal to my evidence."
Of course you have never said that it is not a logical argument to be
logically correct. Okay, to correct myself, you have not stated
directly that the argument you persue is not logical - but you have
never said it is.
> What I said was that I agreed that personal
> attack is not a logical argument, but this is not a personal attack.
It is a personal attack Dave without any question. You are calling me
hypocrite - that is a personal attack in the commonly held definition.
I have again had to snip all the usual repeated and wrong material.
You make all kinds of claims that are simply wrong or in error.
I have covered every accusation you have made in the past. I have
denied being a liar. I have explained why I don't think I am a
hypocrite. And most of all I have told you why any argument based on
personal attack is not a logical one.
My argument from the start is if you use personal attack you have
commited a logical fallacy and have lost any debate or discussion.
This is not a debate - this is an endurance test to see how long it is
before you finaly understand that using personal attack gets you no
where. If you want to convince anyone that you have an above average
IQ you need to use standard intellectual debating techiques. Can you
imagine writing a scientific paper where you main argument against a
previously held theory is not new objective data and experimental
results which can be independently tested but simply 'the guy was an
idiot, a liar and a hypocrite'.
Think about it Dave, did the world of philosophy prosper on the
exploration of the real world and on reasoned discorce or on two guys
in togas insisting the other was wrong 'cos he's a fool.
I think it's time I found a way to end this whole thing.
I'm giving you three chance to present what your argument actualy is
outside of personal attack. Use the subject as a reference point if
you can.
If you can't do this I'm giving up as if there is no reason in your
argument then there's no point trying to reason with you.
Stew Dean
David Horn
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:52:15 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>
>> > I snip you opinion - that is all.
>>
>> That is a lie. Dean also snips the evidence; and the evidence that Dean
>> is a hypocrite is inescapable. That he is a hypocrite is not just my
>> opinion. It's established fact.
>
> No Dave, it is just your opinion. I think you think it as fact because
> you have convinced yourself by repeating your opinion. It was
> subjective the first time and continues to be subjective.
The evidence that Dean has committed hypocritical acts is objective. Dean
criticized another person for an off-topic post while Dean routinely posts
off-topic. Dean uses personal attack and whines about it when he is the
target of it. Dean demands that certain others not respond to Ed Conrad
and yet Dean responds to Ed Conrad whenever the mood strikes him. Dean
tells us that if the an argument under way is lost if one of the parties
uses personal attack. Dean has been specifically asked about specific
incidents of his own use of personal attack against others and whether or
not that resulted in his loss of that argument and Dean has avoided the
question. Dean has criticized others for snipping content from replies
but does so as a matter of routine. Dean does all of these things using a
variety of excuses (on those relatively rare occasions when he addresses
them at all) but has no explanation and no mitigation.
A hypocrite is one who does not abide by standards he would presume to
impose, demand or otherwise expect of others. Dean's demonstrated and
continuous acts of hypocrisy are objective evidence leading to the
objective conclusion that Dean is a hypocrite. Since Dean has provided no
mitigation for these acts and continues to engage in them periodically,
that is additional objective evidence leading to the objective conclusion
that Dean is a hypocrite.
[Snip more evasion, more obfuscation, more selective snipping and more of
Dean just generally getting it all wrong.]
David Horn
[Snip Dean's evasions, "am not" arguments and generally getting everything
wrong]
I am here replacing the content that Dean snipped and continues to avoid,
while pretending to demand evidence.
[Repost]
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.03...@cox.net>...
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 09:23:52 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
>> >
>> > Once again I remind you that personal attack is not acceptable.
>> >
>> > I've snipped all the usual nonsense. Here's
>> >
>> >> 4. Dean's response, as quoted above, remains a form of "did not" or, more
>> >> accurately, "am not" and he concludes that I am wrong. He never tells us
>> >> *why*.
>> >
>> > I better repeat myself then. You are wrong because personal attack is
>> > wrong, this is what you are defending. It is not part of a logical
>> > argument because it is a logical fallacy to use ad hominem.
>> >
>> > I have not snipped any rebuttals because personal attacks are not
>> > rebuttal.
>>
>> [Snip same old Dean evasions, misunderstandings and misdirection]
>>
>> The fact is that Dean consistently snips evidence that shows his
>> hypocrisy, his duplicity and his dishonesty.
>
> I snip you opinion - that is all.
That is a lie. Dean also snips the evidence; and the evidence that Dean
is a hypocrite is inescapable. That he is a hypocrite is not just my
opinion. It's established fact.
> Accusations of hypocricy are personal attack and is your opinion only.
This, too, is a lie that I have refuted many times. Accusations of
hypocrisy are based on observations and evidence. I didn't start out with
Dean one day saying to myself, "this guy's a hypocrite." No, I saw
repeated episodes of hypocrisy and *then* declared Dean to be a hypocrite.
The evidence is clear. Dean is a hypocrite. He can try to get around
that if he wants to; and clearly he wants to. But it doesn't change a
thing.
> I will continue to snip away what you call 'evidence...'
How convenient.
> ...until you have a logical argument.
I have provided the "logical arugment" several times. Dean has never
taken the argument or the evidence and shown *why* they are invalid and
don't meet the criteria. Dean is lying to the readers.
> It appears you confuse the objective with the subjective. Perhaps
> you should read up on basic philosophy and the scientific method
> if you have this confusion.
I don't think I'm confused at all, but Dean is certainly welcome to take
the specific evidence and show this confusion. In fact, he's had many
opportunties. He has run from them all.
> Rest of the personal attack snipped.
> You have already stated the argument you persue is not logical
That is *not* what I said. What I said was that I agreed that personal
attack is not a logical argument, but this is not a personal attack.
[Snip redundant and refuted arguments]
[Begin reposted segment]
[Reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
[Reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
>> > Personal attack is not a logical argument.
>>
>> I have never said that personal attack is a "logical argument," so this is
>> an entirely irrelevant line of reasoning, especially if it is meant to be
>> a rebuttal to my evidence.
>
> personal attack. You also claim "I have never said that personal
> attack is a "logical argument," so this is an entirely irrelevant line
> of reasoning,"
>
[Begin reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
[End reposted segment]
[End Repost]
Glenn
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:30:27 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
> >> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:52:15 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> > I snip you opinion - that is all.
> >>
> >> That is a lie. Dean also snips the evidence; and the evidence that Dean
> >> is a hypocrite is inescapable. That he is a hypocrite is not just my
> >> opinion. It's established fact.
You should look up what "fact" means, Paluxy.
> >
> > No Dave, it is just your opinion. I think you think it as fact because
> > you have convinced yourself by repeating your opinion. It was
> > subjective the first time and continues to be subjective.
>
> The evidence that Dean has committed hypocritical acts is objective.
Nope.
>Dean
> criticized another person for an off-topic post while Dean routinely posts
> off-topic.
Stew critiziced for *a* post? and you decide that he "routinely posts off-topic,
and you call this objectiveness? No, Davey.
>Dean uses personal attack and whines about it when he is the
> target of it.
"Whine" is a subjective term, Davey.
>Dean demands that certain others not respond to Ed Conrad
> and yet Dean responds to Ed Conrad whenever the mood strikes him.
Stew *demands*? I think not, Hornswaggled.
>Dean
> tells us that if the an argument under way is lost if one of the parties
> uses personal attack.
That is his opinion.
>Dean has been specifically asked about specific
> incidents of his own use of personal attack against others and whether or
> not that resulted in his loss of that argument and Dean has avoided the
> question.
We have your "word" on this. But whether Stew has "avoided" or simply
not responded is subjective, IF your "word" is true.
>Dean has criticized others for snipping content from replies
> but does so as a matter of routine.
Anything can be considered content, and it is very apparent that YOU
snip as a matter of routine.
>Dean does all of these things using a
> variety of excuses (on those relatively rare occasions when he addresses
> them at all) but has no explanation and no mitigation.
Oh yes, the old Horn ploy, claiming that a poster has no explanation, when
in reality, Stew has given explanations. They do not suit you though, so
you lie.
>
> A hypocrite is one who does not abide by standards he would presume to
> impose, demand or otherwise expect of others.
Why would you care, other for your twisted amusement and desire to
dominate? You seem to have no standards at all. And there is evidence in
this post alone that is true. You claim "fact", "objectivity", yet this is all
your
opinion... and when told it is, you claim it is fact objectively arrived.
>Dean's demonstrated and
> continuous acts of hypocrisy are objective evidence leading to the
> objective conclusion that Dean is a hypocrite.
No more than any other average person who makes mistakes at times.
>Since Dean has provided no
> mitigation for these acts and continues to engage in them periodically,
> that is additional objective evidence leading to the objective conclusion
> that Dean is a hypocrite.
You're a sad sad person, Horn.
>
> [Snip more evasion, more obfuscation, more selective snipping and more of
> Dean just generally getting it all wrong.]
>
ROTF!
-
David Horn
Well, well, well, if it isn't Newbie, coming in late again to an argument
and playing the "enemy of my enemy." As usual, Newbie gets it all wrong.
But I have to wonder: Newbie has said many times that he has nothing to
say to me and wants nothing to do with me. So what is he doing in this
thread? And would it do any good to reply and refute his many mistakes?
Of course not. Newbie has already said that he wouldn't believe anything
I say "on a stack of bibles."
But what the hell:
> "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.01.04....@cox.net...
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:30:27 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>>
>> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
>> >> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:52:15 +0000, stew dean wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I snip you opinion - that is all.
>> >>
>> >> That is a lie. Dean also snips the evidence; and the evidence that Dean
>> >> is a hypocrite is inescapable. That he is a hypocrite is not just my
>> >> opinion. It's established fact.
>
> You should look up what "fact" means, Paluxy.
I am fully aware of what a fact is, being better educated and more
experienced on the subject than either Newbie or Dean.
>> > No Dave, it is just your opinion. I think you think it as fact
>> > because you have convinced yourself by repeating your opinion. It was
>> > subjective the first time and continues to be subjective.
>>
>> The evidence that Dean has committed hypocritical acts is objective.
>
> Nope.
Newbie is free to fall back through the thread and find the evidence, and
then explain why it isn't evidence. Of course, it is Newbie who uses the
phrase "your evidence isn't evidence" so much that it has lost meaning
(just as hearing him call someone a "liar" has lost meaning).
>> Dean criticized another person for an off-topic post while Dean
>> routinely posts off-topic.
>
> Stew critiziced for *a* post? and you decide that he "routinely posts
> off-topic, and you call this objectiveness? No, Davey.
I see Newbie still doesn't know how to read for comprehension.
>> Dean uses personal attack and whines about it when he is the
>> target of it.
>
> "Whine" is a subjective term, Davey.
I haven't said otherwise. But the evidence for Dean's hypocrisy is
objective when anyone with an ounce of native intellect compares the
incidents with what is generally understood to be hypocrisy. Of course,
"anyone with an ounce of native intellect" generally excludes the likes of
Newbie.
>> Dean demands that certain others not respond to Ed Conrad
>> and yet Dean responds to Ed Conrad whenever the mood strikes him.
>
> Stew *demands*? I think not, Hornswaggled.
Anyone who has followed those threads knows otherwise. Newbie, as usual,
has nothing to add and no facts to back him up.
>> Dean tells us that if the an argument under way is lost if one of the
>> parties uses personal attack.
>
> That is his opinion.
The problem that Newbie doesn't seem to understand is that this is part of
the evidence for hypocrisy.
>> Dean has been specifically asked about specific
>> incidents of his own use of personal attack against others and whether
>> or not that resulted in his loss of that argument and Dean has avoided
>> the question.
>
> We have your "word" on this. But whether Stew has "avoided" or simply
> not responded is subjective, IF your "word" is true.
I have to wonder about "we." Newbie has come late into this thread and I
have no doubt he has failed to check to see if he has any basis for
criticism. The fact is that we don't just have my word on this. We have
the facts as they have been provided in the thread.
>> Dean has criticized others for snipping content from replies
>> but does so as a matter of routine.
>
> Anything can be considered content, and it is very apparent that YOU
> snip as a matter of routine.
I do not snip pertinent content thats should be answered unless it has
been answered. Again, Newbie has no concept of what is going on in this
thread.
>> Dean does all of these things using a
>> variety of excuses (on those relatively rare occasions when he
>> addresses them at all) but has no explanation and no mitigation.
>
> Oh yes, the old Horn ploy, claiming that a poster has no explanation,
> when in reality, Stew has given explanations.
Really! Exactly what explanations has Newbie presumed to see? I haven't
seen them. What I have seen are excuses and evasions.
A person was told by Dean to post an off-topic article elsewhere. What
does Newbie presumed Dean's explanation for that was?
We'll start there.
> They do not suit you
> though, so you lie.
Ah, here we are. Newbie wasted no time accusing me of a lie. Except
there is no lie. Dean did not provide an explanation, as anyone who
bothers to peruse the thread can see.
A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive others. Even if I am wrong in
that Dean has provided explanations, that doesn't mean there's a lie.
It's not like I actually changed someone's wording, as Newbie did with
someone not to long ago; and it's not like I changed my story twice when
challenged about an "impression" I got about someone else's writing (can
you say "biogeography?") and those changes were quite opposed to one
another. Newbie did that, too.
But, hey, if I'm lying, there's no point in continue to rebut this
nonsense from Newbie. So let's take him back to topicality:
Newbie claims that there is evidence of a component to life other than
chemical processes. Newbie has been challenged to present that evidence
many times; but has, in fact, not.
Perhaps he will do so now.
Then we can get back to the other unanswered issues.
[Snip]
Glenn
>
> Well, well, well, if it isn't Newbie, coming in late again to an argument
> and playing the "enemy of my enemy." As usual, Newbie gets it all wrong.
Is this your introduction, Paluxy?
> But I have to wonder: Newbie has said many times that he has nothing to
> say to me and wants nothing to do with me. So what is he doing in this
> thread?
I do recall saying that I am not interested in discussing anything with you,
Davy. Unless you want to add another lie to your pile, show that I ever
said "I want nothing to do with you".
You seem to be addressing your audience instead of "Dean", so I wonder
what Horn's problem is with me poking at him a little just for fun.
Just because I address Horn at times as "you" does not mean I want anything
to do with him in any event.
>And would it do any good to reply and refute his many mistakes?
Already trying to paint an image of me, hey Horn? And so far you are full
of nothing but ad hominem.
> Of course not. Newbie has already said that he wouldn't believe anything
> I say "on a stack of bibles."
Now that is true...but irrelevant.
>
> But what the hell:
>
> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.01.04....@cox.net...
> >> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:30:27 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >>
> >> > "David Horn" <askifyourea...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2004.01.03....@cox.net>...
> >> >> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:52:15 +0000, stew dean wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > I snip you opinion - that is all.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is a lie. Dean also snips the evidence; and the evidence that Dean
> >> >> is a hypocrite is inescapable. That he is a hypocrite is not just my
> >> >> opinion. It's established fact.
> >
> > You should look up what "fact" means, Paluxy.
>
> I am fully aware of what a fact is, being better educated and more
> experienced on the subject than either Newbie or Dean.
You think you are the best thing since swiss cheese, don't you.
Again, look up what fact means, idiot.
>
> >> > No Dave, it is just your opinion. I think you think it as fact
> >> > because you have convinced yourself by repeating your opinion. It was
> >> > subjective the first time and continues to be subjective.
> >>
> >> The evidence that Dean has committed hypocritical acts is objective.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Newbie is free to fall back through the thread and find the evidence, and
> then explain why it isn't evidence.
I'm free to do most anything I wish, Paluxy.
>Of course, it is Newbie who uses the
> phrase "your evidence isn't evidence" so much that it has lost meaning
> (just as hearing him call someone a "liar" has lost meaning).
More ad hominem! What a surprise.
>
> >> Dean criticized another person for an off-topic post while Dean
> >> routinely posts off-topic.
> >
> > Stew critiziced for *a* post? and you decide that he "routinely posts
> > off-topic, and you call this objectiveness? No, Davey.
>
> I see Newbie still doesn't know how to read for comprehension.
More ad hominem! What a surprise.
>> Dean uses personal attack and whines about it when he is the
> >> target of it.
> >
> > "Whine" is a subjective term, Davey.
>
> I haven't said otherwise.
I don't give a rats ass what you claim, Horn.
>But the evidence for Dean's hypocrisy is
> objective when anyone with an ounce of native intellect compares the
> incidents with what is generally understood to be hypocrisy.
More subjectivity from YOU is not impressive.
>Of course,
> "anyone with an ounce of native intellect" generally excludes the likes of
> Newbie.
You are just full of ad hominem!
>
> >> Dean demands that certain others not respond to Ed Conrad
> >> and yet Dean responds to Ed Conrad whenever the mood strikes him.
> >
> > Stew *demands*? I think not, Hornswaggled.
>
> Anyone who has followed those threads knows otherwise. Newbie, as usual,
> has nothing to add and no facts to back him up.
I followed the thread about Ed somewhat. I do not recall Stew DEMANDING
that others not respond to Ed. That sounds like another LIE of yours,
Horn. But I stopped counting them long ago.
>
> >> Dean tells us that if the an argument under way is lost if one of the
> >> parties uses personal attack.
> >
> > That is his opinion.
>
> The problem that Newbie doesn't seem to understand is that this is part of
> the evidence for hypocrisy.
No, you have not shown there is good reason for why you are accusing
Stew of all these things, lying, being a hypocrite...
And I do not expect you really have any chance of understanding what
I understand. You need your head examined.
>
> >> Dean has been specifically asked about specific
> >> incidents of his own use of personal attack against others and whether
> >> or not that resulted in his loss of that argument and Dean has avoided
> >> the question.
> >
> > We have your "word" on this. But whether Stew has "avoided" or simply
> > not responded is subjective, IF your "word" is true.
>
> I have to wonder about "we."
Yes, that I also wonder about.
>Newbie has come late into this thread and I
> have no doubt he has failed to check to see if he has any basis for
> criticism. The fact is that we don't just have my word on this. We have
> the facts as they have been provided in the thread.
I'm sure there are many facts in this case. One is Horn's incessant use
of ad hominem and obfuscation. Paluxy, you have no idea what I have
checked out in this thread. If another "comes late" into this thread to
support you, *I* have no doubt that you would not claim that they
had come late into the thread and had failed to check out the thread.
You are so full of bullshit, Horn, you don't recognize yourself.
>
> >> Dean has criticized others for snipping content from replies
> >> but does so as a matter of routine.
> >
> > Anything can be considered content, and it is very apparent that YOU
> > snip as a matter of routine.
>
> I do not snip pertinent content thats should be answered unless it has
> been answered.
Sounds exactly like what Stew has said before. Quit whining, Horn.
You snip everything quite regularly.
>Again, Newbie has no concept of what is going on in this thread.
Again? You do think you are convincing to yourself, don't you.
I could say the same about you, Paluxy, that you have no concept
of what is going on in this thread, but one can only take so much
ad hominem in a post, and you have done enough for both of us already.
>
> >> Dean does all of these things using a
> >> variety of excuses (on those relatively rare occasions when he
> >> addresses them at all) but has no explanation and no mitigation.
> >
> > Oh yes, the old Horn ploy, claiming that a poster has no explanation,
> > when in reality, Stew has given explanations.
>
> Really! Exactly what explanations has Newbie presumed to see? I haven't
> seen them. What I have seen are excuses and evasions.
And there you have it, folks. Horn has seen "excuses", but no "explanations".
>
> A person was told by Dean to post an off-topic article elsewhere. What
> does Newbie presumed Dean's explanation for that was?
>
> We'll start there.
Yes, I often wonder about "we" also, Davy boy.
Just substitute the "excuses" and "evasions" and you probably have your answer.
>
> > They do not suit you
> > though, so you lie.
>
> Ah, here we are. Newbie wasted no time accusing me of a lie. Except
> there is no lie. Dean did not provide an explanation, as anyone who
> bothers to peruse the thread can see.
"An" explanation? You mentioned the "Ed" thread...how many more
subjects would you claim to be referring to here, idiot? You are about as
transparent as glass.
>
> A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive others.
Very good, Davy.
>Even if I am wrong in
> that Dean has provided explanations, that doesn't mean there's a lie.
> It's not like I actually changed someone's wording,
You moron, you already have more than twice above.
It is your specialty.
>as Newbie did with someone not to long ago;
Ah. Horn thinks that this tactic will "persuade" readers. But whether
I have done this or not does not detract from Horn's behavior - in this
very post...including the above claim.
>and it's not like I changed my story twice when
> challenged about an "impression" I got about someone else's writing (can
> you say "biogeography?") and those changes were quite opposed to one
> another. Newbie did that, too.
LOL! You asked me for years what I meant by what I said, and
when I finally told you, you claim that I changed my story. Paluxy,
you are a real work of art. Worthy of hanging in a flop house.
>
> But, hey, if I'm lying, there's no point in continue to rebut this
> nonsense from Newbie. So let's take him back to topicality:
"Let's"? Horn must think he is royalty! And he must also think
he is the arbitrer of what is "topical".
>
> Newbie claims that there is evidence of a component to life other than
> chemical processes. Newbie has been challenged to present that evidence
> many times; but has, in fact, not.
>
> Perhaps he will do so now.
>
> Then we can get back to the other unanswered issues.
>
That is real shallow, Horn, old buddy. What I have claimed in the
past has no bearing in this thread, and is not "topical".
You are a raving lunatic, Davy. Get your head examined and
get a life. You only get one. Make the best of it.
> [Snip]
>
David Sienkiewicz
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03123...@posting.google.com>...
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message news:<2b68957a.03123...@posting.google.com>...
> > > attacks?
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > No content is left.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Let's consider: The post we see above appears in the thread AFTER the
> > post in which Dave provides evidence for your hypocrisy
>
> First no evidence has been provided.
I disagree, Skippy; and I'm in a better position to judge.
> Dave repeated a claim I refutted
> at the time.
Skippy, you need to understand that you don't refute something by
denying it.
When you rebut something, you give an alternative viewpoint.
When you refute something, you show it to be wrong.
You didn't refute anything.
> I also draw attention to Dave's 'own goal' on the
> subject. I know what I have done in the past and do not deny it,
> something Dave doesnt appear to understand.
Dave appears to understand all too well. He even uses that sort of
attitude as part of his evidence.
Did you miss that?
> > Dave did NOT rely on personal attack
>
> He did and does. His continued insistance that I am a liar is
> unquestionable evidence of that.
His belief that you lie is supported by the evidence of your own
behavior with respect to the arguments presented.
Skippy, if you appear to be deliberately avoiding the points, the
evidence and the facts, that indicates an intent.
Now remember, Skippy, my position might be less charitable. I think
that you simply can't follow the arguments, don't understand WHY the
evidence provided qualifies and you don't understand that there are
many ways to view many things.
We saw that in the previous arguments you were having when you never
could quite understand that addressing someone directly does not
always mean you are trying to "reason with" that person.
We saw that again in this thread, when I found you to be very confused
on a number of issues.
Of course, your confusion is clouded by your arrogance.
Now, in light of that, consider that Dave thinks you're smart enough
to see what you're doing and are doing it deliberately.
Frankly, Skippy, I don't think you're that smart; and a lot of our
interaction is evidence of that.
So take your pick. Either view isn't particularly flattering, is it?
> Incidently you make the same mistake.
What mistake is that, Skippy?
> > He did that in answer to YOUR challenge that he provide that evidence,
>
> Evidence for what though?
Your hypocrisy, Skippy.
Do try to keep up.
> He believes he should carry on the personal
> attack. He is missing the point.
His words say otherwise. Your inability to follow the point or the
arguments provided does not mean that someone doesn't get the point.
And I remind you that a disagreement with whatever you think your
point might be does not mean that it is not understood.
> > You said that "no logical arguments were snipped." That's not true,
>
> No logical arguments were snipped.
Of course logical arguments were snipped, and this has been shown many
times.
> This is true according to the
> accepted rules of logic.
Which "accepted rules" are those, Skippy?
Are you taking your argument cues from Tony Pagano, Skippy? He makes
a lot of pompous assertions using vague and unspecific language and
never really says much of anything.
I suggest you set your heights a little higher if you choose to
emulate someone.
> I have snipped all the vitriol form your post
> David as I did with Dave's.
And you rely on rhetoric as well, eh, Skippy, since there was no
vitriol in my post?
Vitriol is subjective, too, isn't it, Skippy?
Will you answer that, Skippy? I dare you to.
> > You cannot just snip it away, declare it to be something it isn't, and
> > expect us to buy it.
>
> Just as well that's not what I have done. You don't need to buy it,
> it's free information.
My, my, my...more rhetoric.
> > You chided earlier in the thread for a presumed
> > argument from authority, but here you are doing just that - again.
>
> I have used no argument from authority.
Skippy, any time you make an assertion that has nothing other than you
to back it up, it's an argument from authority; and you don't possess
any authority. Like your "degree involving psychology," it's a
smokescreen.
> Using commonly accepted rules
> of logic is not appealing to authority.
Which "commonly accepted rules" are those, Skippy?
Be specific.
> > Your statement that "personal attack is not a logical argument" is a
> > non sequitur,
>
> This is where you, David and Dave are incorrect. Personal attack is
> not a logical argument.
It is not incorrect, Skippy, because no one is arguing that personal
attack is a logical argument.
But showing you to be a hypocrite is not personal attack. YOU view it
so, of course, because you stand accused.
I'm sure there are a number of murderers, rapists and thieves - much
stronger crimes, of course, but they'll do for illustrative purposes -
who viewed being called "murderer," "rapist," or "thief" as personal
attack. But if the evidence shows that they have perpetrated these
crimes, is it personal attack or a correct labeling of the individual
for his crimes?
It's already been said in this thread that the prisons are full of
innocent people, Skippy. No doubt they, too, would tell you that they
were personally attacked when they were accused of their moral
deficiencies.
That's a bit of an extreme example, Skippy, but it works to
illustrate what we have here.
You have perpetrated and continue to perpetrate hypocritical acts. No
one expects you to ADMIT to being a hypocrite, and we fully expect you
to complain about it, as you usually do.
That doesn't mean that you are NOT a hypocrite. It does not address
the evidence of repeated hypocrisy on your part. It does nothing to
the fact that you ARE a hypocrite.
> It is a logical fallacy to use personal attack
> in any argument.
"Dean is a hypocrite" has been shown to be the objective evaluation of
evidence, Skippy, just as you have been told. It was well-challenged
and you are without excuse.
> These are not my rules but rules that lead to meaningfull arguments
> that are logically sound.
Dave's argument was logically sound. It is based on the evidence of
your behavior and he is quite right in that you have failed to provide
a reasonable explanation or mitigation that any reasonable person
could use to excuse the acts.
Now, I am of the opinion that exposing a hypocrite is meaningful. It
shows the christians and creationists that we will police our own and
will not permit the sort of immoral shenanigans that are so common
among the religious among us. Just as my own criticisms of Fred Rice
have shown a lack of tolerance for that kind of behavior, so is Dave's
expose of you.
Them's the breaks, Skippy. You stand accused and exposed as a
hypocrite. If you had any sense at all, you'd accept the
responsibility for your transgressions and move on.
But you won't do that. So if you are being continuously exposed and
attacked, I suggest to you that many among us feel that it serves you
right. Perhaps that is why there has been none of the normal
complaining about this thread. Even your attempts to solicit those
complaints fell on deaf ears.
> Any personal attacks I have refutted already.
Skippy, you have decided that these examples of your moral
deficiencies are personal attacks and you have not "refutted" them.
You have denied them, but there is a difference. "I am not a liar" is
not proof that you are not a liar. "I am not a hypocrite" is not a
refutation of the evidence that damns you as a hypocrite.
> Dave doesnt want to
> accept that
Dave has already said that he is under no obligation to accept what he
does not see to be true, Skippy. Who are you to tell him or anyone
else otherwise?
< snip >