I don\'t care about sympathy votes. There is no need to imply that I\'m whining or whatever.
You were complaining, making out (by implication) that you were the victim. So stop feeling sorry for yourself.
I have, several times. His last post before me refusing to continue to pointlessly refute his arguments IMNSHO is so obviously wrong that it\'s not even required to refute it.
However, I am not going to feed a troll, as this is just a waste of time. A troll will never give in, he will use tricks to keep the discussion going while never providing anything useful. In fact, it is common for trolls to post easily refutable claims that are made to anger people into replying to them, if possible without reading through the entire discussion.
I am not retreating in order to not have to admit defeat, nor am I convinced of having been wrong, nor have I become unsure of the validity of my claims. The only thing I am doing is to save myself the waste of time to feed a troll.
Look, you must know that you cannot win an arguement on the internet, unless the other person willingly gives in. No matter what you say people can always reply something irrelivant back to you. If you dont realise this fact then dont get into an arguement.
Actually, no, I did never think that and don\'t think that now. In fact, he was accusing me of not having researched his beloved Saphir Worf hypothesis, though I actually tried to. At the very moment I indicated that I couldn\'t find any more material on this, he would have had to enable me and any reader of this thread to do that research by providing links to the theory, which he obviously must have, since he is trying to make the impression to have done extensive research on that topic. Instead he kept using the hypothesis to \"refute\" my claims without quoting excerpts from his sources, therby denying me any chance of disproving him on his own grounds, while implying that that would be impossible for me, anyway.
Ahhh, rightio then. Ill take your word for it, since i cant work out what you\'re trying to say. Im glad you\'ve decided to quote him now, instead of just levelling accusations.
The so-called counter-examples are like comparing apples and bananas. They are so different from the things they are meant to counter that no conclusion can be drawn from them regarding the original claims, as I will show later on.
Care to give some examples to back up your claims?
This isn\'t even countering my statement. He is, as usual, indulging himself in phrases like \"broad statement\". Additionally, he is now suddenly saying that he doesn\'t even support that hypothesis, and that he even thinks that it\'s wrong (thereby reserving the retreat of saying \"I always supported your view\", just in case someone would provide unquestionable proof to support my point of view).
Well, there you go again on your hypocritical ways- you\'re not even properly countering his claims. How can you say something like that when you\'re not doing it yourself?
By saying this he creatres the illusion of actually discussing, by making it look as if he would actually reconsider anything. However, this point is unrelated to the discussion and therefore doesn\'t hurt his \"points\", and is an easy \"sacrifice\", done for tactical reasons.
You critise him when he disagrees with you, you critise him when he agrees with you? Thats just plain stupid. No wonder the arguement is getting nowhere...
An absolutely irrelevant statement, meant only to distract from the actual discussion and to score sympathy points by implying that I supported Bush (without the implication actually being provable), designed to make me look bad.
If its an irrelivant statement, dont make it important by replying to it. He in no way shape or form implied you supported bush, and just told you not to mention him.
This is typical for his style of argument: to cite things that he doesn\'t even support, but make it look like he supports them and also like he has a great deal of proof to support them, and then retreating by saying \"I just mentioned it\". Obviously it\'s just meant to provoke, and to force the defendant (me, in this case) to waste time refuting claims that are of no importance to him, hoping that I\'ll make mistakes that he can then use against me, or that I\'ll forget important things that may support my claims.
This is an oft argued topic. If you link to a claim does that mean that you support it, and that you should defend it? Do you have any right to critise it if you are not an expert in that field? I agree that it detracts from his arguement if you devalue the studies he has quoted, and i dont think people should mention a study unless they\'re ready to defend it, unless they explicitly state they are only pointing out something about it.
This is what I was referring to when I said that his \"counter-examples\" have no connection to the claims they are meant to look like countering.
Comparing someones delusions to a scientific theory is total rubbish, for the simple fact that there will be no theory without some facts that can be interpreted to support it, whereas someones delusions obviously are without anything to support them, except mental dysfunction. He\'s comparing mental illness to science.
Is called an analogy- something that isnt directly related to the topic but if helpful in showing how the topic works. Examples and analogies are used to prove something about a topic by viewing it in a different way.
Here we have again the \"I am a scientist\" reference. These are obviously meant to create the impression that he is knowing much more than he actually does, and to prevent people from trying to counter his statements, because they are supposed to think things like \"I think he\'s wrong, but probably I just don\'t know enough to see that he\'s correct\". This is typical for trolls.
Um personally i thought what he was saying was a bit of humor, since he obvious dosnt have an invisible friend eliphant, and thus anything said regarding that is also evidentally not true.
Here he is taking my words out of context and mangling them to look like meaning something totally different. He\'s trying to circumvent the requirement to support one\'s claims.
1) He dosnt mention anything you say, so how is he taking your words out of context?
2) Hes not trying to circumvent the requirements, just pointing out where and when its nessacary to support ones claims and when not to.
Again something that doesn\'t have anything to do with the argument, but is supposed to be funny in order to score sympathy points.
It made a very valid point to do with the arguement:
You cannot, in general, prove a negative.
Perhaps you missed that?
Again, \"funny\" thing to gain sympathy, followed by a nukelike \"you are a hypocrite\" claim, which isn\'t supported by anything other than his own, flawed, example. Additionally, he is now accusing me of not working scientifically, while it isn\'t even uncommon to post opinions without stating explicitly that they are, because that is what is done in discussions, whereas it is very common to post references to what one thinks is important but that might not be conveniently available to the discussion partner.
You have made alot of claims that you did not support (until i pressed you about it):
You are, yet again, not providing any links, not supporting your claims and, as a new addition, you are twisting my words to mean the opposite. Also, you put in things that are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
What you\'re doing here isn\'t scientific work, neither is it contributing to a discussion. It\'s trolling, and I have had enough of it.
You should not muddy the water by mixing scientific material and opinion. There has been a discussion of a scientific paper, and now you say what you say is assumed to be opinion by default? You\'ve come out with this scientific type destruction of his arguement, touting to
... I will analyse his last post before mine.
You will
analyse his posts, yet you state that by default what you say is opinion. So can we assume it is all opinion then?
Yet again, this \"counterexample\" isn\'t even applicable to the point it\'s made to look like countering. Additionally, he\'s indirectly emphasizing his manlyhood by making it look like that he had her.
Yes it is, its precisly applicable to the point he was counter exampling about the problem with language. Who cares what he indirectly emphasizing? How could he have put that exmaple without indirectly making that sort of claim? Just because you think he implying something dosnt nessacarily mean he is.
As you\'ll have noticed, I have not bothered to counter his claims, as this would have been a total waste of time, since I still am convinced that he is just trolling. If you see me ignoring him, not just on this thread but everywhere, this is why.
This may very well have actually have been my last post on this thread, since I believe to have said everything I had to anyway.
Yes, i definatly have noticed that. Lemme just clear something up.
This entire arguement is a waste of time. Arguing on the internet is inherently a waste of time. Its like going for a swim and complaining when you get wet. If you dont like it, you shouldnt have started arguing in the first place.
Of course, it would be terrible if you lost the arguement because you have run out of enthusiasm. Please reconsider
