Am 25.09.2014 11:58, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> So you can reason... now use it on my post you rejected.

How about a deal - Doc reads /your/ post again and uses reason on it, 
while you read /our/ posts again, use reason on them, and post something 
in response other than self-justification - like, say, let us know 
whether you see and accept any grain of truth in our criticism.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 11:33, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Discuss if the case arrived on my posts, but mostly inform and I would
> discuss on other people's post of course, so if you don't jump to
> conclusions as you did, you can easily see that this is a possibility.
>
> I'm not missing the target, that's what you think, the target is people
> that can read, write and think.

Well, you /are/ obviously missing the target audience if a number of 
people agree with my posting that started it all, that your way of 
addressing this newsgroup comes across as a bit off, or even that 
they've started to ignore your postings entirely, while there is none - 
zero, nada - who speaks up to say "I like the way you do it, please 
continue and don't let clipka's posting distract you".

Then of course, I might be mistaken in my presumption that your target 
audience is the readers if povray.off-topic, and that you just happen to 
be posting here erroneously...

> I understand your points, you're simply wrong or misguided as I have
> pointed out if any.

Then you're /not/ getting my point. Because my primary point is not how 
you are, what your intentions are, what you're trying to communicate - 
but just plainly how you come across, and why that doesn't further your 
goal of communicating some message.

> so I'm not going to waste time in reaching
> unreasonable people,

What you're probably failing to take into account is that even 
reasonable people have emotions, gut feelings et cetera, and as you 
pointed out in some other post yourself, the world would be an utterly 
cold, overly rational place if that wasn't the case. If you go straight 
against these emotional aspects of your audience, you're missing them - 
often entirely.

What I originally did was point out that, in my case, that's exactly 
what's happening with your posts - not to judge you, but to offer 
feedback so that you can adapt your style of communication to this 
problem. (I later also went on to rationally examine that non-rational 
aspect of mine that you brushed up against, only to find out that it 
warned me of a real issue, which again I communicated to you not for the 
sake of judgement.)

What others then did was point out that, yes, they feel the same, 
furthering the point that you should do things differently.

What you did then - and are doing still - was defend your posting style, 
appealing to our rational side to please just entirely ignore (and 
thereby betray) our emotional aspects (rather than even allow them to be 
expressed, which is a prerequisite for examining them rationally).

Everyone's emotional aspects form a part of that person, and usually 
they do have /some/ point and are therefore valid in themselves, and 
expecting people to entirely ignore them when trying to address them is 
just naive.


So until you think over and adapt your comms style, you're /obviously/ 
still missing my point.

I'm not saying you /must/ adapt your comms style, but then you have to 
live with the consequences - such as people telling you that you're 
losing them, or people starting to outright ignore you. (Maybe even 
people requesting you to be banned from the newsgroup if you really step 
onto people's emotional toes with force.)


I think I've said 'nuff now. I've been trying to make you aware of how 
you're busy losing people you claim to try to address, but I'm growing 
tired of you not having any of it. Apparently I'm missing my target 
audience, too - so as I don't have a clue how to otherwise change my 
comms style to be more efficient, I'll resort to a radical change: I'll 
simply stop posting on this issue.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/14 19:24, clipka wrote:
> Am 25.09.2014 11:58, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
>> So you can reason... now use it on my post you rejected.
> 
> How about a deal - Doc reads /your/ post again and uses reason on it,
> while you read /our/ posts again, use reason on them, and post something
> in response other than self-justification - like, say, let us know
> whether you see and accept any grain of truth in our criticism.
> 

I've re-read Saul's posts several times and there is nothing in them
that persuades me to agree with his point of view. He implies that his
view is 'scientific' - well, not in any sense that I understand. He also
appears to be sailing close to the infamous 'conspiracy theory' of
government and the military industrial complex.
His ranty (is that a word?) style of communicating his views also does
little to persuade me that he might have a point.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from
> >> ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?
> >
> > I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
> >
> > Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?
> >
> No, that's what you think, I don't think you understand the comcept neither.

So please explain what you think it means.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Why you didn't start if you obviously think you know better?

Post a reply to this message

And why I should do as you say? As long as I want and can I will do as I 
see fit.

Post a reply to this message

OK I tried, you're the one is a stubborn hot-headed one and I'm not 
going to explain again in another way so you can understand, what you 
simply don't want to.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 13:50, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> And why I should do as you say? As long as I want and can I will do as I
> see fit.

plonk


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Why you didn't start if you obviously think you know better?

Start what? And you avoiding the question I presented you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

No I didn't as you demonstrated to be unreasonable enough

I stand corrected on your points, but still shallow analysis of my words.

By oxymoron I meant contradiction and by 'begging the question' leads me 
to ask...

I already wrote I won't apologize because you deserve it, but I thought 
about it and I think 'asshole' it's too strong for your indifference to 
my message, so I apologize.

I'm 41 and I take advice when I see that the person reasons along of the 
subject and doesn't avoid stray around trying to give himself the reason 
because he says so.

What's the purpose of the PS? that I don't fuck with you? you disguised 
in the form of a "quote"? and you expect me to apologize? hmm 
interesting, well you behavior is rude enough to merit a equal response, 
so why don't you take this advice and examine the way you address to people?

Post a reply to this message

Wrong, by Earth it's understood that it's the ecologic system we live 
in, of course Earth will still be here until the Sun goes supernova.

Post a reply to this message

no, you are.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> no, you are.

I'm what? You are not making any sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Again you fail to analyze as you have in many of my posts:

You generalize, saying/writing something stupid doesn't mean necessarily 
that you're stupid, but mistaken, natural perpetual human error, and 
this is a given and basic knowledge, you should know it and avoid such 
generalizations.

Same as Science does, you analyze and you discover the non-obvious whatever.

Post a reply to this message

That doesn't imply necessarily that I'm correct, but have a reasoned 
and/or educated opinion that probably is true, of course eliminating as 
much as possible the other possibilities, if the goal is to search for a 
single best answer and not multiples.

Post a reply to this message

A reasonable construct will indicate the difference, if you can't tell 
the difference that's simple lack of understanding, it's not the same to 
say/write: you're saying something stupid than you're stupid.

Post a reply to this message

I don't expect people like you ever understand it, you're closed-minded 
enough, so it's OK.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 14:35, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Wrong, by Earth it's understood that it's the ecologic system we live
> in, of course Earth will still be here until the Sun goes supernova.

That does not infirm what I wrote.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Well, you /are/ obviously missing the target audience if a number of
> people agree with my posting that started it all, that your way of
> addressing this newsgroup comes across as a bit off, or even that
> they've started to ignore your postings entirely, while there is none -
> zero, nada - who speaks up to say "I like the way you do it, please
> continue and don't let clipka's posting distract you".
>
> Then of course, I might be mistaken in my presumption that your target
> audience is the readers if povray.off-topic, and that you just happen to
> be posting here erroneously...

It's not a popularity contest, it's reasoning, again you missed the 
point, and yes, you're wrong, because I wrote what the requirements were 
and for the random kind of posts on ot.pr.org.

> Then you're /not/ getting my point. Because my primary point is not how
> you are, what your intentions are, what you're trying to communicate -
> but just plainly how you come across, and why that doesn't further your
> goal of communicating some message.

You again repeat yourself for the 4th time, I explained this already, I 
get your point, you don't get mines and digress to your subjects.

> What you're probably failing to take into account is that even
> reasonable people have emotions, gut feelings et cetera, and as you
> pointed out in some other post yourself, the world would be an utterly
> cold, overly rational place if that wasn't the case. If you go straight
> against these emotional aspects of your audience, you're missing them -
> often entirely.

I never asked to discard emotional information, you assumed that, and 
assuming is generally mistaking, there your error. You didn't analyzed 
yous and just having a general notion of them. Emotional info. makes you 
smarter since they're the result of subconscious reasoning or called 
"gut" because sometimes creates a little bit and anxiety and produce a 
little of excess gastric juice and creating gases and bit of annoyance 
on the intestine that will be felt in the 'gut', but that's a chemical 
response of a similar anxiety-provoking situation from the past, but 
necessarily equal, therefore the need to analyze it, women tend to do 
this way better and faster than men, evolutionary trait, I learned this 
about them long ago and confirmed over the years, and that makes them 
more understanding, so you were not only wrong but very wrong to assume 
this of me.

> What I originally did was point out that, in my case, that's exactly
> what's happening with your posts - not to judge you, but to offer
> feedback so that you can adapt your style of communication to this
> problem. (I later also went on to rationally examine that non-rational
> aspect of mine that you brushed up against, only to find out that it
> warned me of a real issue, which again I communicated to you not for the
> sake of judgement.)

And I took it that way, except for 1 post which was digressed from the 
points and you tend to explain too long.

> What others then did was point out that, yes, they feel the same,
> furthering the point that you should do things differently.

somewhat, yes.

> What you did then - and are doing still - was defend your posting style,
> appealing to our rational side to please just entirely ignore (and
> thereby betray) our emotional aspects (rather than even allow them to be
> expressed, which is a prerequisite for examining them rationally).

No, wrong assessment, that's what people here thinks I'm doing, I'm 
calling BS where I see it and addressing with reason when I see it too, 
that you can see this and pinpoint my mistake and just write generally: 
you try to appear reasonable, you rant, etc, it's just lack of analysis, 
I'm being reasonable and try to write short, but it's not always possible.

> Everyone's emotional aspects form a part of that person, and usually
> they do have /some/ point and are therefore valid in themselves, and
> expecting people to entirely ignore them when trying to address them is
> just naive.

When I see unreasonable attitudes, I won't call to reason, not here, 
because here you should be reasonable to communicate.

> So until you think over and adapt your comms style, you're /obviously/
> still missing my point.

Or maybe I'm not the problem.

> I'm not saying you /must/ adapt your comms style,  but then you have to
> live with the consequences - such as people telling you that you're
> losing them, or people starting to outright ignore you. (Maybe even
> people requesting you to be banned from the newsgroup if you really step
> onto people's emotional toes with force.)

This is the second time you contradict yourself, yes you're implying I 
must, it's a form of persuasive emotional coercion. I try to improve but 
I don't care if the World calls my reasoning BS, truth and the truth of 
my reasoning will say, I'm not if I'm in the truth of things.

> I think I've said 'nuff now. I've been trying to make you aware of how
> you're busy losing people you claim to try to address, but I'm growing
> tired of you not having any of it. Apparently I'm missing my target
> audience, too - so as I don't have a clue how to otherwise change my
> comms style to be more efficient, I'll resort to a radical change: I'll
> simply stop posting on this issue.

I'm getting tired to be corrected that has as many and maybe more cooms 
issues than me, and reasoning and simple explanation or generally all 
you need to comms efficiently.

Post a reply to this message

It does, you just don't see it.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> It's arguably hard to take someone seriously who has in the past shown
> belief in things like ghosts, deities, the supernatural, possibly in
> aliens, and who has called skeptics "theists, Science being your God",
> and who is now making several posts with nothing more than one link
> each, and with provocative titles, giving a strong vibe of a conspiracy
> theorist.

news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that 
are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about 
them, but still many things without explanation, and there is a 
plausible number of hundreds of intelligent species to be alive right 
now in the know Universe, I admit that might be all BS and that the next 
intelligent civilization could be too far way, but again, we don't know. 
This is supported by the fact that the satellite that is charting all 
the planets in the known universe is finding more than the scientist 
anticipated, Keppler IIRC.

> It doesn't help matters when you then start insulting people and using
> swearwords, as well as using the "argumentative fallacy card" by throwing
> names of completely random fallacies in situations where they don't fit
> at all, seemingly to make yourself sound more intellectual and learned
> (but ultimately achieving the exact opposite).

That's you opinion and I think the same about you right here.

> If you want to discuss about a certain topic, don't just make a post
> with nothing but an URL. Explain your point, describe the topic, use
> the URL as a reference, not as the main content. When writing, avoid
> sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and avoid insulting people
> simply because they disagree with you or dismiss you for behaving like
> a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

As I wrote, I wanted not so much to discuss but to inform and again, 2 
of my 6 posts were links only. I have background info that supports my 
posting, not abundant but I think enough for solid probable cause and 
those articles are mostly facts what's happening in actuality and some 
documentaries are more than theories are facts as the ones I pointed out 
in that other post, so it's about analyzing and checking, but people are 
simply lazy and call BS and forget about it, because they like their 
"perfect little corner of the Wworld".

> Also be aware of the environment you are in. If you go to a forum that's
> about, let's say, knitting, and start throwing URL's to outlandish
> political videos or websites that have absolutely nothing to do with
> knitting, expect people to dismiss you. The context of the forum is
> relevant.

I am, and ready many of the posts silently over time and checked that a 
good number of them are political-related and the rest pretty random, so 
I thought mine wouldn't be the exception but rather normal but 
interesting, maybe you should check the topics before making this such 
recommendation.

Post a reply to this message

Hahaha, keep playing the fool

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 16:28, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> It does, you just don't see it.

You may not know it but you are talking to a professional on this matter.

In the whole discussion (?) these last days there is only /one/ person 
correct: you, even if you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

I am tired of this. I am quitting now. Good bye.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 13:28, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I already wrote I won't apologize because you deserve it, but I thought
> about it and I think 'asshole' it's too strong for your indifference to
> my message, so I apologize.
> 

... and I accept your apology

> 
> What's the purpose of the PS? 

In the context in which it was originally written it was a warning that
I had many more people on my side than the attacker had on his. It
didn't imply physical violence.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Hahaha, keep playing the fool

Saul.
You are overdoing it again.
A word to the wise ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 14:39, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> A reasonable construct will indicate the difference, if you can't tell
> the difference that's simple lack of understanding, it's not the same to
> say/write: you're saying something stupid than you're stupid.

Not in all cases.
Non stupid people can say or do stupid things at times.

To call someone stupid without qualifying it implies that they always do 
and will do stupid things.

I have known Warp on here for a long time. I may disagree with him 
sometime. But I have never known him to say anything stupid.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 17:26, schrieb Stephen:
> On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
>
> Saul.
> You are overdoing it again.
> A word to the wise ;-)

He met just the right person in Warp though; somebody had me pop corn ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 15:33, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Again you fail to analyze as you have in many of my posts:
>
> You generalize, saying/writing something stupid doesn't mean necessarily
> that you're stupid, but mistaken, natural perpetual human error, and
> this is a given and basic knowledge, you should know it and avoid such
> generalizations.

That's what /you/ think it means, but to other people it comes across 
much differently.

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 14:08, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> OK I tried, you're the one is a stubborn hot-headed one and I'm not
> going to explain again in another way so you can understand, what you
> simply don't want to.

Hot-headed? Seriously?

Paying attention to my emotions, certainly. Stubborn? Well, I can be at 
times. But hot-headed? In this conersation?

I don't know what newsgroup you're reading, but somehow I get the 
feeling it's not povray.off-topic.


Might I just remind you of who, in this conversation, was the only one 
so far to resort to swearing and cursing?

I hereby claim the right to /become/ hot-headed about this. Not that I 
am making use of this right - I'm rather amused actually.

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 17:00, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that
> are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about
> them, but still many things without explanation,

Now /that/ is an "argument from ignorance": Jumping from the fact that 
there are still "many things without explanation" to the conclusion that 
therefore a given theory X (in this case, "there are aliens"), that 
would /happen/ to explain them, /must/ be true.

But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been 
confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to 
this date.

> and there is a
> plausible number of hundreds of intelligent species to be alive right
> now in the know Universe,

That is plausible indeed, some would even say almost inevitable, but 
those hundreds of intelligent species might still live the same isolated 
life as we do on our own planet.

In fact, the anthropic principle would suggest (albeit not necessarily 
imply) that if interstellar travel is feasible, we'll be the first 
species to do it. Otherwise, the dominant species on our planet 
(dominant to the extent that evidence would be everywhere) would 
probably not be humans but some extraterrestrial species already.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 17:10, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:26, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
>>
>> Saul.
>> You are overdoing it again.
>> A word to the wise ;-)
>
> He met just the right person in Warp though; somebody had me pop corn ;-)
>

I think so. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 17:23, clipka wrote:
> Hot-headed? Seriously?

Don't listen Saul. He is well noted for it. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Also be aware of the environment you are in. If you go to a forum that's
>> about, let's say, knitting, and start throwing URL's to outlandish
>> political videos or websites that have absolutely nothing to do with
>> knitting, expect people to dismiss you. The context of the forum is
>> relevant.
>
> I am, and ready many of the posts silently over time and checked that a
> good number of them are political-related and the rest pretty random, so
> I thought mine wouldn't be the exception but rather normal but
> interesting, maybe you should check the topics before making this such
> recommendation.

But you flooded the forum with them. That is not the best way to go 
about it.

I would post one and if there was no response. I might post another but 
after that. I would keep off the subject.
It would be obvious that it was not a topic of interest, here.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 18:48, schrieb Stephen:
> On 26/09/2014 17:23, clipka wrote:
>> Hot-headed? Seriously?
>
> Don't listen Saul. He is well noted for it. ;-)

Shhhh! :-P

(But yeah, I did manage to get into some hot-headed discussions; I guess 
Warp can attest that right now I'm /not/ in hot-headed mode... Warp? You 
reading this? Help me out, for fuck's sake :-))

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 18:03, clipka wrote:
> (But yeah, I did manage to get into some hot-headed discussions;

Oh! Tell us more.
Because I was just fishing. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:26, schrieb Stephen:
> > On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> >> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
> >
> > Saul.
> > You are overdoing it again.
> > A word to the wise ;-)

> He met just the right person in Warp though; somebody had me pop corn ;-)

I have lately grown tired of that kind if quip, so please just skip it.
I don't really care if it's humorous or not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Hahaha, keep playing the fool

Why exactly should I, or anybody else for that matter, take you seriously
if this is the level of your discussion?

I asked you a pretty clear question, and rather than have an actual
discussion about it, you simply act like a really infantile smartass.

From your posts in the last few days you seem to want to give a very
intellectual picture of yourself, using seemingly fancy terms and
claiming to approach things in a logical and skeptical manner, yet
when someone critiques what you say, this is the level of discussion
to which you resort. That's not in any way intellectual or intelligent.
It's just childish.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:00, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> > news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that
> > are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about
> > them, but still many things without explanation,

> Now /that/ is an "argument from ignorance": Jumping from the fact that 
> there are still "many things without explanation" to the conclusion that 
> therefore a given theory X (in this case, "there are aliens"), that 
> would /happen/ to explain them, /must/ be true.

I was going to point out how that is indeed a textbook example of
argument from ignorance, but you beat me to it.

I don't know what Saul thinks said term means (since he refuses to
tell), but it does indeed mean to take an unknown and take it as
supporting evidence for a claim.

One of the most typical and prevalent examples is making an argument
for the existence of God as: "Science can't explain where the Universe
came from." This kind of fallacious argumentation is surprisingly
common. Very similar arguments are very common among other woo fields
such as ufology and believers in ghosts/the supernatural (in fact,
I bet that if you made a google search for "unexplained", the vast
majority of hits will be about either of those subjects.)

"Argument from ignorance" does *not* mean something like "you are
just making that claim because you don't know enough about the
subject in question" (even though the fallacy is a bit unfortunately
named, and may give that impression).

> But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been 
> confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to 
> this date.

As the original discussion I was referring to in my previous post was
about the origin of life on Earth, while aliens cannot be definitively
discarded, it seems highly unlikely (and, ultimately, it just needlessly
shifts the question of the origin of life to another planet).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 19:57, schrieb Warp:

> "Argument from ignorance" does *not* mean something like "you are
> just making that claim because you don't know enough about the
> subject in question" (even though the fallacy is a bit unfortunately
> named, and may give that impression).

I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was 
pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from 
non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.

Alternatively, it may have been "anglicanized" at a time when the 
meaning of "ignorance" was closer to the original latin word, rather 
than the "not knowing shit" meaning it seems to be used for nowadays.

>> But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been
>> confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to
>> this date.
>
> As the original discussion I was referring to in my previous post was
> about the origin of life on Earth, while aliens cannot be definitively
> discarded, it seems highly unlikely (and, ultimately, it just needlessly
> shifts the question of the origin of life to another planet).

That's indeed Occam's Razor at its best.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 20:41, clipka wrote:
> 
> I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was
> pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from
> non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.
> 
> Alternatively, it may have been "anglicanized" at a time when the
> meaning of "ignorance" was closer to the original latin word, rather
> than the "not knowing shit" meaning it seems to be used for nowadays.
> 

I am inclined to agree with your analysis; it's a shame that fewer and
fewer people seem to have even a passing acquaintance with Latin these days.
BTW I'm not nit-picking, just correcting someone whose English is way
better than my German. The word you should have used was 'Anglicized'.
'Anglican' refers to the the Church of England.

> 
> That's indeed Occam's Razor at its best.
> 

That's why I love this newsgroup. We have an amazing collection of
logicians, mathematicians, computer scientists etc etc.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 22:05, schrieb Doctor John:
> On 26/09/14 20:41, clipka wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was
>> pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from
>> non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.
...
> BTW I'm not nit-picking, just correcting someone whose English is way
> better than my German. The word you should have used was 'Anglicized'.
> 'Anglican' refers to the the Church of England.

Yeah, I had a hunch something like that might be the case. Thanks.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 21:40, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 22:05, schrieb Doctor John:
>> On 26/09/14 20:41, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was
>>> pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from
>>> non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.
> ....
>> BTW I'm not nit-picking, just correcting someone whose English is way
>> better than my German. The word you should have used was 'Anglicized'.
>> 'Anglican' refers to the the Church of England.
> 
> Yeah, I had a hunch something like that might be the case. Thanks.
> 

No problem. Have a good weekend

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 19:45, Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
>
> Why exactly should I, or anybody else for that matter, take you seriously
> if this is the level of your discussion?
>
> I asked you a pretty clear question, and rather than have an actual
> discussion about it, you simply act like a really infantile smartass.
>
>  From your posts in the last few days you seem to want to give a very
> intellectual picture of yourself, using seemingly fancy terms and
> claiming to approach things in a logical and skeptical manner, yet
> when someone critiques what you say, this is the level of discussion
> to which you resort. That's not in any way intellectual or intelligent.
> It's just childish.
>

Thank you Warp. Exactly my opinion about this whole /discussion/.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 26/09/14 20:41, clipka wrote:
> > 
> > I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was
> > pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from
> > non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.
> > 
> > Alternatively, it may have been "anglicanized" at a time when the
> > meaning of "ignorance" was closer to the original latin word, rather
> > than the "not knowing shit" meaning it seems to be used for nowadays.
> > 

> I am inclined to agree with your analysis; it's a shame that fewer and
> fewer people seem to have even a passing acquaintance with Latin these days.
> BTW I'm not nit-picking, just correcting someone whose English is way
> better than my German. The word you should have used was 'Anglicized'.
> 'Anglican' refers to the the Church of England.

I bet it was poorly anglicanized as well... ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Hahaha :-)

Post a reply to this message

You do it your own way: you digress and rant and don't pay attention tot 
eh subject but the way the subject was enunciated, that's being passive 
aggressive, so yeah.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> In the context in which it was originally written it was a warning that
> I had many more people on my side than the attacker had on his. It
> didn't imply physical violence.

I see.  Just in case: I wasn't implying that it did.

Post a reply to this message

I don't try in anyway to appear anything but rational, I don't know why 
people say I try to look intellectual and I use fancy words, I use the 
little English I know and words that are efficient for expressing 
ideas/meaning, if they seem intellectual well it's just expected since I 
used my intellect, what's wrong with that?

"I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.

Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?" You call this 
mature? for a 10 year old, yes, this is your level of discussion and so 
my answers.

Post a reply to this message

I don't care if you're the Einstein of your profession, your logic is 
invalid, because you 2 statement in that post, the first was wrong and 
the second contradicted your first post which was ironically right, but 
contradicted yourself therefore invalidating the logic that connects the 
2 of them, so your way of thinking was more wrong that right, but you OH 
PROFESSIONAL in this, didn't even notice it, let alone bother to check 
for mistakes in your way of writing, and I'm the closed minded one? 
haha, I really don't care discussing with people like you, you have 
demonstrated on your post not to have much logic, so far the worst of 
all the posters to my posts.

Post a reply to this message

Well those other people don't use logic, don't they? and acting stupid, 
and the reason many of them don't want to admit an error, because if I 
point out that you did something wrong, I'm calling out the mistake not 
that you're a complete idiot that never does anything right, that 
implies that you either are perfect and a complete idiot and never 
nobody should even criticize you or what you do, that attitude is stupid.

Post a reply to this message