Enjoy the trolls, folks

[_Res Ipsa]

Ah, Christ. The Talmudists in ties are here.

I have no idea what that means, but I'm glad to see you here.

[_Jersey Girl]

Holy crap on a ham sandwich, RI!

I didn't ask you those questions to derail crap.

I asked you these questions:

Which interactions?

And question. Do you find it at all odd that your word choice on this thread includes such hyperbolic phrases as...

"mob like hysteria" and "emotionally embroiled"

when there's only like a dozen people who have bothered to comment on the thread?

Because I had read the thread and I thought you were losing perspective because... you talked about a thread that had only progressed to PAGE TWO and characterized it as "mob like hysteria" and "emotionally embroiled". PAGE TWO.

In my view, mob hysteria is something like 50 posters ganging up about something for pages and days on end. PAGE TWO? You're joking.

You don't think those descriptors were over the top? Sure looked like it from where I sat at the time when I questioned them over on page 3.

Christ, what boards have you been on where two pages of posts with like a dozen posters on it (some who only commented once) constitutes a "mob like hysteria"?

[_Jersey Girl]

Ah, Christ. The Talmudists in ties are here.

No. crap.

[_Lemmie]

Now, Lemmie and I got in a tussle over what it means to say a statement is incorrect. A claim that a statement is incorrect does not just say that the person making the statement hasn't carried the burden of proof. It is a claim that the evidence is against the statement. And if that's true, then there must be some evidence that is being relied on. And the person that is making a claim based on evidence should be given the burden of providing that evidence. Thus, when Lemmie said that my statement was incorrect, she should have the burden to come forward with the evidence on which she bases her statement. Why? Because she is the one with the evidence. I have literally no idea what that evidence is.

[emphasis added]

Res Ipsa, here is the heart of the matter. If you "have literally no idea what that evidence is," then why did you make this claim, which you are now asking me to provide evidence regarding?

If [Grindael] felt MG had been harassing him outside the rules during the three years, he could have reported MG. But he didn’t.

[emphasis added]
YOU made a specific, factual claim. It is YOUR responsibility to support it.

Re: your definitions of X, disagreeing with X, not-X, and the burden of proof, we will have to agree to disagree. X and not-X have very specific meanings. If you claim X is true and I disagree that X is true, then I am saying I think X is false, which is NOT identical to making my own separate and specific claim that Not-X is true.

All I'm asking is "tell me why you think X is incorrect." Her suggestion imposes on me the burden of sifting through all her many posts on this topic and would require me to read her mind. That's not a sensible way to structure an argument. The sensible thing is for her to type a couple of lines that explains the evidence she is relying on.

No, YOU made a claim, I said your claim was wrong. It's not sensible to impose upon a person who disagrees with you the burden of producing the evidence that proves or disproves your claim. Here again, this statement of expecting me to 'behave sensibly' and 'do what you expect of me' indicates to me that you are not conversing with an equal. If that is not your intent, then consider it some friendly feedback when I say that a very wrong intent is coming through in the way you are posting to me.

Bottom line, saying I think your claim that X is true is wrong in no way obligates me to prove not-X is true in place of you or even conjunction with you being obligated to prove your claim that X is true.

[_Maksutov]

Ah, Christ. The Talmudists in ties are here.

No. ____.

Throw me a bone here. My peepstone is in the shop. No. ____.?

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie, in response to your post about MG's "quote" of Chap.

Yes, I think Chap handled it quite well.

I would label MG's post a clear troll/derail. What MG posted after the edited quote is a simple insult that adds nothing to the topic. The use of the altered quote was unnecessary and silly. MG's point was that Chap's post implied that the critic here were reasonable. He could have just said that. If you throw in the context that MG himself made a huge issue out of Grindael changing the text of his quotes, what MG did could be interpreted as deliberately provocative. In terms of being Tobinesque, I don't know. The whole concept is a little mushy to me.

My suggestion: don't post altered versions of people's quotes, except to snip parts that you don't want to discuss. If you want to argue some implication from the quotes, then argue it. Don't change the quote so that it say what you think it implies.

I would agree, thanks for your comments.

[_Jersey Girl]

I was agreeing with you, Mak.

[_Lemmie]

I was agreeing with you, Mak.

Alliteration is a wonderful thing. My guess is no- ___, Sherlock!

[_Jersey Girl]

I was agreeing with you, Mak.

Alliteration is a wonderful thing. My guess is no- ___, Sherlock!

I bow to your mastery.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I thought RI's posts on this page were pretty interesting. I appreciate the thoughtful commentary. Makes me miss DarthJ a bit. "Talmudist in Ties" is great, too.

- Doc