Enjoy the trolls, folks

[_Maksutov]

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

I would stand down from this board if it would bring DarthJ back.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

DarthJ, if you're reading this. I volunteer as tribute. If you start posting Mak can stay and I'll step aside. Who knows? Maybe we can get a board renaissance going...!

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Holy crap on a ham sandwich, RI!

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

I never thought you did. Lots of people derail threads without intending to do so. I do it myself. I think talking about how threads get derailed might help people be a little more self aware and reduce the frequency of derails

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.

Again, I'm not that concerned with why you posted what you did. If you asked every person who derailed a thread, they'd offer some reason for why they said what they said. For example, if we went to the infamous fart in the wind thread, we could go back to MG's original derail, and he could say something like: "I only posted what I did because I thought Grindael was missing the big picture, which is that we can never know this stuff." I'm not interested in the "why." I'm interested in the "how". If a thread is derailed, it's derailed regardless of the best of intentions by the person who started it.

And the interaction between you and me is exactly how derails start. The topic we were discussing was whether MG was "worse" than LDSFAQS in terms of derailing threads. Your second question asked me if I thought my word choice upthread was odd. The oddness of my word choice literally has nothing to do with MG v. LDSFAQS in the derail arena. Even if you had posted it in response to the post in which I used those words, it would still have been a derail. Why? Because the topic was the reaction of the people on this board toward Grindael taking a break and others leaving until MG was somehow dealt with. The oddness of my word choice has nothing to do with the subject. What it does is shift the topic of discussion away from the substance of the topic to how a specific person chooses to discuss the topic.

That style of derail -- what I'm calling a shift from a discussion to a meta discussion -- commonly turns threads from good discussions into pie fights. It's what Tobin excelled at, although, unlike you, I think he was using it as a deliberate tactic. The effect is to shift the spotlight onto the person who made the original comment and call into question the appropriateness of that comment. Often, it can be fairly described as a personal attack, because it addresses conduct by the person who made the comment rather than the subject at hand. The derailee often feels that she has to defend herself, which leads the thread further away from the topic at hand. Otherwise, an insinuation that the derailee has done something wrong in the conversation is left hanging in the air.

Now, to respond to the actual derail.

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"?

First, we have to look at the difference between the term I used "mob-like hysteria" and the term you used "mob hysteria." I don't just throw those qualifiers in for craps and giggles. If I had meant to call the people that posted on this thread a mob, I would have done so. The numbers of people involved wasn't my point -- it was the emotional reaction present in both cases. Second, I didn't limit my comment to this thread. My full sentence, as opposed to the two words you singled out, makes that pretty clear: "There is a level of mob like hysteria over this whole issue that baffles me." [emphasis added] My comment was on the entire issue of Grindeal taking a break and others leaving. Third, you kind of answered your own question in your first three words: "In my view..." Sure. But the fact that you have a different view (of different words than I actually used) doesn't mean there was anything "odd" about my word choice. Fifth, you think they were over the top. Fine. OK. But, again, the fact that you think that doesn't make my word choice odd -- or make what I think about my own word choice relevant to how people are reacting to the whole issue. Sixth, I've never been on a board that has addressed at all numerical standards for what constitutes "mob like hysteria." You're the first person I've ever seen suggest that use of the term requires some minimum number of pages in a thread, participants in a thread, or number of posts per person in a thread.

In retrospect, I wish I'd used really, really, really exaggerated terms to illustrate the degree to which I thought the emotional response to the whole issue was exaggerated. But I'm just not that damn clever.

See how far away we're getting from MG v. LDSFAQs...

[_Lemmie]

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

Yea those men do those big words great, don't they? now if res ipsa could just get me to behave sensibly and give him what he wants and Jersey Girl would quit non-spelling swear words and thinking independently the world would be right.

But if Maksutov wants to call me a sweetheart that would work, too.

Ah, Lemmie, you know you're my real *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* girl.

My life is complete.

[_Choyo Chagas]

Ah, Lemmie, you know you're my real *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* girl.

if you quote classics, please do it exactly !

it is *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* ...

my two evidences:
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kwh3R0YjuQ .
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGrvQ1c5khU .

you know: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."
(1 Corinthians 14:29)

[_Res Ipsa]

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?

Wow, if that's really the heart of the matter, we should be able to move on to unicorns and rainbows pretty quickly. I've divided the evidence into two buckets:

1. Evidence supporting the proposition that Grindael did not report MG.
2. Evidence contradicting the proposition that Grindael did not report MG.

I'm aware of type 1 evidence, which I've discussed. I'm completely unaware of any evidence type 2. It's the type 2 evidence which I thought you are aware of that I am completely unaware of. Or, to eliminate double negatives, I'm not aware of any evidence that Grindael reported MG. I thought you had some kind of evidence that he did. That's the evidence I'm talking about in the quote.

I'm not asking you to help me prove my claim. I'm simply trying to ask: "Do you have any evidence that contradicts my claim and, if you do, will you tell me what it is?

Rainbows and unicorns now?

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.

I have never said otherwise. I listed some of the evidence that I think supports it. There's more if you want to go over it. That's my case. I developed it on my own without requesting any assistance from you.

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.

I don't think this is an "agree to disagree" issue. It's formal logic, which is kinda like math. We don't get to agree to disagree on what 2+2 equals. In my opinion, "agree to disagree" in this area is kind of a cop out. So, I'll take one more stab at it.

Let X="Grindael reported MG"

RI: ~X

Lemmie: ~~X.

~~X=X

Lemmie: X

Lemmie: Grindael reported MG.

It is definitionally true that (X or ~X) Therefore, to assert ~~X is to assert X.

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.

I think it's critical not to mix up the two buckets of evidence. When I say X, I take on the burden of providing evidence that supports X. When you say ~X, you take on the burden of providing evidence that contradicts X. Those are two different sets of evidence. I'm under no obligation whatsoever to provide evidence that disproves my claim. That's the obligation of someone who makes the claim that my claim is wrong.

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.

No, I don't have those expectations. I wrote a couple of poorly worded sentences, for which I apologize. When I referred to "sensible" I intended to refer to how we place the burden of proof -- not on your individual behavior. When one looks at the application of burdens of proof, they are really based on common sense and practicality. I'll try to illustrate without being insulting.


Case 1: Placing No Burden Of Proof on Person Claiming That Another Claim is False.

P1: There is no small teapot orbiting Mars.

P2: That statement is false.

P1: Why do you say that? Do you have any evidence that there is a small teapot orbiting Mars?

P2: I have no obligation to provide you with any evidence because you have the burden of proof.

P1: I'm not asking you to help prove my statement, I'm asking your for any evidence you have that disputes my claim.

P2: I don't have to tell you because you have the burden of proof.

P1: But if you don't tell me, how am I supposed to take the evidence you have into consideration?

P2: That's your problem. Go out and look at all the evidence and figure it out.

P1: But even if I look at all the evidence, how will I know which evidence you think disproves my claim?

P2: Not my problem.


Case 2: Placing a Burden of Proof On Someone Who Claims that Another Claim is Negative

P1: There is no small teapot orbiting Mars.

P2: That statement is false.

P1: Why do you say that? Do you have evidence that a small teapot is orbiting Mars?

P2 Ghandi: Yes, I do. Here's a newspaper article from last week. Those jokers at NASA included a small teapot on the most recent Mars mission and put it into orbit. They even named it "Russel"



When I referred to sensible, it was in this context: How should we construct the burden of proof in a way that gives us the best chance of getting to the right answer? Getting to the right answer is the goal. The task is to use the concept of the burden of proof in a way that makes sense -- that gives us the best chance to get to that goal. And, in general, the most sensible allocation of burden of proof is to require anyone making any claim -- even the claim that "what you claim is false" to disclose whatever evidence they are relying on. I did not intend to make a comment on whether you, Lemmie the person, was acting sensibly. And I apologize for implying that.

I really don't know how to address the notion of not treating you as an equal. On the one hand, I think it's a pretty vanilla derail. On the other hand, something about the way I post seems to bother you, and I'd like to try and fix that so it doesn't get in the way of conversations down the road. if you'd be willing to point out specific examples with suggestions about how to argue a point and treat you as an equal, I'd be very interested in listening.

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.

Bottom line for me: If I make any claim, even a claim that someone else is wrong, I should have an obligation to disclose whatever evidence that claim is based on.

[Guest]

good grief Res Ipsa. NO, I AM NOT OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE A DIS-PROOF FOR A CLAIM YOU MADE.

Re: your logic and abstract math argument , you seem to have missed the crucial point regarding the CONTEXT in which you are using math, which I will highlight:

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.

I am trying to be polite enough to leave this at "we disagree," but you shouting your exact same point louder and louder and LOUDER is only making me regret that point of civility. So let me be specific. You are wrong, and your repetitive arguments will not change that.

I'm not aware of any evidence that Grindael reported MG.

Then you should NOT have definitively stated that grindael did NOT report mentalgymnast. That is my only, total and inclusive point. You should NOT have stated a specific truth-claim when you did NOT have any evidence to support it. I KNEW you didn't have that evidence, based on your previous statements about your knowledge of the situation, and I KNEW that I did, which is why I said what you stated was untrue, and left you with the obligation to prove what I knew you couldn't.

[_Lemmie]

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.

Bottom line for me: If I make any claim, even a claim that someone else is wrong, I should have an obligation to disclose whatever evidence that claim is based on.

Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Feel free to take any further discussions of this derail to your own and separate thread. PLEASE.

p.s. And what the bloody hell did you mean with your "unicorns and rainbows" reference?

[_Maksutov]

if you quote classics, please do it exactly !

it is *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* ...

my two evidences:
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kwh3R0YjuQ .
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGrvQ1c5khU .

you know: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."
(1 Corinthians 14:29)

Yep, you caught it. You quoting Corinthians. That's good.

[_Maksutov]

We'll know if this works as time goes by. Like I said, I've never seen a troll reform. And the missing posters matter to some of us, at least. Anybody telling me to feel otherwise can eat a dick.

Please note that I do not have a whiny little bitch passive aggressive trolly sig.