Memo

Originally posted by FMF
I think you are one of the weakest contributors here because of the content of your posts and the things you say and the way you process disagreement. When you talk about how you find me one of the nastiest contributors here - or whatever it is you have said in the past - I don't ask you or (or need you) to explain. I know what you mean. And I know what the word nasty means, just as you know what the word "weak" means. 😉

Strartreader also doesn't understand what "evidence" means and how it differs from "hearsay".

Originally posted by FMF
The accusation of being a "women hater" is not a "small thing" ~ do you think it is? ~ and I made "allusions" to it immediately, in fact the very next post on page 123, not more than a dozen pages later, as you will see if you look.

Spot on!

Originally posted by divegeester
How is calling someone a misognist as small thing? If it's a small thing then why are you worried about it?

On page 135 you said you "totally agreed" with Ghost Hunter and now you are hemming and hawing, flapping and back paddling because you have either lied about or simply didn't take not of what you were "totally agreeing to".

Actually she made a couple of deflecting quips about me "not being myself" so it could be that she has dealt with her "misogyny" thing and we've all moved on. Not sure. But it could be.

Originally posted by divegeester
Spot on!

And I'm in a different time zone too. 😏

Originally posted by divegeester
Strartreader also doesn't understand what "evidence" means and how it differs from hearsay.

If I understood robbie correctly on page 133, if someone is accused of something, denies it, and asks for some evidence, the accused person is committing a 'logical fallacy' called 'appeal to ignorance'. So there you go. That's the supposed need for "evidence" sorted for you.

Originally posted by FMF
I had a look at some of your posts - and those of others - on the Clans Forum a couple of times a year or so ago. You may post like a 16 year old here for the most part, but you posted like a 13 year old there. No. Quite right. Not interested. 😀

Yes they do have a child like quality which an acidic old crusty burger like you would find difficult to appreciate.😵

Originally posted by FMF
If I understood robbie correctly on page 133, if someone is accused of something, denies it, and asks for some evidence, the accused person is committing a 'logical fallacy' called 'appeal to ignorance'. So there you go. That's the supposed need for "evidence" sorted for you.

This thread started with such little promise; yet another Grampy Bobby attention-seeking vehicle; but it has become a bit of a GF El-Classico in my opinion.

Of course the elephant in the room, and which I've been repeatedly asking for clarification on, is why Grampy Bobby started this thread in the first place.

He says in his OP that he decided for "personal reasons" not to renew his subscription or start any more threads, and goes on to grease up Russ for his whole experience since joining. It's all very kitchen sink drama and look-at-me flouncy-offy stuff.

Then suddenly, some kind soul buys him a subscription and he accepts it. So either his OP was a thinly veiled appeal for that gift, or he has dropped his "personal reasons" in the light of a getting a surprise freebie. Either way it seems quite unprincipled.

I can't seem to get him clarify which it is for some reason.

Originally posted by FMF
If I understood robbie correctly on page 133, if someone is accused of something, denies it, and asks for some evidence, the accused person is committing a 'logical fallacy' called 'appeal to ignorance'. So there you go. That's the supposed need for "evidence" sorted for you.

You committed a logical fallacy when you alleged through an indirect question that as there was no evidence of your alleged women hating and you could not be guilty of it. This was the intent of your question. As was pointed out to you, lack of evidence in itself is not proof of the veracity of a claim and is an appeal to ignorance. Thus your attempt to exonerate yourself of the accusation was clearly logically fallacious because you may still be an alleged women hater and lack on concrete evidence cannot be used to absolve you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes they do have a child like quality which an acidic old crusty burger like you would find difficult to appreciate.😵

"Child" like? I don't think so. Daft and unpleasant and desperately unfunny, more like, which are not words I would associate with 9 out of 10 children. I'll settle for "pubescent like" if you're happy with that. 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You committed a logical fallacy when you alleged through an indirect question that as there was no evidence of your alleged women hating and you could not be guilty of it. This was the intent of your question. As was pointed out to you, lack of evidence in itself is not proof of the veracity of a claim and is an appeal to ignorance. Thus your attem ...[text shortened]... may still be an alleged women hater and lack on concrete evidence cannot be used to absolve you.

Asking for evidence that backs up an accusation is not a "logical fallacy". Stop with the daft "pubescent like" nonsense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You committed a logical fallacy when you alleged through an indirect question that as there was no evidence of your alleged women hating and you could not be guilty of it. This was the intent of your question. As was pointed out to you, lack of evidence in itself is not proof of the veracity of a claim and is an appeal to ignorance. Thus your attem ...[text shortened]... may still be an alleged women hater and lack on concrete evidence cannot be used to absolve you.

This is a bit like the time in the spirituality forum when you said I was as morally as bad as a 19th century lynch-mob and was capable of murder. You demanded that I provide evidence that I wasn't. Brilliant stuff that still makes me chuckle even know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You committed a logical fallacy when you alleged through an indirect question that as there was no evidence of your alleged women hating and you could not be guilty of it. This was the intent of your question. As was pointed out to you, lack of evidence in itself is not proof of the veracity of a claim and is an appeal to ignorance. Thus your attem ...[text shortened]... may still be an alleged women hater and lack on concrete evidence cannot be used to absolve you.

This would be the logic used by "lawyers" to smear or prosecute dissidents under dictatorships.

Originally posted by FMF
"Child" like? I don't think so. Daft and unpleasant and desperately unfunny, more like, which are not words I would associate with 9 out of 10 children. I'll settle for "pubescent like" if you're happy with that. 😉

Yes a child like innocence unadulterated by cynicism pure in their logic and reasoning, quality through and through! The likes of which a dour faced crusty ol' hack like you could only dream of in his wildest imaginations even with the aid of conscious altering substances.😵

Originally posted by divegeester
This is a bit like the time in the spirituality forum when you said I was as morally as bad as a 19th century lynch-mob and was capable of murder. You demanded that I provide evidence that I wasn't. Brilliant stuff that still makes me chuckle even know.

It's a comedy routine of sorts by robbie. But pointing that out like this will probably now make him pretend he's being serious.

GHOST HUNTER will substantiate his accusation if he is willing or able to.

Originally posted by FMF
This would be the logic used by "lawyers" to smear or prosecute dissidents under dictatorships.

If you a so crusty.😵