[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Adam Haun writes:

>>>>>> Tom O'Toole writes:

>>>>>>> Ashley Hatch writes:

>>>>>>>> However, different people require different levels of proof before they
>>>>>>>> accept a theory. Some may think the theory is plainly obvious and
>>>>>>>> requires little proof. While some will require almost infinite proof
>>>>>>>> before they accept it.

>>>>>>> And one certain person is 'using' this, by expecting inordinate levels of
>>>>>>> proof about specifically dissected parts of others postings, in order to
>>>>>>> attack other's statements and to avoid having to defend their own.

>>>>>> Ah, the usual unsubstantiated claim.  When somebody claims that IBM
>>>>>> dropped OS/2 PPC, what is wrong with "specifically dissecting" this claim
>>>>>> from a posting and request substantiation for it?  How does a request for
>>>>>> such substantiation represent an attack on that statement?  Why does such
>>>>>> a request for substantiation require any defense of its own?

>>>>> Irrelevant, OS/2 PPC is not the topic of discussion here.

>>>> On the contrary, an example of what I have engaged in here, as opposed to
>>>> the inappropriate scenario of Tom, is quite relevant.

>>> But whenever I give an example, its irrelevant, right?

>> Only when the example is irrelevant, Adam.  Not all examples are
>> necessarily relevant.

> Whatever.

Are you agreeing with me?

>>>>>>> This person shouldn't be surprised when thery are given a taste of their
>>>>>>> own medicine in the form of someone else bringing up that nothing can be
>>>>>>> proved;

>>>>>> How does a stupid statement like that represent a "taste of the their own
>>>>>> medicine", Tom?  Does a request for substantiation of a claim like IBM
>>>>>> dropping OS/2 PPC represent anything remotely similar to a stupid claim
>>>>>> that "nothing can be completely proven"?

>>>>> Irrelevant.

>>>> On the contrary, a discussion about what I have engaged in here, as opposed
>>>> to the inappropriate scenario of Tom, is quite relevant.

>>>>>>> indeed the only way to argue with such a person is to show them that

[383 lines left ... full text available at <url:http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/go?choice=message&table=05_1997&mid=3225516&hilit=HYPNOSIS> ]

Article-ID: 05_1997&3156001
Score: 80
Subject: [07-03-95] CEIV: Alien Abduction, UFOs, and the Conference at M.I.T.