Clelland's Tantrum

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Not only am I in an excellent position to point out your substitution of agit-prop for facts, and your selective acceptance and rejection of the evidence you mention above, ...

Then you should have no problem pointing out which of my facts are mere agitprops (or for that matter wrong even if so), and what evidence I have rejected.

...I can also explain to you that you need a thesaurus in order to understand the use of words like 'refute' and 'contradict'...(Hint: they are not antonyms).

Thanks, I have a thesaurus, but I'll loan you a dictionary if you don't have one. I did not use refute and contradict as antonyms. My use of "contradicts" was quite appropriate as I was arguing that Thurlow and Lamberts claims were inconsistent with each other, which they are. I denied your attempt to relabel my position to suggest that Lamberts statements logically proved Thurlows to be false, ie; a "refutation". You can correctly argue that the two words can be used synonomously, but it should have been obvious to a reasonable person (or a least someone with a dictionary and the knowledge of how to use one) that I was drawing a distinction between the two.

What no one can do for you is teach you how to abandon rhetoric and embrace skepticism.

Have all the faith you wish that one side is telling some sort of 'truth' here and the other side is lying...'truth' resides in the middle, and that is where you cannot look, because of your inability to think for yourself.
I'll leave you to your blind faith.

It's really a shame that the whole "irony meter" joke has become so played out. When you can only offer meritless speculations against recorded evidence, incorrectly cite the mis-use of grammer and make gross and unfounded assumptions about my blind-faith while at the same time questioning my skepticism.... brother, that's irony.

I hate repeating myself, but as you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension, I'll try this at least one more time. I have no faith in either faction. I have accused no-one of lying. I am making no assumptions regarding truth. I am arguing the merits of the available evidence.

Hey, that'd be a good word to start with in your new dictionary! (You migh want to look up skepticism too while you're at it.)

 

[corplinx]

I think you've consumed way to much of your koolaid and have been wacked in the head to often with your signs. This comment ranks on the top of an already sky high pile of plain silly things you've said.

Yeah. Should we have a koolaid fight where we both accuse each other of drinking koolaid?

Its easier just to admit that the spot records, incident reports, and medal citations aren't authoritative instead of refusing to acknowledge it simply because you want it not to be true. Of course, that isn't skepticism. That's belief.

 

[Dogwood]

Its easier just to admit that the spot records, incident reports, and medal citations aren't authoritative instead of refusing to acknowledge it simply because you want it not to be true. Of course, that isn't skepticism. That's belief.

No corplinx, skepticism is evaluating the available evidence. That's what some of us are doing. Now if you can offer evidence, or reasonable argument, that the spot records, incident reports and medal citations are suspect then that would cast serious doubt on their reliabilty. But merely stating this is so is not enough. Can you tell us why these records should not be accepted as being accurate?

 

[DavidJames]

No corplinx, skepticism is evaluating the available evidence. That's what some of us are doing. Now if you can offer evidence, or reasonable argument, that the spot records, incident reports and medal citations are suspect then that would cast serious doubt on their reliabilty. But merely stating this is so is not enough. Can you tell us why these records should not be accepted as being accurate?

yeah, what he said.

Sure, had I wanted to respond with logic and reason, I could have put it that way. I just thought flip and smart a$$ was more appropriate at the time

 

[corplinx]

No corplinx, skepticism is evaluating the available evidence. That's what some of us are doing. Now if you can offer evidence, or reasonable argument, that the spot records, incident reports and medal citations are suspect then that would cast serious doubt on their reliabilty. But merely stating this is so is not enough. Can you tell us why these records should not be accepted as being accurate?

Using knowingly inaccurate data is not skepticism. Refusing to acknowledge that spot reports and medal citations (which are from eyewitness accounts and not empirically validated) are not accurate disqualifies from joining our ranks.

Are you on this forum to talk politics or are you a skeptic?

 

[DavidJames]

Using knowingly inaccurate data is not skepticism.

knowingly inaccurate? Please corps, show us the evidence about the inaccurate data and explain to us why it's knowingly inaccurate.

Refusing to acknowledge that spot reports and medal citations (which are from eyewitness accounts and not empirically validated) are not accurate disqualifies from joining our ranks. Are you on this forum to talk politics or are you a skeptic?

Can you refute the existing evidence?

 

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by corplinx
Using knowingly inaccurate data is not skepticism. Refusing to acknowledge that spot reports and medal citations (which are from eyewitness accounts and not empirically validated) are not accurate disqualifies from joining our ranks.

Well that's a start I guess. Now all you have to do is explain how we know that this data is inaccurate. Then maybe we can address your position legitimately.

I will not however engage in a "more skeptical than thou" discussion with you. "our ranks", heh. That's cute.


Are you on this forum to talk politics or are you a skeptic?

Since when are the two mutually exclusive? But to answer you plainly. I am skeptic.

 

[DavidJames]

Using knowingly inaccurate data is not skepticism. Refusing to acknowledge that spot reports and medal citations (which are from eyewitness accounts and not empirically validated) are not accurate disqualifies from joining our ranks.

You do know what empirical means don't you. Here is what I get from dictionary.com I've highlighted some interesting words. Would you like me to show the relationship between "observation" and "eyewitness" account.

em·pir·i·cal Audio pronunciation of "empirical" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl)
adj.

1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

em·pir·i·cal (m-pr-kl)
adj.

1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.
3. Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.