RF wrote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
How many times do you have to hear it stated before you understand, I based the criteria of misrepresentation on the complaint leveled by Capitalistswine. I have spelled this out several times before and you keep trying to ignore it.
Actually, I've addressed it at least a couple times. Your fondness for quotes about accuracy and honesty doesn't extend to a fondness for being either, apparently.
That would mean you admit to being dishonest in your last statement, because the criteria was not mine but Capitalistswine's.
Back to your position of cowardice?
Hey if you want to call the truth cowardice, it is about as honest as any of your other claims.
Quote:
Also, let's remember that you are just giving your presumption of what Festus's criteria should be, reference my post. Why not change your original labeling of my post as a "misrepresentation" to reflect that?
No, I took the stated criteria and applied it to other similar instances and gave the reference in the very first post.
Quote:
You seem to want it both ways.
No, you have just confused yourself by trying to change the definitions too often. Maybe if you tried dealing with the direct truth for a change, it might be easier.
Quote:
That it might be just be a misrepresentation in Festus's view...and that it might be a misrepresentation in fact. Why should I allow YOU to label my post that, and then allow you to retreat to whining that it is the view of someone else as your cowardice moves you?
If you had read the first post you would have seen the connection made, but you seem to have jumped to whatever conclusions you did and have never stopped trying to deflect the discussion from that original set of points.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, IF Sianblooz misrepresented Capitalistswine then by that criteria you misrepresented Sianblooz. IF you did not misrepresent Sianblooz then Sianblooz did not misrepresent Capitalistswine and the complaint was moot.
Nope...it ain't so simple. You have to show that the criteria for one category is properly applied to the other. And yes, "stupid people" and "liars" can both reasonably considered categories.
Neither myself nor Festus have to agree with "Wayne Logic"...especially when it is so weak.
It was so weak that when directly asked you had to use a Straw Man answer that mis-defined the term "stupid" from the original context? That does not give your position very much credibility.
You haven't shown any "mis-definition." You gave a definition for the adjective "stupid", and it included multiple meanings. You highlighted one part of the definition that itself had various shades of meaning, and declared it to be the meaning Festus used. You then declared that another part of the definition was the meaning I used. Nothing to support that except your own declaration.
You blather on in generalizations, when all it would take is to provide the specific definition you believe works in the context in which it was used and how it relates to the post you made. You claimed you would get back to that but never did, it must have been too hard to think of another Straw Man to use. Of course, you will avoid any specifics because that nails you down and gets you in trouble. You can only write in vague generalizations, specifically asking inane question after inane question.
Quote:
Almost any of the various meanings could apply to the adjective as used, though. And they could easily differ when the adjective is applied to the act as opposed to the person.
Almost? Which ones SPECIFICALLY would that be? You have already been caught using a fallacy once, are you too afraid to try again?
Quote:
Absolutely nothing says that someone must accept your say-so as authoritive.
And even less says that you must be taken seriously either ... you had a point other than you have nothing to offer a real discussion?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Is it that hard to understand that connection?
Quote:
I understand the connection you're trying to make. Have all along. I don't buy it, and I still want to know where you get off mischaracterizing my post as a mischaracterization.
I cannot explain it to you in single syllable words, which must be the only way you could understand it if it is really the reason for your ignorance. I believe you are just playing dumb because you do it so well.
Quote:
Quote:
Then you are not ignorant you are just dishonest in your posting?
Neither necessarily applies to someone just because they disagree with your paternalistic pronouncements of what everyone MUST accept.
Only if you understand the use of reason and logic, which seems to let you out.
Quote:
You might have a case that Festus was mistaken in viewing Sianblooz's statement as a misrepresentation. Sianblooz could have been misrepresenting Festus...and could also have NOT been misrepresenting Festus...at least on that point. That he argued he was misrepresented leads me to believe he WAS...even if unintentionally. (On another point, she obviously DID misrepresent him through sheer fabrication.)
But none of that is relevant to my post, that YOU labeled as a misrepresentation.
That would be because you say so? You forget I used the prior criteria in the determination. The connection is there and you just want to ignore it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since the complaint was against Sianblooz in the first post and there were several supporting posts, that must be the preferred definition of "misrepresentation" according to the posters here. I have not seen you do anything but try to twist the discussion into other areas as opposed to dealing with the initial postings.
Other areas...like trying to get you to support your own words. Hey...they're your words. If you don't like them, keep your fingers off the keyboard next time.
This is a perfect example, you ignore the key element and try to deflect the discussion off on a tangent. Again it shows the level of honesty in your posts as being low.
Heh...I'll say one thing. It's a good example of you making multiple statements, failing to support, and then declaring that someone addressing your statements is off on an irrelevancy. If it's so irrelevant and you don't intend to support it, why say it?
Still trying to bury the points so you do not have to deal with them. Do you ever get tired of such dishonesty in posting? Just because you wish to label your deflection as relevant to your goals means nothing to me.
Quote:
Your statement labeling my post as a misrepresentation is on the first page of this thread. It isn't some "other area" I'm addressing. You just don't want to back up your statement, and so you are trying to hand off responsibility to Festus.
Yes, and IF you were to read it you would see where it criteria of Captitalistswines post was used. To keep saying that it is not when the post is there for anyone to see does not do much for your credibility.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The complaint was that Sianblooz misrepresented the post of Capitalistswine by changing his meaning from "children that do something stupid" to "stupid children" was it not? That should be a fairly simple to answer question.
The post by RF made a similar change from "someone told a lie" to "someone is a liar", which you say was not a misrepresentation in the earlier post. If it is not a misrepresentation then the statement made by Sianblooz was also not a misrepresentation using that same criteria.
What's the criteria, Wayne? Stupid can have several definitions. Liar can be reasonably assumed to simply mean "one who lies". I asked if you had an alternate definition.
What of the "several" definitions work in that context that do not have the same result as I have noted? You keep ranting about these generalizations but the only specific item you posted was not truthful.
Quote:
Quote:
Stupid can only have one general definition in the context in which it was used. The attempt to misrepresent through redefinition is just as dishonest, but if you can show us where these "other" definitions of "stupid" will work in the context used you can try to make the point from there. If you cannot make the other definitions work you have proved your attempt to be falsely based. I suppose any further discussion along this line is complete unless and until you are able to show the contextual use of those "other" different definitions.
Actually, Sianblooz seemed to indicate multiple instances of lying. "Someone told a lie" is, I believe, YOUR misrepresentation.
Hmmm, there we see you ignoring the direct requests for specifics yet again and going for those nebulous generalizations again. Can you or can you not show where the definition of "stupid" can honestly be shown to say what you claim? We have seen you show it dishonestly but that proves nothing other than you seem to be not very honest.
Quote:
But still, it's easy enough to show that the other definitions of "stupid" can work. But you'll have to point out which SINGLE definition of the adjective you think MUST APPLY to any of the nouns in question which it is used to modify. That is the implication of your argument, but you haven't actually supported it as required. You pointed out multiple definitions, likely to leave room for further equivocation.
If you have done so much work, other than that last misrepresentation of the truth, maybe you can point out which of the definitions do not work. I have already pointed out one ... the one you claimed was possible.
Quote:
Quote:
Here's partially what Sianblooz wrote:
Quote:
YOU addmitted killing your kids cat. I didn't make it up. I didn't misrepresent anything. Your lying AGAIN if you say I am. I can't find the thread but I know damn well you admited killing your kids cat so don't bother lying anymore about it.... I don't get why people like you and RF lie about things right after you say them.
How is she not saying that Wijim is a liar?
He lies...he'll lie again...he should not bother lying anymore...but she isn't saying he is a liar?
Oh DO tell us how that would work, Wayne.
As stated before, the same way it works when Capitalistswine says when he stated ~"doing something stupid was not saying that person was stupid" and demanding to see the "direct quote of the statement" thus we have the same situation and no direct quote either.
Quote:
Quote:
That is simple. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, there are levels of statements. One may make an honest mistake and state something which is untrue. Technically that is a lie, but we refer to it as an "untruth" to indicate our level of concern. Now if that untruth is defended and a correction is ignored, it may later be called a "lie" due to the increased level of concern. If that is still defended one may choose to then say the person is lying thereby showing an even greater concern on their part. The last level would be calling someone a liar, which has gone past the concern for the truthfulness of the statement and attacked the person directly. The latter will generally get you a warning about such an attack. This level of use is necessary since we cannot hear inflections of the voice, see body language, or any of the other clues we get from visual/verbal conversations so it is much harder to communicate via written word. One has to be more precise and careful in writing and still the interpretation is largely based on what the reader is thinking when they read those written words. It is much easier to misunderstand communication in such a media as this than most others. That is why general rules of communication are developed and followed by most of the folks.
So that's how it works, eh? I think we can distill that down to "Stand on vague insinuation of presumption...avoid accuracy."
You could but then again you have misrepresented the truth before and can do it again if you wish.
Quote:
So yes...we do see how you would deny responsibility, if someone were so disrespectful as to hold you to your words. Perhaps Sianblooz will be grateful for this object lesson, and now come in to explain that she wasn't calling Wijim a liar, even though she accused him of lying.
You re-post the explanation and then ask the question again. Did you by chance suffer a fall from a height and maybe land on your head?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're a master of insinuation and the art of turning a waffle to a fine crisp...DO fill us in on how you would weasel out of such an obvious position.
I would not, but I bet you can tell us which fallacy might help the most.
So uh...above, that isn't how you would do the weasel? That's your assessment of how Sianblooz would, or could do it?
No that is my assessment of how YOU have already tried to do it. You are the one who uses the logical fallacies in your attempt to weasel out of the hole you have dug for yourself.
Quote:
I mean...come on...it's pretty obvious that someone making multiple accusations of lying is saying that the accused is a liar. To fall back and say, "But I didn't specifically write 'You are a liar' " is reminiscent of childish games. You know the ones, Wayne. "Leave your brother alone, Wayne." "But I'm not touching him, Mom."
No more obvious that someone saying that if a child does something stupid enough to cause their death they were saying the child was stupid. You see that is the interconnection to the two situations. If one is correct then both are and if one is incorrect they both are, but not if one is correct the other is incorrect.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then explain why in the hell a poster would WANT to spend a significant amount of time writing about someone who lies...going into various ways of accusing him of lying....and then have that lying someone wasn't being called a liar.
I don't know, some of these folks here have gone on and on about things that happened some time ago on different boards creating new threads upon new threads on the subject. I expect if we were to total the posts there are many many more on the side you seem to be supporting than the other. Why would that be?
It would have been sufficient for you to stop with your affirmation of your inablilty to supply an answer to the question. No need for the continued digression into trying to call the motives of an entire group of posters into question. It simply isn't relevant...and besidesl...if you can't determine Sianblooz's motive, there's no reason to suppose you are any better at determining motive of a group.
Sainblooz' motive was not my point and thus irrelevant to my point. The double standard and the support thereof was the point. The support of that double standard is proved by the actions of the group, thus that is their connection to that point.
Login
Register
FAQ
