Prev: How to get CalorieKing software for $29.95
Next: CNN news story proves that you can be fat and fit.
From: Mark Probert on 6 Feb 2007 18:46
PeterB wrote:
> On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" <chough...(a)insidefsi.net> wrote:
>> PeterB,
>>
>> Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
>> attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
>
> Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
> The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
> demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
> refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
> fact, denials.

Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:

Poisoning the well
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
Pro Vita Sua [2].

This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Examples:

Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
her friend's response.

Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:

The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
We now examine the theory of relativity...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.

> This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an
> "alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
> alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
> using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
> them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
> those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
> their purpose here.

Perfect example of well poisoning.

And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.

From: Mark Probert on 7 Feb 2007 09:30
spamfree(a)spam.heaven wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:06:42 GMT, " " <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
>
> Interesting though that Wikipedia was found to be more accurate than
> Encyclopedia Britannica in a recent survey. (abc.net.au)
> There are no online sources that make a guarantee of validity.
> The opposite, in fact.
> They usually make disclaimers about the lack of such.
>
> Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for the discerning.

And, the definition I posted is consistent with other similar definitions.
From: Mark Probert on 8 Feb 2007 09:18
PeterB wrote:
> On Feb 6, 6:46 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" <chough...(a)insidefsi.net> wrote:
>>>> PeterB,
>>>> Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
>>>> attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
>>> Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
>>> The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
>>> demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
>>> refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
>>> fact, denials.
>> Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:
>>
>> Poisoning the well
>
> Even if that were possible it would serve no purpose.

Of course it does, and, since you do it regularly, you know it.

No one can
> "poison the well" for more than a day,

Utter bullshit. Your poison threads go on for days, and when they run
out, you repost. Your intent is clear to a blind man.

and as you see, I am not
> interested in short-term effects.

That is why you rePetey, rePetey and rePetey.

In due time, the irrationality of
> any argument becomes apparent.

Yours is apparent on the first read. You should be proud.

The real question is whether we have
> properly identified, first, the nature of the argument, and second
> (due to overlapping themes), whose argument is whose. I won't snip
> the remainder of your considerable effort because it represents the
> argument that works for you.

As pointed out, your intent is clear.

>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>
>> Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
>> someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
>> discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
>> Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
>> was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
>> Pro Vita Sua [2].
>>
>> This "argument" has the following form:
>>
>> 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
>> presented.
>> 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
>> jail.
>> Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
>> In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
>> that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
>> friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
>> looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
>> her friend's response.
>>
>> Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
>> chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:
>>
>> The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
>> We now examine the theory of relativity...
>> which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.
>>
>> > This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an
>>
>>> "alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
>>> alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
>>> using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
>>> them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
>>> those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
>>> their purpose here.
>> Perfect example of well poisoning.
>>
>> And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.
From: Mark Probert on 14 Feb 2007 18:20
PeterB wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:47 am, capm...(a)shipper.com wrote:
>> We are still waiting for you to provide specific examples of what the
>> subject line implies. Does it apply equally to possible "alternate
>> drug" advocates? Might postings suggesting the classic poster child of
>> "alternate drug" laetril as a cancer "cure" be some mexican "clinics"
>> doing marketing to attract some desperate cancer victums?
>>
>
> Who is "We?" And what is an "alternate drug?" Laetrile, as it occurs
> naturally in the food chain, is not a drug.

It is a poison, with the active ingredient being cyanide.

As for being desperate,
> what does your argument against laetrile three decades after the ban
> say about you? Say hello to your sponsors for me.

Another dumb statement by *P*ontificating *B*lowhard.



From: Mark Probert on 15 Feb 2007 10:00
vernon wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:cPMAh.5695$ov2.3020(a)trndny06...
>> PeterB wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 10:47 am, capm...(a)shipper.com wrote:
>>>> We are still waiting for you to provide specific examples of what the
>>>> subject line implies. Does it apply equally to possible "alternate
>>>> drug" advocates? Might postings suggesting the classic poster child of
>>>> "alternate drug" laetril as a cancer "cure" be some mexican "clinics"
>>>> doing marketing to attract some desperate cancer victums?
>>>>
>>> Who is "We?" And what is an "alternate drug?" Laetrile, as it occurs
>>> naturally in the food chain, is not a drug.
>> It is a poison, with the active ingredient being cyanide.
>>
>
> Thank you, oh, great idiotic scientist.

Vernon, check back to one of your careers and find some evidence as to
what the active ingredient is. Laetrile is well documented to cause
cyanide poisoning.

> Next thing we know is that you will say the green pepper belongs to the
> deadly nightshade family.
> You are generally ignorant of ALL science and nutrition and medicine, yet
> blow you rear.

Projecting again?

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: How to get CalorieKing software for $29.95
Next: CNN news story proves that you can be fat and fit.