The next First Lady of the United States, in pictures

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't avoid any subject, unlike you who waffles endlessly, bringing in lots of red herrings and moot points to camouflage the fact that you often talk in riddles.

You have yet to make a valid point.  You changed the subject to go after me because you had nothing else.  I'm just pointing out that argumentum ad hominem is generally recognized as 'giving up' on your underlying point.

Syl wrote:You can find almost anything on google (other search engines are available) even the most boring and uninteresting stuff can be found there if you type in key words.
Try it....type in your own name.

As Wolf has so aptly pointed out, you are giving anecdotal evidence and making a statistical argument.   Anytime you say "all" or "most" or "generally" you are making a reference to numbers, leaving behind the individual case.  That's why we repeatedly say, You can't generalize from specifics.

We are discussing the frequency of success in defamation suits.  It calls into play statistical thinking.  You respond by giving individual cases...what, should I count up your individual cases and compare them to the thousands filed every year?  Then you'd really look foolish.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Awwwww....  Most little girls like the attention.

Syl is a grown-arsed woman and little girls would certainly not like the attention.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You have yet to make a valid point.  You changed the subject to go after me because you had nothing else.  I'm just pointing out that argumentum ad hominem is generally recognized as 'giving up' on your underlying point.



As Wolf has so aptly pointed out, you are giving anecdotal evidence and making a statistical argument.   Anytime you say "all" or "most" or "generally" you are making a reference to numbers, leaving behind the individual case.  That's why we repeatedly say, You can't generalize from specifics.

We are discussing the frequency of success in defamation suits.  It calls into play statistical thinking.  You respond by giving individual cases...what, should I count up your individual cases and compare them to the thousands filed every year?  Then you'd really look foolish.

You are now resorting to using the biggest dickhead on the forum to back yourself up, yet I would look foolish.
Honestly Quill...you are a one.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl is a grown-arsed woman and little girls would certainly not like the attention.

Calling a women a prostitute with no proof, mixing adult women up with little girls, and saying little girls like the attention of creeps.....Quill has really excelled himself in this thread.
Hopefully he doesn't carry on like this when he is doing his day job.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Calling a women a prostitute with no proof, mixing adult women up with little girls, and saying little girls like the attention of creeps.....Quill has really excelled himself in this thread.
Hopefully he doesn't carry on like this when he is doing his day job.

Oh right...by your way, we should just grab pussies and be quiet about it.  Give my regards to Uncle Donald.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You have yet to make a valid point.  You changed the subject to go after me because you had nothing else.  I'm just pointing out that argumentum ad hominem is generally recognized as 'giving up' on your underlying point.



As Wolf has so aptly pointed out, you are giving anecdotal evidence and making a statistical argument.   Anytime you say "all" or "most" or "generally" you are making a reference to numbers, leaving behind the individual case.  That's why we repeatedly say, You can't generalize from specifics.

We are discussing the frequency of success in defamation suits.  It calls into play statistical thinking.  You respond by giving individual cases...what, should I count up your individual cases and compare them to the thousands filed every year?  Then you'd really look foolish.

You are now resorting to using the biggest dickhead on the forum to back yourself up, yet I would look foolish.
Honestly Quill...you are a one.

You think that's an argument?  Wolf is my longest and bestest friend on the Internet.  Moreover, he's one of the most intelligent posters on here, although he mixes in a degree of 'enthusiasm' with his wisdom.     He's got a university degree, do you?  He's particularly good at scientific, environmental and oceanic matters, and holds up our wing in the South Pacific/Indian Ocean.

You cling to your UKIP brigade, I'll take Wolf any day.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You think that's an argument?  Wolf is my longest and bestest friend on the Internet.  Moreover, he's one of the most intelligent posters on here, although he mixes in a degree of 'enthusiasm' with his wisdom.     He's got a university degree, do you?  He's particularly good at scientific, environmental and oceanic matters, and holds up our wing in the South Pacific/Indian Ocean.

You cling to your UKIP brigade, I'll take Wolf any day.

It's not about how many degrees you have, it's about how you treat people and express yourself.
People won't come to your funeral because you know a bit more than me.

And from what I see, Syl spends a lot of her forum time actually answering points that are raised and doesn't pepper her posts with "enthusiasm" about her fellow posters.

Give me Syl in my forum life over a degree, anytime.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You think that's an argument?  Wolf is my longest and bestest friend on the Internet.  Moreover, he's one of the most intelligent posters on here, although he mixes in a degree of 'enthusiasm' with his wisdom.     He's got a university degree, do you?  He's particularly good at scientific, environmental and oceanic matters, and holds up our wing in the South Pacific/Indian Ocean.

You cling to your UKIP brigade, I'll take Wolf any day.

It's not about how many degrees you have, it's about how you treat people and express yourself.
People won't come to your funeral because you know a bit more than me.

And from what I see, Syl spends a lot of her forum time actually answering points that are raised and doesn't pepper her posts with "enthusiasm" about her fellow posters.

Give me Syl in my forum life over a degree, anytime.

Irn Bru wrote:Trump demeaned women and Clinton made a big issue of that - rightly so.

So those who do not support Trump should not go down the same road as insulting his wife.

Irn Bru wrote:Trump demeaned women and Clinton made a big issue of that - rightly so.

So those who do not support Trump should not go down the same road as insulting his wife.

Irn Bru wrote:Trump demeaned women and Clinton made a big issue of that - rightly so.

So those who do not support Trump should not go down the same road as insulting his wife.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You think that's an argument?  Wolf is my longest and bestest friend on the Internet.  Moreover, he's one of the most intelligent posters on here, although he mixes in a degree of 'enthusiasm' with his wisdom.     He's got a university degree, do you?  He's particularly good at scientific, environmental and oceanic matters, and holds up our wing in the South Pacific/Indian Ocean.

You cling to your UKIP brigade, I'll take Wolf any day.

It's not about how many degrees you have, it's about how you treat people and express yourself.
People won't come to your funeral because you know a bit more than me.

And from what I see, Syl spends a lot of her forum time actually answering points that are raised and doesn't pepper her posts with "enthusiasm" about her fellow posters.

Give me Syl in my forum life over a degree, anytime.

Thanks Eddie.
I don't have a degree and I don't pretend to be anything I'm not. I have said before, anyone can be anything they want to be on a forum.
It's the content of the posts that gives a poster worth imo, not what they claim to be or to  have in their real lives.

Syl wrote:Some people hide behind their real or imaginary achievements on forums......or google info instead of answering honestly. Each to their own but I would far rather talk to a genuine person than a Walter Mitty fantasist.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Some people hide behind their real or imaginary achievements on forums......or google info instead of answering honestly. Each to their own but I would far rather talk to a genuine person than a Walter Mitty fantasist.

This is the problem I have with forums. People post articles and links and facts and then the opposing person post links and articles and facts to make the other person wrong.

Boring. Turned off, tuned out.

How do you feel about the subject matter? Then add a link /fact/article to back up your post.