Path: ...!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews2.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: sigmond@mad.scientist.com (sigmond) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: Why I hate MS Date: 6 Jan 2004 17:25:29 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 122 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.117.214.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073438730 13627 127.0.0.1 (7 Jan 2004 01:25:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:25:30 +0000 (UTC) Enough of this shit already. Refute the man or give up already. You both are dumbshits. You for thinking you make sense and snit for responding to your same bullshit so many times. In case you care I think snit is wrong. Bush is not a criminal but your arguments do not show that. The bad thing is you know you do not make sense but keep repeating the same shit just to get snit to post. The worst part is snit keeps responding. Nothing more than two dumbshits wasting space. Which one of you is going to show you have a brain and just stop this bullshit. If either of you stopped responding the other would stop out of boredom. Steve Carroll wrote in message news:... > In article , > Snit wrote: > > > (snip of irrelevant material) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > So again, I ask you: Do you, or do you not, have a refutation for my > > argument? If so, please present it. > > > > If you do not present one we can safely stay where we are: "with the idea > > that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations have been > > made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong." > > > > We agree on THIS much? Right? Sheesh... :) > > You still fail to help clarify what your argument actually seeks to > argue... amazing. I figured you were going to continue being > disingenuous. > > I am seeking to ascertain how you are presenting your argument and what > it seeks to argue. Now, you are attempting to limit the WAY I refute > your argument, an argument you sometimes call your 'logical argument'... > but there doesn't seem to be anything logical about the way you are > conducting the argument. You have repeatedly made strawmen arguments for > me and argue against them. You have changed definitions of words when > they didn't fit your argument,(it's all on google) That's bad form. If > you make a challenge to refute, you should live up to it. You said you > would answer ANY and ALL questions. My question was not unreasonable. I > now draw your attention to the fact that you have recently (today) > referred to your argument as a legal argument: > > "In other words, while my argument supports the concept of Bush's guilt > (based on a system of laws; a legal system), it does not argue for some > sort of justice to be done - even in a mock way (as would happen in a > judicial system; or a court case, often even a mock one). > > As such, my argument is a legal (but not a judicial) one." > > Facts you will undoubtedly choke on where much spinning will ensue: > > 1 - A legal argument does not require a real courtroom or mock trial > setting. Suggesting that it does is unacceptable because you just used > the term legal argument in reference to your argument. For you to make > such a suggestion now shows an attempt by you to utilize a double > standard. > > 2 - A legal argument does not require adjudication or a penalty phase. > Suggesting that it does is unacceptable because you just used the term > legal argument in reference to your argument. For you to make such a > suggestion now shows an attempt by you to utilize a double standard. > > 3 - In any argument, there is a potential necessity to show a burden of > proof. > > 4 - In EVERY legal argument that makes a claim stating a defendant is > guilty, the necessity to show burden of proof DEFINITELY exists. > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html > > To stave off the pending strawmen you will undoubtedly attempt to > create, note that there is NO mention of courtroom or mock trial > settings and NO mention of adjudication or imposed penalties contained > in the page I linked you to. Logic dictates that these things are not > required in ALL legal arguments. IOW... I AGREE with you to > differentiate YOUR legal argument from legal arguments conducted in real > courtroom settings or real mock trial settings. I can do this because > YOU just labeled your argument "a legal (but not a judicial) one." > ...and you did so in the exact same context... a context devoid of real > court or real mock trial settings with no adjudication or penalty > imposed. For you to deny me this differentiation now would be a double > standard on your part. > > Additionally, suggesting that the burden of proof does not exist for > your argument is unacceptable because the legal system from whence the > charges are derived must be the same legal system offered to defendants > in the argument. For you to suggest otherwise shows an attempt by you > to utilize a double standard with respect to the 'charging' and > 'defending' the very nature of your argument demands. For TRUE > justice(equity) to exist, they must BOTH(charger and defender) have > access to the same legal system. Anything else is not only disingenuous, > it's completely illogical. > > > Why did I use the term "legal system" up above? Because YOU used the > term "legal system" in the quoted paragraph of today's post in reference > to what your argument is BASED on. I WILL assume you mean U.S. and > international legal systems because it is from those that your evidence > is derived. You claim Bush is guilty, that makes him a defendant in your > argument that is "based on a system of laws; a legal system". You claim > Bush is guilty based on the breaking of law in two legal systems, U.S. > and international... both which were utilized in the formulation of > charges in your argument and both of which provide defendants (in this > case, Bush) the presumption of innocence. Like I stated above, for you > to deny this presumption (or any other defense mechanism offered by the > legal systems your very argument is derived from) is a double standard > that is not only disingenuous, it's also completely illogical. If you > want to call your argument a LOGICAL... *legal argument*... "based on a > system of laws; a legal system" (ALL of these are terms you recently and > continually use in reference to your argument) you cannot exercise these > double standards while doing so. The atmosphere you are conducting your > argument in is rapidly running out of oxygen. I suggest you bail out > while you can or I'll start quoting you about your evidence again :) > Now, if you wish to discuss the merits of the content on your website > outside the atmosphere of an argument... say... as merely an unproven > legal theory you're kicking around... I might just consider it. > > Steve