Skip to main content
news

Re: An Apology - Was Re: co...

Eric Stevens
SubjectRe: An Apology - Was Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
FromEric Stevens
Date12/19/2013 22:18 (12/20/2013 10:18)
Message-ID<e1o6b9lgsfsbn3rnpevqtsh96sroo21i5n@4ax.com>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsSandman
FollowupsSandman (10h & 12m) > Eric Stevens

On 19 Dec 2013 09:22:16 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <ltd5b9t264age6fk9lr86rp403g2o3f4ik@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

I've never claimed that an "inability to substantiate claims to my satisfaction" makes you a liar. Lying makes you a liar, and an inability to substantiate your lies further showcases your lies. I've explained this many times.

Eric Stevens
More than usually circular.

Sandman
Failure to understand logic on your part does not make the logic circular.

But your accusations of lying start with me being unable to substantiate my claims to your satisfaction.

Failure to do either means you have made a claim you won't admit is incorrect and which you refuse to substantiate, meaning that you are willfully standing by an incorrect statement - i.e. lying.

Eric Stevens
This kind of argument is called the error of the excluded middle.

Sandman
Incorrect, given the fact that the only possible "middle" is a scenario where you CAN substantiate the incorrect statement but WON'T, which would make you an idiot. And any claims to that effect are NOT support for it not being a lie - or incorrect.

That's nonsense. You are ignoring the 'middle' where what I say is true but that (for any reason) I am unable to substantiate that. What you are saying is that the reality of any part of the universe stands or falls with my ability to substantiate it. Things can be true even if you cannot prove it at the time.

Of course not. There are thousands of things you can say that you can't find evidence of. But then again, you shouldn't state them as proven facts - and in this case you didn't. You just said that you remember something to be true, but can't currently find it.

Eric Stevens
Are you really saying that I shouldn't say something is true, even when I know it is true, simply because I can't remember where to find the supporting evidence?

Sandman
Why can't you read and understand simple English, Eric? What I meant was very clear from my passage above, and was in stark opposite of your interpretation of it.

Our differences seem to be centered on your use of 'proven facts' and 'true'. I don't understand what you are getting at, at least not in the context of lying.

Eric Stevens
Either you remember a very large number of things or you know a relatively small number of things which you believe to be true.

Sandman
Non sequitur.

Eric Stevens
I thought that at the very least that was worth at least a wry grin.

Sandman
I thought it was you needlessly dragging up old arguments in an effort to spite me - i.e. troll.

You are unduly sensitive.

Eric Stevens
Humourless?

Sandman
When it comes to a proven lying troll - yes. I have no respect for you and your meager attempt at "humor", if that was what it was (it's not like I'd take your word for it) are wasted on me. You'd do well on usenet and in life sticking to reality and the truth, and not continously dragging up trolling from the past.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Sandman (10h & 12m) > Eric Stevens