Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 03/28/2014 20:40 (03/28/2014 20:40) |
| Message-ID | <slrnljbk3s.bcc.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
In article <1iibj9te8803uctphfsj391nqphbau2viq@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:
It isn't.SandmanTony Cooper
Tony Cooper 03/25/2014 <7c33j91hnrsri9jor58stsqj03p65u2ale@4ax.com>
"What he ignores is that in *all* purchases online, there is no sales help available."
Seems like a self-substantiating statement to me.
He didn't mention no sales help is available with online purchases, and this is ignoring that aspect of online purchases.Of course it isn't. If there is no car outside your window right now does not mean no cars exists. Lack of X does not lead to existence of Y.
"Ignore" is a verb, a deliberate act. You claim he has performed this act by NOT performing another act, which is false logic and a very loose grasp on Englisg to boot.
If nospam didn't mention no sales help, it could be due to any of these reasons, as I've mentioned before (and you had to cowardly snip):
1. He didn't think about it 2. He missed any supposed reference to it 3. He doesn't care about it 4. He has never considered that part of the argument 5. He has no experience with online shopping 6. He is stupid 7. He ignores it
Some of these can be ruled out from the beginning, of course, but they are equally viable if no other parameters are know - and as we know, YOU have introduced exactly NO other parameters. I have asked you repeatedly to substantiate your absolute claim about nospam's actions, and you could have responded with:
1. Link to post where online sales help was mentioned 2. nospam's reply to above post where he snipped or didn't reply to that part
Mind you - that wouldn't have been *proof* of option 7 above, it could be any other option as well, but at least you would have, you know, answered my question and provided substantiation, even weak such.
He certainly knows this to be true.Supposed knowledge about X and then not mentioning X does not constitute the act of ignoring it. Ignoring something is a refusal to acknowledge it, refusal to acknowledge something means it need to have some form of presence for it to be ignored.
To "substantiate" something, means "to offer proof". The absence of mention is sufficient proof.You just made a 100% incorrect statement.
That's the thing with you, Tony, you pretty much never substantiate anything. You just make wild absolute claims and then put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALA" when they are questioned.
When making a claim and being asked for substantiation, you have two options:
1. Provide substantiation 2. Retract claim
There is no in-between, no middle ground. If you make a claim you know - or strongly believe - is true but you are *unable* to substantiate, then you have no other option than to retract or rephrase the claim. This entire charade would have been a lot more gentle on your credibility if you had just answered:
"Ok, so I don't know whether he ignored it, but he didn't mentioned it, so it seems that way to me"
See? Then it becomes a personal *opinion* on your part, and not an absolute claim. You have "think" and "seem" all you like, but when you make absolute claims, especially about others and their motivations - be prepared to substantiate it or retract it.
-- Sandman[.net]
03/13/2014-
-
