Skip to main content
news

Re: Calumet files Chapter 7

Sandman
Google Google
SubjectRe: Calumet files Chapter 7
FromSandman
Date04/05/2014 11:20 (04/05/2014 11:20)
Message-ID<slrnljvir9.9me.mr@irc.sandman.net>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsEric Stevens
In article <tbpuj9l0mrfvbb99538clnk3j9borj13jo@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman
Because... it is your position that there are none? I just want to make this perfectly clear that Eric Stevens want me to substantiate the existence of online sales help because it is YOUR counter-claim that no such service exists anywhere?

Is this correct? I mean, there would be no need for me to substantiate this if you don't actually think none exists, so I just want to be sure that your position is that none exists and it is my job to susbstantiate its existence (which I'm more than happy to do, of course).

Eric Stevens
I am merely giving you advice as to the best way to support your argument, by falsifying the opposing argument.

As I said - I am more than willing to support my position. I just want to make certain there is a *reason* for me to support my position. One such reason would be that you explicitly say that you claim my position is in error and thus in need of support.

If you agree with me, why would you ask for support, your request for support implies you disagree with me, but I need you to explicitly tell me that no online sales help exists and that you need me to support this for you.

Whether or not you choose to do it is up to you. Of course you may not be able to falsify Tony's argument.

You see - Tony made a claim that there is no sales help available online. I've yet to actually disagree with that (but for the record, I do), and if he got the impression that I disagree, he has yet to ask me to support that disagreement. The first one to bring up the matter of support is you, Eric, so I just want to make it perfectly clear that you agree 100% with Tony's claim:

"in *all* purchases online, there is no sales help available."

Note the emphasize "all" and the explicit "no". So, let me know, Eric - do you agree with this claim or not? Do you need support for an opposing argument?

-- Sandman[.net]