Sandman
In article <6j67l9t6rnhs03u94fak8kr2ip6ml2c2tf@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Exactly. And it's not a trick. It's a classic troll tactic to "summarize" someone elses compiled statements to mean something that person never actually said.

Eric Stevens
It's also a troll trick to ask for a cite for a direct quote of what that person never actually said.

Sandman
No it isn't. Asking for substantiations for explicit claims is not a troll tactic, Eric.

Eric Stevens
It is when the basis for the alleged claim is a cloud of nebulous stateents by another person.

Sandman
No it isn't. Repeating it won't make it true. This is your claim:

Eric Stevens Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? 04/17/2014 <cp5uk95is28j3v1v36o09vsa8qn61b987e@4ax.com>

"That nospam claims this is evident from his writings."

You're saying that it is evident from what nospam has written, that:

1. It has improved his workflow 2. His workflow was previously ineffective

If something is "evident" means that it is obvious that something is true - which is why I am asking you to substantiate the claim. You are claiming that something is obvious but fail to provide support for what makes it obvious. You are refering to a "nebulous" of statements that supposedly taken together makes it obvious that nospam regards his previous workflow as ineffective. I am asking you to put forth the material that made this obvious. Asking this of you is NOT a "troll tactic".

Making a claim about another person without being able to support it, is a troll tactic, however.

Eric Stevens
Do you really mean that you think that nospam used all those words to no effect whatever?

Sandman
Classic troll diversion. It is obvious that I have said nothing about the purpose of nospam's "words" at all.

Eric Stevens
To the contrary, you have just said my conclusion (which is not an accurate description, by the way) is " based on nothing specific".

Sandman
Which says nothing about the motive of nospam's words, just like I said.

Eric Stevens
You can't have it both ways. On the one hand you have said "You have yet to point to a quote from nospam saying his previous workflow was ineffective" while on the other you have said that nospam's use of "diffuse verbiage" has led to to "a specific conclusion based on nothing specific".

Sandman
Of course I can. nospam has said "stuff", you have reached a conclusion from that "stuff" and I am asking you to support it. Just because I contend your conclusion does not mean I regard "stuff" as having no effect what so ever.

Eric Stevens
If you are truly correct and the conclusion is based on nothing specific then you can't justify asking for a specific citation.

Sandman
No, it's the other way around - you can't base your specific conclusion on unspecific words. That's the entire point. I am asking you to support something that you clearly can't support in an effort to make you realize that you can't support it and thus should retract your claim.

I am merely correctly pointing out that you just confirmed that nospam had said nothing specific and that the troll in question had drawn a specific conclusion from it nonetheless.

Eric Stevens
Your idea of 'nothing specific' is to 'specific' as 'ineffective' is to 'effective'.

Sandman
Exactly. And you still don't get it.

Eric Stevens
Certainly he conveyed a meaning which could be extracted from what he had said.

Sandman
You are free to interprete as you please, but when you make explicit claims based on no explicit statements from someone else, then you will have to support your claim.

Eric Stevens
I suggest you reread the thread.

Sandman
You should, yes.