Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
From | Tony Cooper |
Date | 04/25/2014 01:47 (04/24/2014 19:47) |
Message-ID | <ce7jl9htg4p52s5ikt5t6r2ef9vn5n962o@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Eric Stevens |
Followups | Sandman (6h & 13m) > Tony Cooper |
Eric StevensMaybe I should offer him one million krona if he can quote me saying "the support itself is always contained within the claim itself, if it is sensible". And add "haha".
On 24 Apr 2014 11:51:16 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:Eric StevensSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
"No, you support a claim by making a sensible claim in the first place."
That's a good start. There is no possibility of supporting a stupid claim.
True - but according to Tony, the support itself is always contained within the claim itself, if it is "sensible".
That's a twisted interpretation which I think you have made up to enable you to build a shonky argument on top of it. If I am wrong, please show me where and how you can justify "according to Tony, the support itself is always contained within the claim itself, if it is "sensible".
To test it, let's do this. Here is a claim from me:That's a sensible claim as written. There's nothing about that requires substantiation unless you have an established history as a person who lies about his possessions. However, you've posted a photograph of that car or one like it, so there's no reason to doubt the claim. It's sufficiently self-supporting enough not to require substantiation.
"I drive a 2012 Dodge Charger SRT8"
Tell me, Eric, how that claim should be formulated in a supposed "sensible" way to contain the support for it being factual.