Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More inane arguing...please, just ignore - WAS - RE: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera
Austin writes:
> What's illogical, is any discussion with you.
You'll note that personal attacks are absent from my posts, but I do provide
evidence for my assertions. In contrast, your posts are mostly personal
attacks, but evidence for your assertions is absent. As usual, I shall leave
the conclusions as exercises for the reader.
> Your statement is completely illogical. It would
> make sense that you would not understand why.
A second personal attack. Still not evidence, and no statement of premises,
reasoning, or logical conclusion.
> Your questions were not appropriate, they did
> not answer the question asked, they avoided them.
A third attack.
> As I said, you have failed to provide any
> legitimate substantiation to your claim ...
You have failed to provide any substantiation, period. It would seem, then,
that I am still ahead, no matter what your standard of legitimacy might be.
> ... and what little you, and others, did provide,
> could not be considered valid by any knowledgeable
> stretch of the word.
A fourth attack.
> You can choose to believe me, or not. That is
> your choice, no one is holding a gun to your
> head to believe me.
I agree.
> Yes, but I don't care if you believe me or not,
> since what you believe is generally wrong anyway,
> if you were to believe me, that would offset your
> balance.
Fifth and sixth attacks.
> Well, I do. I just can't share them with you.
Ah, top secret, eh?
If you have information, but you cannot share it, why do you even mention it?
If you cannot share it, it serves no purpose, as the validity of your position
still depends entirely on your own unsubstantiated assertions.
> Because YOU haven't seen them doesn't mean
> they don't exist.
But unless you provide them here, they add nothing to the discussion. Merely
asserting their existence serves no purpose, as it is equivalent to simply
asserting that you are right.
> One can find a mountain of evidence proving
> the existence of Santa Clause on the web too.
Perhaps, but as I've said, there appears to be nothing that supports your
assertion.
> I have identified my sources.
Your sources for what? You've provided no data.
> One of the most respected engineering companies
> in the entire world.
What about it? You've provided nothing from that company; you've only stated
your own assertions, again and again.
> Your source is your word, as well as some
> unknown guy's web site.
My sources are the IATA and Airbus (come to think of it, I may have contacted
Sabena, too, but I don't remember), and they are corroborated by sources
accessible via the Web, of widely disparate origin.
> I'm sure you haven't done any experiments ...
Then saying that I am not a scientist is not germane to the discussion, is it?
> You certainly don't understand the correct
> way to conduct them, much less analyze the results.
See above. Also, another personal attack (I'm no longer counting, sorry).
> Please name them.
I don't recall their names.
> Then if this is actually true, you would
> stop posting.
How does not posting reduce ignorance? Or is this another personal attack?
> (Sorry, I couldn't
> resist...)
Ah, that answers my question.
> only in your own mind.
I believe this is the eighth personal attack, but I'm not sure.
> There are no sources listed.
I've listed several sources, and pointed to multiple links.
> You do not know what debate is, Anthony, you
> only know how to argue and aggravate ...
It may seem like argument and aggravation to you because I've effectively
dismantled your position. If this arouses emotions in you, it may interfere
with your ability to perceive the process as efficient and effective debate.
However, others may not share your emotional investment, and for them, the
debate may be edifying.
> This is a discussion list, NOT an "Anthony" debate forum.
I agree.
> So, you are not working, and have all day to
> argue with people on the Internet?
Correct. Or at least I suppose I could spend my time that way, if I so chose.
I do work, but not full-time.
> I do not believe you.
What you do or do not believe has no effect on reality.
> As I previously asked, and you failed to provide an
> answer, whom did you speak with, and when?
I do not recall.
Where is your secret internal report on tray tables?
> I have never been talking about Airbuses, Anthony.
But the whole hoax under discussion spoke specifically of the A340, and that's
how the whole rumor of magnetic trays got started, which is why I mention it.
|
