GIThruster wrote:Mach Effects are not attributed to Mach.
Contextomy fallacy.chrismb wrote: the originating principles of which are attributed to Mach
Did GIT mean to say "It's quite obvious you have no idea what a Mach Effect is because you did not answer the question."?GIThruster wrote:It's quite obvious you did not answer the question as you have no idea what a Mach Effect is.
Some get their kicks from banter, some don't. Different strokes for different folks I guess, but it would be nice to have a space where actual information could be posted on the topic without it disappearing in a fuery of posts between the two over the definition of is...Betruger wrote:Why? All Chris is doing is reasoning. And simultaneously giving arguably the clearest, sharpest devils advocate walkthrough for everyone not scientifically on par. What is the duplicity in making the topical content of GIT's (the supposed expert at hand on the topic, considering P.March's mostly absent) posts less wrong?
Banter is one thing - consistent flame wars another.ScottL wrote:Some get their kicks from banter, some don't. Different strokes for different folks I guess, but it would be nice to have a space where actual information could be posted on the topic without it disappearing in a fuery of posts between the two over the definition of is...Betruger wrote:Why? All Chris is doing is reasoning. And simultaneously giving arguably the clearest, sharpest devils advocate walkthrough for everyone not scientifically on par. What is the duplicity in making the topical content of GIT's (the supposed expert at hand on the topic, considering P.March's mostly absent) posts less wrong?
ScottL's comment is quite reasonable.ScottL wrote: it would be nice to have a space where actual information could be posted on the topic
What interpretation can be put on GIT last post, then? Either it is the fallacy above, or if it is the alternative construction given in the chrismb post then it is equally invalid because the chrismb post did answer the question. Whether it was a right or wrong answer, the claim that the question was not answered is not correct.93143 wrote: No, he's not. Look at his latest post, for example, where he ignores the obvious interpretation of slightly clunky grammar in favour of a rather pointless attempt to accuse GIThruster of a logical fallacy. He is not innocent in this.
It would be possible for posts not to use the third person.paperburn1 wrote:Chris would it be possible for you not to use the third person? It makes you look silly in my opinion.
So that would be "No" ok ,just asking.chrismb wrote:It would be possible for posts not to use the third person.paperburn1 wrote:Chris would it be possible for you not to use the third person? It makes you look silly in my opinion.
Using the third person dissociates statements made from a personality.
It is pointless to attack the character of a person in respect of a third party statement made about objective facts. This does not stop some statements by others being erroneously directed at particular people in response, but it sets it in sharper context that it is the statement under discussion, not a person who may or may not have made such a statement.
An attack on a person as a means to critique a third party statement containing only facts, or alleged facts, or objective propositions, is always and immediately an ad hominem fallacy.
Chris' posts lead to logical resolution. GIT to logical resolution only after you admit you rubbed him the wrong way and admit you have some mental illness and do not conform to his moral ideals. Chris gets nasty real quick, but he's concise and accurate. Like Dr Prins, you can just ignore his frustrations and keep arguing whereas GIT puts his emotional issues ahead of everything else.93143 wrote:No, he's not. Look at his latest post, for example, where he ignores the obvious interpretation of slightly clunky grammar in favour ofBetruger wrote:All Chris is doing is reasoning.
It's not pointless. GIT is way beyond clunky grammar. If someone had the patience, they could stack his unprovoked insults and/or ad hominems and other repeated fallacies as high as Ladajo's Rossi-isms.a rather pointless attempt to accuse GIThruster of a logical fallacy. He is not innocent in this.
GIThruster wrote:[Betruger] is an emotionally disturbed asshole, who dominates the forum like a tyrant, constantly belittling others without cause and pretending it is only his opinions that matter.
Chris is nasty but his rhetoric is as good as always on topic. Again why did GIT get banned from NSF? 93143 you know that wasn't just some freak occurence. Or take the piss test/"MJ bum" episode(s) with MSimon. The list goes on.GIThruster wrote:I'm not forcing anyone to do anything and as I said, I'm pro-choice. But the fact you are shoveling your childish opinion the way you are while telling others they can't makes you out to be a monumental hypocrite--unless of course you have a uterus. I'd taken "Stubby" as that you have a tiny penis instead.