Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (515990)	9/24/2009 2:04:59 PM
From: jlallen	3 Recommendations Respond to of 1578299

Yep...projection is SOP for CJ.

To: one_less who wrote (515990)	9/24/2009 3:25:21 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578299

Be aware, now CJ and his google and wiki armies are coming after you... Taro

To: one_less who wrote (515990)	9/25/2009 3:07:26 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578299

"We were discussing a topic that you had been engaged in with someone else." Is that what you were trying to do? That wasn't clear. "I simply noted that you had contradicted yourself logically by saying first that 'not a settled fact was not true.'" Actually, what you did was make up an alternate post for me. In other words, a trademark wingnut straw man. And then you degenerated into babbling about 'facts'. I said nothing about 'settled facts'. That is your own little baby. I am not even sure what 'settled facts' is supposed to mean. And I doubt if you do either. But, it sounds impressive. And your MO is definitely style over substance. Even if it is meaningless. "No I didn't." Sure you did. You started waving your hands and throwing words around. Like you generally do. And showed little sign you actually understood what you posted. "You responded by saying pretty much the same thing in your own words but used a contradictory tone. " And you didn't understand what I posted, either. "First, epistemology is the study of knowledge and what qualifies something as knowledge." And, more specifically, it is about the limits of knowledge. Which you are dancing around with your "which only exist in the ideological sense and are not materialistically testable.". Now, I grant you that you probably didn't understand what you were posting, but this is precisely the type of nonsense that they routinely do in epistemology. I don't get into that type of mental masturbation, but I see that you do. Not that there is anything wrong with that. "1. You are wrong about the definition allegation." Fan dancing again. "2. I made a point about the use of the word 'fact.' The point being that calling something a fact that can not really be established as true in the absolute sense is a misnomer. " Again, you are the only one talking about 'facts'. "This looks like a match to me, you calling it nonsense is your own discombobulation. " Like I said, you show no sign that you actually understood what you posted. "Another mistake (false statement on your part), as I've addressed the issue at length." I will grant you the "at length" part. I won't on the "addressed the issue" part. You still are trotting out you straw guys and (hopefully) deliberately twisting what I have posted. I saw "hopefully" because the alternative is that you didn't actually understand what I posted. "A mischaracterisation, but your closure just the same." Not really. But, carry on. "5. Another odd behavior typical of you is telling other people they don't understand what they have said and calling their statements nonsense." I like to believe that you aren't actively lying. But, that certainly is a possibility. Not sure how that is any better, but... Ok, if you do understand what you are posting and believe that it isn't nonsense, why are you arguing something totally different than what I was posting about? I grant you that I don't expect you to avoid fallacious arguments, they are too ingrained in your behavior for that, but can you at least try to make sense?