Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Slarti said:

 

So "you know" and "you think" at the same time?  Make your mind up.  The fact that you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not says more about you than it does about me.  You have already admitted that when you say "fact", you really mean your "opinion", so I'm continuing with that.  I do want to know though, what word will you use when you mean "fact"?

Seemed like you really tried to let it go lol. Where are you quoting me saying "think" on this point? I imagine this will be a running theme but as I have said before, I have no interest in getting into the semantics of the word fact with you. 

There is no point where it becomes pedantic to ask for validated evidence.  If it is something obvious, e.g. gravity, all you have to do is say "Google it".  As for your dice rolls, I will say it again, you obviously have no grasp of what probability demonstrates.  What it doesn't demonstrate, unless the probability is exactly 1, is if something will definitely happen.  It doesn't matter how close to 1 it is, if it isn't 1 then the event might not happen.  Also, things that have a probability of almost zero happen regularly.  As I previously said, you can pick any number you want, it doesn't matter.  Your "view" on the matter has no bearing on the truth of it.

OK, show me where i was being "pedantic" under another username.  Go on.  Bet you don't.

And, it's "saw" not "seen".  Maybe that demonstrates your ability in basic English perfectly, mind you.
This is a point of disagreement, I think when things are painstakingly obvious, people can use this approach to slow down, derail and hinder an argument or debate. You are one of these people, it's a technique you have used many times & is very ineffective as I have adequately highlighted in the dice roll example. This is my view and it is what will drive my approach to this argument, hence why I will not get into the semantics of words to pander to your pedantic nature. You also continue to get confused on my grasp of what you are saying vs me rejecting it as a valid way to have an argument. 

I'm not going to immediately pander to you and show where you were being pedantic under another username because it would likely take some time to check back but I'll give an example and we can see if you agree it happened (to save lots of time, get it yet?). Under your old username some months (maybe even over a year now that I think about it) you got hung up for weeks on the use of a word, the word itself escapes me but do you deny we had an argument on this? Side note reverse psychology used in this manner won't work on me.

English police. 

I know I'm better than you, but I'm not Jesus.

If you do say so yourself... 

You don’t need to simplify anything.  The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry.  Your example is flawed.  I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed.  There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about.  Your example also was not analogous to your claim.  Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example?  The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time.  It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws.  That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed.  The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing.  Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it?  FFS.

OK, you have no answer to any of the above, good of you to admit it.

Again reverse psychology wont work in such manners. 

A simple, though drastic, third option, would be if I killed you.  That is not a threat and I'm not wishing any ill will on you, just stating the most obvious other option (there are others which would take longer to type) that proves that those are not my only two options.  I expect that you will argue about this and/or try and change the goalposts.

Lol it would be sweet relief at this point of such a consistently pedantic argument style. No you are right that would be a perfectly reasonable, sound and acceptable third option, you haven't yet again been pedantic at all. :whistle

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So COVID has dropped us into recession with a 20% drop in GDP, double what Germany and US are, we have the furlough scheme ending in a few months and of course the charge towards Brexit, which is more of a crawl now...……

We have Oldham, and various towns back in Lockdown, still millions going on holiday abroad and cramming beaches, busy pubs, and has anyone else realised.....…..

 

The Human race is FXXXING Stupid  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So "you know" and "you think" at the same time?  Make your mind up.  The fact that you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not says more about you than it does about me.  You have already admitted that when you say "fact", you really mean your "opinion", so I'm continuing with that.  I do want to know though, what word will you use when you mean "fact"?

Seemed like you really tried to let it go lol. Where are you quoting me saying "think" on this point? I imagine this will be a running theme but as I have said before, I have no interest in getting into the semantics of the word fact with you. 

There is no point where it becomes pedantic to ask for validated evidence.  If it is something obvious, e.g. gravity, all you have to do is say "Google it".  As for your dice rolls, I will say it again, you obviously have no grasp of what probability demonstrates.  What it doesn't demonstrate, unless the probability is exactly 1, is if something will definitely happen.  It doesn't matter how close to 1 it is, if it isn't 1 then the event might not happen.  Also, things that have a probability of almost zero happen regularly.  As I previously said, you can pick any number you want, it doesn't matter.  Your "view" on the matter has no bearing on the truth of it.

OK, show me where i was being "pedantic" under another username.  Go on.  Bet you don't.

And, it's "saw" not "seen".  Maybe that demonstrates your ability in basic English perfectly, mind you.
This is a point of disagreement, I think when things are painstakingly obvious, people can use this approach to slow down, derail and hinder an argument or debate. You are one of these people, it's a technique you have used many times & is very ineffective as I have adequately highlighted in the dice roll example. This is my view and it is what will drive my approach to this argument, hence why I will not get into the semantics of words to pander to your pedantic nature. You also continue to get confused on my grasp of what you are saying vs me rejecting it as a valid way to have an argument. 

I'm not going to immediately pander to you and show where you were being pedantic under another username because it would likely take some time to check back but I'll give an example and we can see if you agree it happened (to save lots of time, get it yet?). Under your old username some months (maybe even over a year now that I think about it) you got hung up for weeks on the use of a word, the word itself escapes me but do you deny we had an argument on this? Side note reverse psychology used in this manner won't work on me.

English police. 

I know I'm better than you, but I'm not Jesus.

If you do say so yourself... 

You don’t need to simplify anything.  The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry.  Your example is flawed.  I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed.  There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about.  Your example also was not analogous to your claim.  Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example?  The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time.  It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws.  That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed.  The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing.  Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it?  FFS.

OK, you have no answer to any of the above, good of you to admit it.

Again reverse psychology wont work in such manners. 

A simple, though drastic, third option, would be if I killed you.  That is not a threat and I'm not wishing any ill will on you, just stating the most obvious other option (there are others which would take longer to type) that proves that those are not my only two options.  I expect that you will argue about this and/or try and change the goalposts.

Lol it would be sweet relief at this point of such a consistently pedantic argument style. No you are right that would be a perfectly reasonable, sound and acceptable third option, you haven't yet again been pedantic at all. :whistle

 

You know what, I could get into all this with answers but I would just be repeating myself again and I'm sure that others will be bored with it all.

Just answer one question. I expect you will obfuscate and try to avoid answering but, here goes:

Did you make a statement that, at the time of making it, you were unable to demonstrate the truth of and claim that statement as fact?

You either did or you didn't. No semantics or pedantry. A simple yes or no. No expansion required.

As I said, I expect you to avoid answering. This would not be you getting into the semantics of the use of a word as I specifically have said that no expansion on a yes or no answer is required.

If you do so however, I will put you on ignore and you will miss out on "this part of BAWA that [you] enjoy" (your words, not mine) and will need to find someone else to start a needless trivial debate with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So COVID has dropped us into recession with a 20% drop in GDP, double what Germany and US are, we have the furlough scheme ending in a few months and of course the charge towards Brexit, which is more of a crawl now...……
We have Oldham, and various towns back in Lockdown, still millions going on holiday abroad and cramming beaches, busy pubs, and has anyone else realised.....…..
 
The Human race is FXXXING Stupid  
Well, a lot of them definitely are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Slarti said:

You know what, I could get into all this with answers but I would just be repeating myself again and I'm sure that others will be bored with it all.

Just answer one question. I expect you will obfuscate and try to avoid answering but, here goes:

Did you make a statement that, at the time of making it, you were unable to demonstrate the truth of and claim that statement as fact?

You either did or you didn't. No semantics or pedantry. A simple yes or no. No expansion required.

As I said, I expect you to avoid answering. This would not be you getting into the semantics of the use of a word as I specifically have said that no expansion on a yes or no answer is required.

If you do so however, I will put you on ignore and you will miss out on "this part of BAWA that [you] enjoy" (your words, not mine) and will need to find someone else to start a needless trivial debate with.

More reverse psychology, it isn't as simple as a yes or no so you won't get one. As I have already said I am not interest in getting into the semantics of words with you, that won't change sorry. You'll probably now claim victory given you "expected" this. (see what I did there?)

However what I will do is again clarify my stance. The statement I made was fact. Lockdown has saved more than zero lives, people are alive today that wouldn't be had lockdown not happened in any sense. I do not feel it adds to an argument or is required to make "prove it" points, I think it's pedantic and it is a go to, ineffective argument style of yours that we have seen many times before. The claim is an obvious one, validation (IMO just like the dice example) is not required. 

That's fine, plenty more fish in the sea as they say. You could have saved yourself so much time as I have been very clear and consistent that I won't lower myself to your needs on this pedantic point.

I will say goodbye to yet another contributor that feels the need to announce the ignore function lol. 👋

Link to comment
Share on other sites



More reverse psychology, it isn't as simple as a yes or no so you won't get one. As I have already said I am not interest in getting into the semantics of words with you, that won't change sorry. You'll probably now claim victory given you "expected" this. (see what I did there?)
However what I will do is again clarify my stance. The statement I made was fact. Lockdown has saved more than zero lives, people are alive today that wouldn't be had lockdown not happened in any sense. I do not feel it adds to an argument or is required to make "prove it" points, I think it's pedantic and it is a go to, ineffective argument style of yours that we have seen many times before. The claim is an obvious one, validation (IMO just like the dice example) is not required. 
That's fine, plenty more fish in the sea as they say. You could have saved yourself so much time as I have been very clear and consistent that I won't lower myself to your needs on this pedantic point.
I will say goodbye to yet another contributor that feels the need to announce the ignore function lol. [emoji112]


There obviously is a yes or no answer. You either did or you didn't. As I expected, you avoid answering the question as you would either have to admit you were wrong (a yes) or obviously lie (a no).

I am not going to "claim victory" as that isn't important to me (even though you will claim that it "obviously is") but, irrespective of that, you lose. Not to me, but in front of everyone else on the forum as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in what is right or wrong, you are just interested in putting your opinion out as the right opinion, irrespective of the supporting evidence - you're basically a very bad spin doctor.

Your logic has been shown to be invalid, your arguments unsound and your command of basic English to be flawed.

I really should have known better to expect that you would have matured any in the four/five months since you were put on ignore.

I never "announced the ignore function", I just told you the ramifications of, once again, failing to answer a simple question. Before your flawed logic comes out again, I had to read your post to know that you never answered the question and I put you on ignore before posting this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Slarti said:


There obviously is a yes or no answer. You either did or you didn't. As I expected, you avoid answering the question as you would either have to admit you were wrong (a yes) or obviously lie (a no).

I am not going to "claim victory" as that isn't important to me (even though you will claim that it "obviously is") but, irrespective of that, you lose. Not to me, but in front of everyone else on the forum as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in what is right or wrong, you are just interested in putting your opinion out as the right opinion, irrespective of the supporting evidence - you're basically a very bad spin doctor.

Your logic has been shown to be invalid, your arguments unsound and your command of basic English to be flawed.

I really should have known better to expect that you would have matured any in the four/five months since you were put on ignore.

I never "announced the ignore function", I just told you the ramifications of, once again, failing to answer a simple question. Before your flawed logic comes out again, I had to read your post to know that you never answered the question and I put you on ignore before posting this.

 

Ah well, I genuinely had confidence he was being honest. But a few correct calls from me 

- Slarti using reverse psychology

- Slarti claiming victory (even though he claims he hasn't he absolutely has & tries to mask it again with more reverse psychology, which didn't work)

- My ongoing view that Sarti really struggles to let things go (yes I see the irony here but as he said, I enjoy this part of BAWA)

He also again tries to take the high road but the reality is his immaturity has never been in question. A week now on a sentence, how pedantic. And that isn't even close to his record.

It was an announcement, you announced that you'd put me on ignore for an event you knew would happen given I had told you as much, several times. Sad. 

There may be a chance Slarti doesn't see this but I am not taking his word for it again that I'm on ignore. Hopefully this pedantic argument can now be brought to a close and we can get back to the topic. 👍

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Long John Baldy said:

You are a weird one, is it coz I is black?

Plenty of other people don't have the hang up you do, maybe time you polluted another forum? 

Plenty of other people would agree with me - including the moderators/div - it would seem.

 

Why don't YOU go pollute another forum, fartaway?

 

I was here, first!  :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Ah well, I genuinely had confidence he was being honest. But a few correct calls from me 

- Slarti using reverse psychology

- Slarti claiming victory (even though he claims he hasn't he absolutely has & tries to mask it again with more reverse psychology, which didn't work)

- My ongoing view that Sarti really struggles to let things go (yes I see the irony here but as he said, I enjoy this part of BAWA)

He also again tries to take the high road but the reality is his immaturity has never been in question. A week now on a sentence, how pedantic. And that isn't even close to his record.

It was an announcement, you announced that you'd put me on ignore for an event you knew would happen given I had told you as much, several times. Sad. 

There may be a chance Slarti doesn't see this but I am not taking his word for it again that I'm on ignore. Hopefully this pedantic argument can now be brought to a close and we can get back to the topic. 👍

 

 

You have learned nothing.

Which is no surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Um no. your statement is the height of arrogance.

You're entitled to that opinion. I've seen little from them other than a will to argue.

There was certainly a lot of confusion on their part. It was always about rejecting the pedantic argument technique, never a lack of understanding. Felt I made that overwhelmingly clear but apparently not. 

21 minutes ago, Slarti said:
53 minutes ago, antrin said:
You have learned nothing.
Which is no surprise.

That's because he doesn't care that he believes false things.

Lol "I'll put you on ignore but still get my argument fix" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Thinking you, Slarti or anyone else has anything to teach me on a football forum is the height of arrogance. 

 

 

 

Um no. your statement is the height of arrogance.

 

 

 

You're entitled to that opinion. I've seen little from them other than a will to argue.

There was certainly a lot of confusion on their part. It was always about rejecting the pedantic argument technique, never a lack of understanding. Felt I made that overwhelmingly clear but apparently not.

 

BtB wasn't talking about the to-ing and fro-ing of the argument, baz, just that statement. That's my reading of it, anyway, I could be wrong and I'm sure BtB will let us know if that's the case.

 

Every day's a schoolday, you can learn from anyone, from anywhere or from anything - that's why it's arrogant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, salmonbuddie said:

 

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Thinking you, Slarti or anyone else has anything to teach me on a football forum is the height of arrogance. 


BtB wasn't talking about the to-ing and fro-ing of the argument, baz, just that statement. That's my reading of it, anyway, I could be wrong and I'm sure BtB will let us know if that's the case.

Every day's a schoolday, you can learn from anyone, from anywhere or from anything - that's why it's arrogant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, salmonbuddie said:

BtB wasn't talking about the to-ing and fro-ing of the argument, baz, just that statement. That's my reading of it, anyway, I could be wrong and I'm sure BtB will let us know if that's the case.

 

Every day's a schoolday, you can learn from anyone, from anywhere or from anything - that's why it's arrogant.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

Yup!

My take on it was because the particular posters have both recently made claims of trying to educate/ teach me something. It has seemed to me that they have tried to show they are more virtuous, out here educating us common folk.

That was my assumption based on where the conversation had come from but if it wasn't BTB's intention fine. Like I say, he's entitled to any opinion he wants.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

My take on it was because the particular posters have both recently made claims of trying to educate/ teach me something. It has seemed to me that they have tried to show they are more virtuous, out here educating us common folk.

That was my assumption based on where the conversation had come from but if it wasn't BTB's intention fine. Like I say, he's entitled to any opinion he wants.  

Hmmmm

pea and ham, from a chicken, noo that's clever.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...