Hello Everyone

[Squidusa]

What forum is this posted in?

...shit.

 

Editing post now.

Sure. Not the first time  and you have done worse i suppose. i guess I will edit mine too then.

It wasn't intetional , but feel free to put whatever motives you can think of behind it. 

[odeon]

He didn't put any motives behind it, did he? Sounds to me you did some projecting.

[Adam]

I read it the saThe whole "not for the first time" did sound kinda bitchy. If he wasn't putting any motives behind it, a simple reminder that it was from the EF would have been enough

[odeon]

Couldn't have been that the member pointing it out was Sir Les, right?

[Adam]

Of course

You said something similar about my reaction to something callaway said the other week

OBVIOUSLY the past behaviour of a person is gonna affect how I interpret their current behaviour

Having said that though, even if someone like butterflies had said somethign like that , I would have been shocked as I would still have thought it sounded kinda bitchy. But the fact that it was Les confirmed me in tht

[Squidusa]

He didn't put any motives behind it, did he? Sounds to me you did some projecting.

Sure. Not the first time  and you have done worse i suppose. i guess I will edit mine too then.

To me that sounds like he is suggesting motives , but no matter no big deal.

[odeon]

Of course

You said something similar about my reaction to something callaway said the other week

OBVIOUSLY the past behaviour of a person is gonna affect how I interpret their current behaviour

Having said that though, even if someone like butterflies had said somethign like that , I would have been shocked as I would still have thought it sounded kinda bitchy. But the fact that it was Les confirmed me in tht

And I knew from your past behaviour that you'd say this. Let's face it, Adam, you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others, regardless, and every time your motives will be clear.

You are not very hard to read or second-guess.

[odeon]

He didn't put any motives behind it, did he? Sounds to me you did some projecting.

Sure. Not the first time  and you have done worse i suppose. i guess I will edit mine too then.

To me that sounds like he is suggesting motives , but no matter no big deal.

Better to make this to be about Sir Les than say "sorry, I shouldn't have".

No big deal. Right.

[Adam]

you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others,

Uh, obviously

Well, in callaway's case at least.

we all have our opinions on people here. plenty of people are always gonna judge me, or you, differently from others

I'm not sure exactly what you're tryna say

And if you knew what my response would be, why did you say it in the first place?

[Adam]

He didn't put any motives behind it, did he? Sounds to me you did some projecting.

Sure. Not the first time  and you have done worse i suppose. i guess I will edit mine too then.

To me that sounds like he is suggesting motives , but no matter no big deal.

Better to make this to be about Sir Les than say "sorry, I shouldn't have".

No big deal. Right.

[Kaelyrhn]

Let's face it, Adam, you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others, regardless, and every time your motives will be clear.

You are not very hard to read or second-guess.

Isn't that a Circumstantial Ad Hominem?

Shouldn't you be aware of that? You know, seeing as you love fallacies so much?

(and yeah I'm probably conducting a fallacy in this)

 

[Callaway]

Let's face it, Adam, you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others, regardless, and every time your motives will be clear.

You are not very hard to read or second-guess.

Isn't that a Circumstantial Ad Hominem?

Shouldn't you be aware of that? You know, seeing as you love fallacies so much?

(and yeah I'm probably conducting a fallacy in this)

 

Actually, it is not.  According to the link you posted, "the circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted."

[Kaelyrhn]

Let's face it, Adam, you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others, regardless, and every time your motives will be clear.

You are not very hard to read or second-guess.

Isn't that a Circumstantial Ad Hominem?

Shouldn't you be aware of that? You know, seeing as you love fallacies so much?

(and yeah I'm probably conducting a fallacy in this)

 

Actually, it is not.  According to the link you posted, "the circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."

Fair enough

[Émile Armand]

odeon's made it clear that bc will be banned each time he returns, and most people seem to think that Emile is bc. so I don't think it's such an unsubstantiated claim to mak reallly

Most people that sure. He has that pretty identifiable style.
But who said he WAS Buttcoffee and who said he was getting banned for being Buttcoffee?
Butterflies seemed to draw it like a forgone conclusion. Is that right or am I misreading? "He should not be banned". Seems to suggest people have indicated that he should. Have they and i have missed it? Sounded like she was trying to reprieve him from a fate that was not in question in the first place?

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19189.msg860440.html#msg860440

Odeon made another post about looking for proof that he is Buttcoffee and when/if he finds it BC is banned.

How come I cannot read that thread? It says I am not allowed to read.

[Kaelyrhn]

odeon's made it clear that bc will be banned each time he returns, and most people seem to think that Emile is bc. so I don't think it's such an unsubstantiated claim to mak reallly

Most people that sure. He has that pretty identifiable style.
But who said he WAS Buttcoffee and who said he was getting banned for being Buttcoffee?
Butterflies seemed to draw it like a forgone conclusion. Is that right or am I misreading? "He should not be banned". Seems to suggest people have indicated that he should. Have they and i have missed it? Sounded like she was trying to reprieve him from a fate that was not in question in the first place?

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19189.msg860440.html#msg860440

Odeon made another post about looking for proof that he is Buttcoffee and when/if he finds it BC is banned.

How come I cannot read that thread? It says I am not allowed to read.

Only for Elders. I used to be one, but then I got stupid. I'm getting better.