[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
joekc at roadrunner.com
joekc at roadrunner.com
Sat Oct 4 11:33:58 PDT 2008
I'll play for one minute but I really am busy today.
Remind me again of argument (A) and tell me the fallacy that you think I committed. I'm curious.
This is not a condition but please tell me why you don't want to collect an easy $100. Honestly,
I'm interested in knowing why you could possibly want to hide your identity unless my assumptions
are correct. I'm looking for one reason and you owe it to others to give it if we're to take you seriously. Again if you want to ignore this and just reply to the first question, I'll play a bit longer.
But I feel like a bit of a fool, in all honesty, so I won't play long.
--
Joe Campbell
---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr. Campbell,
>
> I applaud you for changing the subject and I will applaud you even
> more if you (A) answer my question or (B) identify for this forum the
> fallacy you committed.
>
>
>
> On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > This is evidence that I'm not reading your posts very carefully, nothing more.
> >
> > I'll give you $100 to have lunch with me today. If not, you set the time and place. You won't do it.
> > Am I supposed to act like this is not evidence that you are afraid to let folks know who you are?
> > Am I supposed to pretend that this is not relevant information to the issue at hand? Should I
> > ignore it? Why on earth would someone forgo an easy $100 and the chance of proving me wrong?
> >
> > Try explaining that and maybe people will listen to you.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dr. Campbell,
> > >
> > > Actually, you asked several questions but here is how I answered this
> > > particular question the first time:
> > >
> > > "I am in the country and I sincerely appreciate the offer but I'll
> > > take a rain check. Now, what fallacy, if any, are you committing when
> > > you infer a false conclusion from my answer?"
> > >
> > > Hopefully, this will satisfy you.
> > >
> > > Now, you have not answered my question: Did you, or did you not
> > > describe your "as far as I can tell" "reasoned opinion" as a "fact"?
> > >
> > > I hope your schedule is not so busy that cannot give an honest answer
> > > to this question because in answering it truthfully, you can begin to
> > > deconstruct the straw man you've been struggling with.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding this as a response to my last question, so I'll
> > > > be more direct.
> > > >
> > > > Do you want to have lunch today or not? I'll treat. If you can't make it, I understand. You respect
> > > > me so why not sit down with me for lunch and we can talk this all out. If you convince me that
> > > > you are not either a critic of Christ Church or affiliated with Christ Church, I'll issue an apology.
> > > >
> > > > I have a busy schedule today. I need to know asap. If you can't make it, just let me know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Joe Campbell
> > > >
> > > > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > "This is really a silly game. Below is just another bad argument. Some
> > > > > of your opinions are facts and some not and it is doubtful that you
> > > > > are the best judge about which is which."
> > > > >
> > > > > I noted your fallacies and you call it "silly" and "another bad
> > > > > argument." I wonder what the technical name for that one is.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Also, why should I answer your questions if you don't answer mine?
> > > > > That's not fair."
> > > > >
> > > > > I caught you equivocating, or having it both ways, with the word
> > > > > "fact" and when I called you on it, you ignored my question and
> > > > > proceeded to ask me a string of loaded questions. If this is not true,
> > > > > please show me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, don't complain about "fair"
> > > > > to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > "And why are you so upset about this? If you are not either a critic
> > > > > of Christ Church or affiliated with Christ Church, why would it bother
> > > > > you that someone thought that you were?"
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not the least bit upset, I am not bothered at all, and you cannot
> > > > > produce any evidence to the contrary. However, I can produce several
> > > > > posts written by you, Ms. Mix, Ms. Lund, and Mr. Hanson where you four
> > > > > have been extremely upset and bothered. You are projecting your traits
> > > > > on me.
> > > > >
> > > > > "I must say if you are trying to prove that you're not, you are doing
> > > > > a very bad job. Not nearly as bad as your case against Obama but still
> > > > > pretty bad. And it is silly indeed since you could prove your point
> > > > > easily by using your real name, or meeting me for lunch later today.
> > > > > I'll treat! Of course, if you can't since you're, say, out of the
> > > > > country, that would explain a lot!"
> > > > >
> > > > > I am in the country and I sincerely appreciate the offer but I'll take
> > > > > a rain check. Now, what fallacy, if any, are you committing when you
> > > > > infer a false conclusion from my answer?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Anyway, if you won't use your name or meet me for lunch, I'll have to
> > > > > go back to trying to ignore you. Not that I'm very good at it but I'll
> > > > > try to be better!"
> > > > >
> > > > > You're very good at misquoting me and misrepresenting me, and you're
> > > > > even better at evading responsibility for your dishonest statements.
> > > > > But I'm struggling with all those posts that you wrote insisting that
> > > > > you never read a word I wrote, yet, now, suddenly and miraculously,
> > > > > you have the uncanny ability as a trained logician to describe the
> > > > > previously and until-now ignored posts as full of "fallacy after
> > > > > fallacy."
> > > > >
> > > > > Rather than ignoring me, I would appreciate it if you actually tried
> > > > > to engage me — or better yet, engage my one single point that has thus
> > > > > far gone unnoticed by the handful of extremely vocal Obama supporters
> > > > > on this list.
> > > > >
> > > > > Barrack Hussein Obama is 47 years old but 20 of his years are a
> > > > > complete mystery to America. In the modern history of the US the press
> > > > > has never given any candidate such a pass as they have given Obama,
> > > > > and yet none of the Obama supporters on this list appear the least bit
> > > > > bothered by these facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I originally engaged you, I have had one question in mind: How
> > > > > do you account for this, Dr. Campbell?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > > > This is really a silly game. Below is just another bad argument. Some of your opinions are facts
> > > > > > and some not and it is doubtful that you are the best judge about which is which.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, why should I answer your questions if you don't answer mine? That's not fair.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And why are you so upset about this? If you are not either a critic of Christ Church or
> > > > > > affiliated with Christ Church, why would it bother you that someone thought that you were?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I must say if you are trying to prove that you're not, you are doing a very bad job. Not nearly as
> > > > > > bad as your case against Obama but still pretty bad. And it is silly indeed since you could prove
> > > > > > your point easily by using your real name, or meeting me for lunch later today. I'll treat!
> > > > > > Of course, if you can't since you're, say, out of the country, that would explain a lot!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, if you won't use your name or meet me for lunch, I'll have to go back to trying to ignore
> > > > > > you. Not that I'm very good at it but I'll try to be better!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Joe Campbell
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I read your words very carefully, because you concluded by jumping
> > > > > > > from "as far as I can tell" to "isn't this FACT telling?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as I can tell you concluded by calling it a "fact." Is my
> > > > > > > reasoned opinion wrong, good Doctor?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I said as far as I can tell, it is a reflection of my own reasoned opinion. And I said anonymous
> > > > > > > > posters are either supporters or critics. Please read my words more carefully.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And that conclusion follows with a good deal more certainty than any of your conclusions about
> > > > > > > > Obama, which are all -- everyone of them -- based on fallacies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What reason is there for your curious double-standard, that I need to prove my claims yet you can
> > > > > > > > make any reckless statement you want without a hint of real support?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And why not deny the allegation if you thought I made it and it is false. You are curious indeed!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And as others have asked time and time again, what possible reason is there for you to post
> > > > > > > > anonymously if you are not trying to hide some affiliation? Use your real name and I'll be done.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Joe Campbell
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > AHA!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What evidence can Dr. Campbell produce to show that I am either a folk
> > > > > > > > > of Christ Church or a critic of Christ Church?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Some of you would do well to answer this question and do some self-examination.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > What evidence is there that the five noted by Gary below are "left wing"? In fact, what they all
> > > > > > > > > > have in common is that they were critics of Christ Church. That is it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So the anonymous posts, as far as I can tell, are either from folks at Christ Church or from
> > > > > > > > > > critics of Christ Church. Does anyone have a counterexample to this and isn't this fact telling?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Joe Campbell
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that Rodger means that the names were brought up (listed) by
> > > > > > > > > > > myself and someone else as examples of anonymous posters. Not that those
> > > > > > > > > > > vision members were posting currently.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Craine Kit" <kcraine at verizon.net>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "Chasuk" <chasuk at gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:24 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >I didn't get any postings by either "heridotus" or "Ford yesterday.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't seen anything from either in quite some while. Am I
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kit Craine
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Chasuk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:31, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> There were about 5 listed in posts yesterday by Gary and someone
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> else. Two of them were Heridotus and Ford.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Ah. I would consider J.Ford more a harmless crank than a real
> > > > > > > > > > > >> "left-winger." The others I am unfamiliar with.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > > >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > > > >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> >
> >
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list