Welcome, newbies!

quote:

---

Maybe one of you could back up your bold assertions per forum guidelines by showing the rest of us precisely how Phillip Johnson has lied.

---

I, for one, see no indication that they have done so. As you correctly indicate, crashfrog accused Kent Hovind and a number of others of knowing falsehoods. You may wish to conclude that this implies Philip Johnson, but it can hardly be construed by anyone as a "bold assertion." In fact, the most natural conclusion to draw would be that crashfrog, by not mentioning Philip Johnson in his "accusatory" post, while explicitly naming him in a previous post, was making a distinction between the two men on precisely the point of lying. Crashfrog has made no accusations, implied or otherwsie, of "knowing falsehood" against Philip Johnson. That a "bold assertion" of his lying was made is clearly a delusion.Crashfrog did accuse Kent Hovind of knowing falsehoods - an accusation which you, tellingly, do not take issue with, despite using nearly 400 words to defend Philip Johnson.With the exception of this accusation against Hovind, the only person making accusations of lying on this thread is you - four times in one post.Given your extremely poor standard of logic, your hotheaded resort to insult, and your somewhat incompetent use of English (how one can "craw" "under" a hole, I am not at all sure) I think we can see why you choose to remain on the beginners forum.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-30-2003]

quote:

---

I know, Pamboli doesn't see it, but in truth he does and rather DENIES seeing it in a continuing fabrication of so-so storytelling...

---

It is good to see we finally have a psychic on the board - this should help us understand the thought processes of others a little better. It is probably a deficiency in my logical training, but I do not see, and can't find you demonstrating, that "using as a pawn" is equivalent to "propagating a known falsehood."

quote:

---

Guess Pamboli would agree that everything Johnson says about evolution is, in fact, not a lie at all. And that was my point. Thanks for making it for me!

---

I can't quite see anyone on claiming that "everything Johnson says about evolution" is a lie. Is there a reason for your hyperbole? I imagine there are many things Johnson says about evolution which are true. I also imagine there are many things he says about evolution which are deeply mistaken. I do not imagine for a minute that he knowingly promulgates falsehood.

quote:

---

Wonder who we get next, AdminPamboli, the playground bully, or "Mister Pamboli", resident dumbazz?

---

You'll hear from AdminPamboli if you breach forum guidelines. For now, AdminPamboli, is being a little tolerant because he feels you are struggling and he is giving you the benefit of the doubt, as he does for other newbies on this forum.Mister Pamboli, on the other hand, is puzzled by the phrase "dumbazz" which he has only heard from Inquisitor. He wonders what it could mean? Could it be a breach of rule 3 of the forum? If he thinks so, he'll fire some synaptic complaints to AdminPamboli demanding action.

quote:

---

BTW, Professor Pamboli, you're not as competent in the English language yourself, given that you misspelled "otherwise", supra, after at least one attempt at editing.

---

Oh, I make lots of spelling mistakes and I am of course open to correction. However, so far as I am aware, a spelling mistake is not a logical miscontruction or an egregiously constructed metaphor: that is to say, it shows no lack of facultative reasoning.

quote:

---

In fact, I'd say your not competent at all to discuss with authority anything scientific unless you can prove you have the proper credentials and education, relevant experience, and published works from which one may conclude otherwise.

---

I do not believe I have ever discussed a scientific matter in a manner that would claim personal authority on the subject. I cannot quite see how anyone could do so on this forum, as we are not really aware of the identities of other posters. Personally, I am always skeptical of authority, which is why I go to some length to support my lines of argument with quotations from primary soource material wherever possible. Would you have me do otherwise?

quote:

---

Cut and paste, citing other websites, and general paraphrasing of others' ideas is not wholly impressive.

---

Oh. You would have me do otherwise. Well, tell you what, Inquisitor, if you ever feel like taking part in the detailed topics on this forum, you can explain to us your bona fides. Of course, proving them may be a problem, this being the internet.

quote:

---

And the funniest thing about it all is you truly DO NOT SEE how stupid and irrational you sound.

---

That is why I am so glad we can have these little chats. Your ability to calmly, rationally and lucidly illuminate the logical of others without recourse to insult, fallacy or pretentions to authority are much appreciated.

quote:

---

However, it goes too far to conclude that every noted phrase were viable logical fallacies. Affirming the consequence perhaps, but the others are my mere observations, not intended for logical argument

---

This certainly confirms my suspicion that only Inquisitor can tell when Inquisitor is trying to be logical.Inquisitor's tone is indeed very similar to Zephan, the soi disant expert who appeared to muddle "standards of proof" with "burden of proof." I wonder if they are, by any chance, related?[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-30-2003]

quote:

---

"Posers" never actually do get around to showing us HOW they know-it-all however...

---

Describes Inquisitor to a T don't you think? Can anyone find an example of Inquisitor supporting a single line of argument except from their own authority?For my part, I am convinced this is the same person who posted here as Zephan - the same insistent appeal to arguments from authority, the same inability to support any argument, the same frequent reference to terms of rhetoric and informal logic, with the same lack of application of principles of informal logic and rhetoric in their own posts.Let's see if Inquisitor can actually graduate to posting anything substantial. I think they have nothing to say, in fact I'm just about sure of it. I predict that given a detailed discussion on a matter of substance Inquisitor will resort to name-calling, argument from pretended authority, and what L. Susan Stebbing used to call the inverse argument from authority - the latter rather nicely exemplified by Inquisitor's insistence that the others look or sound stupid.So, Inquisitor, why not register and open a thread on the main board? There's a wide variety of forums. You could open a topic on the application of logical argument in the Coffee House thread, where I would be delighted to cross swords.