ChatterBank0 min ago
Another Belter From The R0P
259 Answers
http://
Wonder what this poor little sod did to offend.
Wonder what this poor little sod did to offend.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No andy, the early post you quoted was vague, the wording I wish you'd used is precise and meticulousnabout what you mean.
// Until this woman *states in front of witnesses* that she murdered this child **because of her religion**, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption. //
It was so easy. People have been offering up their idea of why your vague "this isn't proof" was wrong, in their opinion and, rather than pointing out why they are wrong you've just been doing the broken record routine. It is exasperating when contributions aren't engaged with. A paragraph to say that you are declining to reply to someone.
AOG catches us out all the time because we extract the general meaning without paying attention to his precise wording. We go off on one, trying to put his views to rights and he has a right old giggle, I should imagine.
// Until this woman *states in front of witnesses* that she murdered this child **because of her religion**, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption. //
It was so easy. People have been offering up their idea of why your vague "this isn't proof" was wrong, in their opinion and, rather than pointing out why they are wrong you've just been doing the broken record routine. It is exasperating when contributions aren't engaged with. A paragraph to say that you are declining to reply to someone.
AOG catches us out all the time because we extract the general meaning without paying attention to his precise wording. We go off on one, trying to put his views to rights and he has a right old giggle, I should imagine.
divebuddy - //It's not "broken keyboard". This technique is called "broken record". Just keep saying exactly the same thing over and over again, while ignoring whatever the other person says. We weren't allowed to do it at my school. //
I am aware of the expression, I merely 'updated' it for our modern communications!
I think you will find that I am not ignoring anything anyone says - if you re-read my posts, every one of them is unique, addressing the previous post where appropriate and discussing the point made.
That is now debate works.
I am aware of the expression, I merely 'updated' it for our modern communications!
I think you will find that I am not ignoring anything anyone says - if you re-read my posts, every one of them is unique, addressing the previous post where appropriate and discussing the point made.
That is now debate works.
// but it is as feasible as saying that her religion is 'involved' because no-one knows. //
um no - SHE knows doesnt she ?
( but her belief may not be valid if she is mad )
anyway nice to see after 100 entries that someone has clicked that an assumption is not a conclusion - thank god for that
[ for those that say - arent they ? assumptions at the top of an argument and conclusions at the bottom - it is a place thing )
um no - SHE knows doesnt she ?
( but her belief may not be valid if she is mad )
anyway nice to see after 100 entries that someone has clicked that an assumption is not a conclusion - thank god for that
[ for those that say - arent they ? assumptions at the top of an argument and conclusions at the bottom - it is a place thing )
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Hypognosis - //No andy, the early post you quoted was vague, the wording I wish you'd used is precise and meticulousnabout what you mean.
// Until this woman *states in front of witnesses* that she murdered this child **because of her religion**, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption. //
It was so easy. People have been offering up their idea of why your vague "this isn't proof" was wrong, in their opinion and, rather than pointing out why they are wrong you've just been doing the broken record routine. It is exasperating when contributions aren't engaged with. A paragraph to say that you are declining to reply to someone. //
I think if you re-read my posts on this thread, each and every one of them which is engaged in the points I am making disucesses each point made against my argument individually - which is not a 'broken record routine'.
I engage with anyone and everyone except AOG for reasons which he and I and all the regulars on here are well aware of.
If you are unaware, please allow me to enlighten you - exchanges between AOG and myself almost always turn into personal arguments which dilute debate. irritate and put off other posters, and generally erode the will to live for all involved. On that basis, I have advised AOG that I will no longer interact with him directly - although he continues to address posts to me, which are ignored, in the interests of the AB as a whole.
// Until this woman *states in front of witnesses* that she murdered this child **because of her religion**, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption. //
It was so easy. People have been offering up their idea of why your vague "this isn't proof" was wrong, in their opinion and, rather than pointing out why they are wrong you've just been doing the broken record routine. It is exasperating when contributions aren't engaged with. A paragraph to say that you are declining to reply to someone. //
I think if you re-read my posts on this thread, each and every one of them which is engaged in the points I am making disucesses each point made against my argument individually - which is not a 'broken record routine'.
I engage with anyone and everyone except AOG for reasons which he and I and all the regulars on here are well aware of.
If you are unaware, please allow me to enlighten you - exchanges between AOG and myself almost always turn into personal arguments which dilute debate. irritate and put off other posters, and generally erode the will to live for all involved. On that basis, I have advised AOG that I will no longer interact with him directly - although he continues to address posts to me, which are ignored, in the interests of the AB as a whole.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Togo - ////On that basis, I have advised AOG that I will no longer interact with him directly - although he continues to address posts to me, which are ignored, in the interests of the AB as a whole. //
But continue to refer to him. //
I have referred to AOG specifically in answer to a query from another AB'er.
If you have a problem with that - and I fail to see why you would - then that is for you to deal with.
But continue to refer to him. //
I have referred to AOG specifically in answer to a query from another AB'er.
If you have a problem with that - and I fail to see why you would - then that is for you to deal with.
@andy
//
//What if we flip the question around and ask why her faith and whatever code of morals it embodies singularly failed to inhibit her actions? //
We could do that - but its an entirely separate debate. //
Nope. It's the null hypothesis. Prove that her faith had no power to inhibit her madness and you prove that her faith played no part in driving her actions.
Your assertion that her faith was not causative is no more than that. Except you cannot assert until you possess facts. Nobody can read minds, ergo, you possess no facts about her thought processes so yours is also an assumption.
QED
Nobody knows why she did it*. It is an unknown-knowable (I'll draw you a diagram) ;)
* yet.
//
//What if we flip the question around and ask why her faith and whatever code of morals it embodies singularly failed to inhibit her actions? //
We could do that - but its an entirely separate debate. //
Nope. It's the null hypothesis. Prove that her faith had no power to inhibit her madness and you prove that her faith played no part in driving her actions.
Your assertion that her faith was not causative is no more than that. Except you cannot assert until you possess facts. Nobody can read minds, ergo, you possess no facts about her thought processes so yours is also an assumption.
QED
Nobody knows why she did it*. It is an unknown-knowable (I'll draw you a diagram) ;)
* yet.
Hypognosis - //@andy
//
//What if we flip the question around and ask why her faith and whatever code of morals it embodies singularly failed to inhibit her actions? //
We could do that - but its an entirely separate debate. //
Nope. It's the null hypothesis. Prove that her faith had no power to inhibit her madness and you prove that her faith played no part in driving her actions.
Your assertion that her faith was not causative is no more than that. Except you cannot assert until you possess facts. Nobody can read minds, ergo, you possess no facts about her thought processes so yours is also an assumption.
QED
Nobody knows why she did it*. It is an unknown-knowable (I'll draw you a diagram) ;)
* yet. //
I have re-read your post three times, and I still have no idea what you are talking about!
Don't bother with a diagram, just explain clearly please, what your point is.
It appears to say that I can't prove anything either way, which is exactly what I have been saying since I joined the debate.
If I have misunderstood - which is perfectly possible - I await your enlightenment.
//
//What if we flip the question around and ask why her faith and whatever code of morals it embodies singularly failed to inhibit her actions? //
We could do that - but its an entirely separate debate. //
Nope. It's the null hypothesis. Prove that her faith had no power to inhibit her madness and you prove that her faith played no part in driving her actions.
Your assertion that her faith was not causative is no more than that. Except you cannot assert until you possess facts. Nobody can read minds, ergo, you possess no facts about her thought processes so yours is also an assumption.
QED
Nobody knows why she did it*. It is an unknown-knowable (I'll draw you a diagram) ;)
* yet. //
I have re-read your post three times, and I still have no idea what you are talking about!
Don't bother with a diagram, just explain clearly please, what your point is.
It appears to say that I can't prove anything either way, which is exactly what I have been saying since I joined the debate.
If I have misunderstood - which is perfectly possible - I await your enlightenment.
Apologies for extraneous personal detail but I need to sleep and will be back this evening.
In the meantime
"The null hypothesis (H 0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify. The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
Disprove H 0 to 95% confidence level and its opposite must be true (and would be wrong, at most, only 5% of the time).
In the meantime
"The null hypothesis (H 0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify. The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
Disprove H 0 to 95% confidence level and its opposite must be true (and would be wrong, at most, only 5% of the time).
-- answer removed --
Togo - ////I have referred to AOG specifically in answer to a query from another AB'er. //
//If you have a problem with that - and I fail to see why you would - then that is for you to deal with. //
Dealt with. As far as I can make out the last reference to AOG (before your kind reference) was by sp @18:27 on mon. the reference was directed to svejk. //
I have absolutely no idea why you think this is an issue for you, for me, or for anyone.
Since you have taken the trouble to find my last reference to AOG, I repeat that I refer to him only if asked a direct question, and hopefully that circumstance is going to be seriously infrequent.
//If you have a problem with that - and I fail to see why you would - then that is for you to deal with. //
Dealt with. As far as I can make out the last reference to AOG (before your kind reference) was by sp @18:27 on mon. the reference was directed to svejk. //
I have absolutely no idea why you think this is an issue for you, for me, or for anyone.
Since you have taken the trouble to find my last reference to AOG, I repeat that I refer to him only if asked a direct question, and hopefully that circumstance is going to be seriously infrequent.
-- answer removed --
Re: the indecipherable text on her computer
(Wiki again)
"The Uzbek language has been written in various scripts: Arabic, Cyrillic and Latin. In Uzbekistan, it is now written in the Latin script officially."
I admit this doesn't help. Cyrillic text but Uzbek language might be just as indecipherable as latin or arabic. You'd expect reactionary press to leap on any hint of arabic comms but the bereaved parent's interview (Daily Mail story) doesn't go to that level of detail.
(Wiki again)
"The Uzbek language has been written in various scripts: Arabic, Cyrillic and Latin. In Uzbekistan, it is now written in the Latin script officially."
I admit this doesn't help. Cyrillic text but Uzbek language might be just as indecipherable as latin or arabic. You'd expect reactionary press to leap on any hint of arabic comms but the bereaved parent's interview (Daily Mail story) doesn't go to that level of detail.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.