I swear, there's never been anybody else on this forum (as far as I can remember) that I've had to do this with. With you, I've now had to do it twice.

Merriam-Webster's defines "debate" as:

a contention by words or arguments

Arguments are part of debate, Paul. Does this show just how low that detractor, the English language, will sink?



It's very easy to run away from a topic on a message board. You can refuse to back up statements or answer direct questions... you can tell the person you're speaking to that you're done with a topic without addressing their arguments... you can ask everyone else to stop talking about the topic... would you like examples of you doing these things? I'm happy to provide them.



I suggested that you've run away from topics three times. I'm amazed that you would call this an exaggeration. If anything, it was a vast understatement.

Would you like three examples? Again, I'm happy to provide them.



I don't know of any formal fallacy that refers to impugning someone's arguments on the basis of anonymity. (There might be one, I'm just not familiar with it if there is.) However, here's a nifty little essay that shows how even if there's not a formal fallacy, it's still an illogical act.

As always, Paul W. Sondersted, Jr. and ignorance of logic: BFF.

I certainly know that we've been over something. It's the flipped out part (and other exaggerations) that I react to.



That's true. However, I should point out that he has also shown considerable kindness & generosity more often than not (and no, this does not excuse the times in which he behaves in a detrimental fashion). However, as with most detractors, it's much more fun to focus on the negativity, even when that negativity is overshadowed by the positivity.



That's your assumption talking. How do you know that Lars is okay with it? I have no doubts that he wasn't thrilled with being put on ignore and being treated rather unkindly by JB, but the discussion apparently wasn't as serious a subject matter that would cause Lars to get all hot & bothered about. As I implied, he handled it in a mature fashion. Too bad a certain few refuse to do so.



And I don't really care to repeat certain things (although I certainly do touch on those certain things occasionally). If you're too lazy to read about what I consider my reasoning (and I have no doubts that you'd still disagree with my reasoning), at least you'd know how much time you continue to waste with using exaggerated tactics, so to speak...at least with me.



Again with the Poor Lars routine.

I'm happy to go through it for you.



Paul is cherry picking. This, of course, is a logical fallacy.



Paul is making an appeal to motive, another logical fallacy.



This, of course, is another strawman... a logical fallacy. Immediately after identifying two perceived non-exaggeration problems from posters, he says the problem is exaggeration and argues that instead.



This is not so much a logical fallacy as it is staggering irony.



And this is begging the question. Paul assumes in his statement that the "exaggerations" are fact, when nothing of the kind has been established.

Begging the question, of course, is yet another logical fallacy.

So to sum up: when Paul says "read the post that is linked to in my sig line," he is attempting to use a series of logical fallacies to support his point.

Argument is more of a derogatory term. A debate is not.

Most detractors seem to prefer to use derogatory terms. Go figure.



No need for you to pad your reasoning behind redundancies. As I state many times, in most cases, there is no need to back up anything because most of the direct questions are anything BUT direct questions. They are usually leading questions in pitiful attempts to steer the conversations in certain directions. In other words, detractors like to think certain things are only in black & white & cannot possible be any other color. Not very realistic and not worth debating about. You choose to see this as running away and I can certainly see why most detractors would view things this way...being the cowardly lot that they usually show themselves to be.



Once again, no need. My answer above covers all bases of your potential padded reasoning.



Well sure. On Bizarro World (running gag #12 today). I know you're not the President, but you're definitely a citizen.

In any case, your little theory goes south because normally I do accept many of the arguments put forth by certain anonymous detractors (as history shows, but certain detractors choose to ignore for whatever Bizarro reasoning). As you are already fully aware of, it's the exaggerated tactics used that I disagree with...most of the time. That & the attempts to use glaring spotlights on grains of sand (not that I exaggerate or anything).

Now, it's time for you to pick certain sentences & words from my responses & twist them a bit here & jerk them a bit there to further your whacked out agenda of negativity. You're nothing if not consummately predictable in your redundancy.

Sheesh. When kids find a new word they sure like to overuse it, even when it's not used properly. Kinda like what you're doing Ceci. As I've stated quite some time ago, you've latched on to a term that you believe is incontrovertible and covers all bases. That, my dimwitted little detractor, is your own logical fallacy.

Of course, I'm fully aware that certain detractors will not view your failure as such, which is probably why you continue to throw out this useless term for them to stare in awe of.

Obviously I disagree with your whacked out theory, so you're obviously catering to others. I wonder who?

*sigh*

"Argument" is defined as:

a reason given in proof or rebuttal

I know you don't like backing up your statements with specific reasons, but that doesn't make it derogatory.



Appeal to motive. Logical fallacy.



You refuse to name other colors, Paul. You just make blanket statements based on logical fallacies. That's not seeing color, that's using rose-colored glasses.



Logical fallacies don't cover anything, Paul. They are devoid of meaning.



I know that's your claim, but again... your claims are based on logical fallacies.



I'm sorry that quoting the things you say makes you seem wrong. However, that has nothing to do with my "agenda." It has to do with you being unable to craft a logically coherent argument.



You have been invited several times to explain how I am wrong in calling any of your arguments logical fallacies. You have failed to do so even once.

Here, let's go back to this oldie but goodie. Have you found the flaws yet?

(Answer: no. You have not.)

This, for the record, is an example of your guerilla arguments. You accuse me of not using a term properly, and then run away when asked to explain the flaw in my reasoning. Your inability to explain the flaw, of course, does not stop you from piping up later about how you think I'm using the term improperly.



Oh? Which specific logical fallacy am I committing? I've done you the courtesy of pointing out the specific fallacy every time I make the argument, Paul. Will you do the same?

Probably not. From your usage here, it doesn't seem like you have a great handle on what logical fallacies are. You seem to just be conflating the term with "you're wrong."



Much as you would like logic to be my theory Paul, I must stress again that I am not in possession of a time machine. Therefore, I have not been able to travel back thousands of years and establish an intellectual discipline across several ancient cultures for the sole purpose of making it seem like I'm right on a message board.

What you disagree with is not me; it's the concept of logic. And until you can explain, specifically, how I am misapplying terms, it will continue to be the concept of logic.

Keep on shouting your latest catchphrase in front of all your fellow detractors here at comicon.com all you like. It still won't make it any more valid than it was before.

Your viewpoint, such a it is, is as narrow as ever in the colorless Bizzaro World that you & most detractors have chosen to reside.

Your pitiful attempts at trying to steer things in a direction that could only lead one way shows how very dim your views really are.

Your grip is tenuous at best & only smacks of desperation on your part to try & continuously fail to prove your whacked out theory.

You ask for explanations & answers when in actuality all you're trying to do is feed your bloated ego.

Sorry (not really), but I'll not be playing your petty little games. You're not as smart as you think you are. Quite the opposite in fact. Your stubbornness in clinging to a one-note song is your downfall.

Answer your own questions as you continue to do. Your track record for accuracy sucks, but that won't stop you so as usual, continue to provide the comedy with your Bizarro World theories & innuendos. At least you have a built-in audience of gullible detractors to comfort & support you. Blech.

Paul, those are all typical enabler responses.

So it looks like there are at least two groups here, the "enablers" and the "detractors".

Now, so Paul will think that I'm a less logical and less eloquent, version of Ceci, I too will ask, why he doesn't answer a few questions. If the questions are leading, say so, and answer the next one.


And so Ceci, will think I'm a sock puppet of Paul's, It appears that in common usage of language, argument has a different connotation then debate. I have seen debate teams, looking for members, at a local university. I have not seen the university argument team. I have seen both arguments and debates at local watering holes, and I think most folks understand the difference.

Argument allows something to be a quarrel, debate is using parliamentary rules or a regulated discussion. I think you know that however

What is the logical fallacy in comparing what happened to Lars to being a "battered spouse"?

When a detractor picks a "Bad Byrne" story, rather than a "Good Byrne" story is that "Cherry Picking"?

I think I have seen an occasional comment, on this thread, about JB et al banning people for disagreeing with JB. If that is the case shouldn't Knut, in the current Shakespeare thread, be banned, rather than just ignored? He has disagreed with JB enough to get ignored, and seems like he is emphatically stating his position, which is contrary to JB's position.

It would make me think that maybe bannings have other causes.

It goes back to my theory that this thread and others like it exit for the purpose of keeping Byrne and his forum members honest. In the olden days, apparently, Byrne would ban members left and right, delete posts and threads at the drop of hat, all while the forum members would keep their heads bowed. But he seems to be a little more sensitive these days to the kind of attention that that sort of stuff brings to him and could be trying take a more measured approach.

If not for threads like this, Byrne would still only be surrounded by yes-fans and would never have any idea that he is kind of a prick.