WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

revel wrote:

I am not flat accusing foxfyre of lying when she claims to have worked for organizations against racism. However, she does have a history in these A2k threads of inserting anecdotal evidence into almost every debate as though that gives her some kind of advantage over whomever she happens to debating or conversing with at the time. If everything she has claimed is true she must have a resume out of this world.

The point which has made repeatedly in these threads is that there is no way to prove she is telling the truth. Therefore, her anecdotal evidence is worthless in terms of giving her any kind of advantage in an ongoing discussion.

I believe you can't find an example where I have ever used an anecdotal illustration as evidence of anything, Revel, but if you are so sure of your accusation here, I will ask you to produce an example. Or perhaps you can produce evidence that your judgment of me is accurate?

I have stated at times that an anecdotal incident reinforced my conviction about something. And I do find anecdotal incidents useful and often interesting to illustrate where a person is coming from. Do you think speaking from one's personal experience should be out of bounds on a discussion board?

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

I am not flat accusing foxfyre of lying when she claims to have worked for organizations against racism. However, she does have a history in these A2k threads of inserting anecdotal evidence into almost every debate as though that gives her some kind of advantage over whomever she happens to debating or conversing with at the time. If everything she has claimed is true she must have a resume out of this world.

The point which has made repeatedly in these threads is that there is no way to prove she is telling the truth. Therefore, her anecdotal evidence is worthless in terms of giving her any kind of advantage in an ongoing discussion.

I believe you can't find an example where I have ever used an anecdotal illustration as evidence of anything, Revel, but if you are so sure of your accusation here, I will ask you to produce an example. Or perhaps you can produce evidence that your judgment of me is accurate?

I have stated at times that an anecdotal incident reinforced my conviction about something. And I do find anecdotal incidents useful and often interesting to illustrate where a person is coming from. Do you think speaking from one's personal experience should be out of bounds on a discussion board?

I have no idea of how to search back through post and find the many times you used anecdotal evidence in a discussion forum. I wish I did. However, most people in these forums are long time members and I believe that it is pretty well known you often use anecdotal evidence in your posts.

I've never denied using anecdotal evidence in my posts nor have I ever suggested they were anything other than anecdotal. Others use numerous anecdotal "evidence" that they cut and paste and while I object to these as "evidence" I don't object to them being posted.

It really does not matter if you use it to back up your convictions because for the reader of your posts there is no way they have of knowing if you actually either experienced said anecdote or worked in a particular capacity so it offers no useful purpose in terms of debates. Not all of these discussions are debates but if you are in a middle of a dispute and you offer some kind of unsubstantiated personal experience into the discussion there is really only one reason of doing so and that is try and give yourself an advantage and it is not credible and disingenuous to suggest you only want to stress where you are coming from.

I see. And is it credible and genuous to call somebody racist when there is zero evidence for that? How does one defend themselves against that?

For instance, Lets say that we are discussing the correct way to debate and right in the middle of the discussion, I brought up how I was a debating judge. Right there I give an impression of expertise in the discussion.

And if one possesses the expertise, one should not mention it? I believe the only time I have used that particular analogy is when somebody is claiming to have won a debate when they clearly did not. But I suppose it was unnecessary to mention it. But do you fault Setanta when he cites his history degree? Or Farmerman when he cites his scientific background? Or Walter when he cites his experience in the university? Or is it just me who can't cite those kinds of personal experience because I irritate the hell out of you? If that's the case, I can live with that.

Or say we are in a discussion about Iraq and one side of dispute brings links of articles with quotes from various individuals of how bad the situation is there and the other side says, well, my nephew who just back from a tour in Iraq says that things are a lot better there but the newspaper only want to print the bad stuff. I mean that is a totally useless unsubstantiated anecdotal statement with no way to back up either that side really has a nephew in the services who just got back from a tour, or if he really said what that side said he said. And it really don't matter if you other evidence or not in terms of your personal experiences being truthful or not.

snood wrote:

e-brown didn't say "at war" with any individual. What was said was at polar opposites with someone in the cultural war. I guess a lot depends on whether you think there's a cultural war going on.

I know what e-brown said. My point was that calling it a `cultural war', you inject a level of paranoia that is inappropriate for the discussion. Reasonable people can disagree whether gay marriage is good or bad, how much responsibility immigrants have to fit in, whether it's racist to oppose affirmative action or to support it, and how much of a factor criminals' hate should play in their punishment. Rhetoric about "cultural wars" hypes up the hysteric parts of the debate, obscures legitimate disagreement, and is generally unhelpful.

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

I am not flat accusing foxfyre of lying when she claims to have worked for organizations against racism. However, she does have a history in these A2k threads of inserting anecdotal evidence into almost every debate as though that gives her some kind of advantage over whomever she happens to debating or conversing with at the time. If everything she has claimed is true she must have a resume out of this world.

The point which has made repeatedly in these threads is that there is no way to prove she is telling the truth. Therefore, her anecdotal evidence is worthless in terms of giving her any kind of advantage in an ongoing discussion.

I believe you can't find an example where I have ever used an anecdotal illustration as evidence of anything, Revel, but if you are so sure of your accusation here, I will ask you to produce an example. Or perhaps you can produce evidence that your judgment of me is accurate?

I have stated at times that an anecdotal incident reinforced my conviction about something. And I do find anecdotal incidents useful and often interesting to illustrate where a person is coming from. Do you think speaking from one's personal experience should be out of bounds on a discussion board?

I have no idea of how to search back through post and find the many times you used anecdotal evidence in a discussion forum. I wish I did. However, most people in these forums are long time members and I believe that it is pretty well known you often use anecdotal evidence in your posts.

I've never denied using anecdotal evidence in my posts nor have I ever suggested they were anything other than anecdotal. Others use numerous anecdotal "evidence" that they cut and paste and while I object to these as "evidence" I don't object to them being posted.

It really does not matter if you use it to back up your convictions because for the reader of your posts there is no way they have of knowing if you actually either experienced said anecdote or worked in a particular capacity so it offers no useful purpose in terms of debates. Not all of these discussions are debates but if you are in a middle of a dispute and you offer some kind of unsubstantiated personal experience into the discussion there is really only one reason of doing so and that is try and give yourself an advantage and it is not credible and disingenuous to suggest you only want to stress where you are coming from.

I see. And is it credible and genuous to call somebody racist when there is zero evidence for that? How does one defend themselves against that?

For instance, Lets say that we are discussing the correct way to debate and right in the middle of the discussion, I brought up how I was a debating judge. Right there I give an impression of expertise in the discussion.

And if one possesses the expertise, one should not mention it? I believe the only time I have used that particular analogy is when somebody is claiming to have won a debate when they clearly did not. But I suppose it was unnecessary to mention it. But do you fault Setanta when he cites his history degree? Or Farmerman when he cites his scientific background? Or Walter when he cites his experience in the university? Or is it just me who can't cite those kinds of personal experience because I irritate the hell out of you? If that's the case, I can live with that.

When you make such a habit of having some kind of expertise in almost any given discussion, then it starts to stretch the bounds of credibilty.

Or say we are in a discussion about Iraq and one side of dispute brings links of articles with quotes from various individuals of how bad the situation is there and the other side says, well, my nephew who just back from a tour in Iraq says that things are a lot better there but the newspaper only want to print the bad stuff. I mean that is a totally useless unsubstantiated anecdotal statement with no way to back up either that side really has a nephew in the services who just got back from a tour, or if he really said what that side said he said. And it really don't matter if you other evidence or not in terms of your personal experiences being truthful or not.

Totally useless? Then why do you object to it so much? It was interesting to me. I thought it might be to some others who don't accept the Leftish negative mindset on that. I didn't submit it as proof to anybody but me. I'm not supposed to mention that he reinforced the opinions I already held?

Do you really want every one of your posts analyzed as to whether your remarks are appropriate or are verifiable or are useful to the discussion. Or would you prefer to be allowed to express yourself as you are inclined to do and not be jumped on, even ganged up on, and accused of lying or making things up because others disagree with you or don't want to believe what you're saying?

When you have no way of knowing whether another is telling the truth or not, I was taught that it is extremely rude and combative to call that person a liar.

I've never denied using anecdotal evidence in my posts nor have I ever suggested they were anything other than anecdotal.

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

I am not flat accusing foxfyre of lying when she claims to have worked for organizations against racism. However, she does have a history in these A2k threads of inserting anecdotal evidence into almost every debate as though that gives her some kind of advantage over whomever she happens to debating or conversing with at the time. If everything she has claimed is true she must have a resume out of this world.

The point which has made repeatedly in these threads is that there is no way to prove she is telling the truth. Therefore, her anecdotal evidence is worthless in terms of giving her any kind of advantage in an ongoing discussion.

I believe you can't find an example where I have ever used an anecdotal illustration as evidence of anything, Revel, but if you are so sure of your accusation here, I will ask you to produce an example. Or perhaps you can produce evidence that your judgment of me is accurate?

I have stated at times that an anecdotal incident reinforced my conviction about something. And I do find anecdotal incidents useful and often interesting to illustrate where a person is coming from. Do you think speaking from one's personal experience should be out of bounds on a discussion board?

I have no idea of how to search back through post and find the many times you used anecdotal evidence in a discussion forum. I wish I did. However, most people in these forums are long time members and I believe that it is pretty well known you often use anecdotal evidence in your posts.

I've never denied using anecdotal evidence in my posts nor have I ever suggested they were anything other than anecdotal. Others use numerous anecdotal "evidence" that they cut and paste and while I object to these as "evidence" I don't object to them being posted.

It really does not matter if you use it to back up your convictions because for the reader of your posts there is no way they have of knowing if you actually either experienced said anecdote or worked in a particular capacity so it offers no useful purpose in terms of debates. Not all of these discussions are debates but if you are in a middle of a dispute and you offer some kind of unsubstantiated personal experience into the discussion there is really only one reason of doing so and that is try and give yourself an advantage and it is not credible and disingenuous to suggest you only want to stress where you are coming from.

I see. And is it credible and genuous to call somebody racist when there is zero evidence for that? How does one defend themselves against that?

For instance, Lets say that we are discussing the correct way to debate and right in the middle of the discussion, I brought up how I was a debating judge. Right there I give an impression of expertise in the discussion.

And if one possesses the expertise, one should not mention it? I believe the only time I have used that particular analogy is when somebody is claiming to have won a debate when they clearly did not. But I suppose it was unnecessary to mention it. But do you fault Setanta when he cites his history degree? Or Farmerman when he cites his scientific background? Or Walter when he cites his experience in the university? Or is it just me who can't cite those kinds of personal experience because I irritate the hell out of you? If that's the case, I can live with that.

When you make such a habit of having some kind of expertise in almost any given discussion, then it starts to stretch the bounds of credibilty.

Or say we are in a discussion about Iraq and one side of dispute brings links of articles with quotes from various individuals of how bad the situation is there and the other side says, well, my nephew who just back from a tour in Iraq says that things are a lot better there but the newspaper only want to print the bad stuff. I mean that is a totally useless unsubstantiated anecdotal statement with no way to back up either that side really has a nephew in the services who just got back from a tour, or if he really said what that side said he said. And it really don't matter if you other evidence or not in terms of your personal experiences being truthful or not.

Totally useless? Then why do you object to it so much? It was interesting to me. I thought it might be to some others who don't accept the Leftish negative mindset on that. I didn't submit it as proof to anybody but me. I'm not supposed to mention that he reinforced the opinions I already held?

Do you really want every one of your posts analyzed as to whether your remarks are appropriate or are verifiable or are useful to the discussion. Or would you prefer to be allowed to express yourself as you are inclined to do and not be jumped on, even ganged up on, and accused of lying or making things up because others disagree with you or don't want to believe what you're saying?

When you have no way of knowing whether another is telling the truth or not, I was taught that it is extremely rude and combative to call that person a liar.

In this kind of setting, I really do expect my every post to be "analyzed as to whether your remarks are appropriate or are verifiable or are useful to the discussion. "

Also, it may very well be rude, I guess I don't care much. I stand by my previous statements and will let it go at that.

http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: psy·cho·sis
Pronunciation: sI-'kO-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural psy·cho·ses -"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and behavior

http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: neu·ro·sis
Pronunciation: nu-'rO-s&s, nyu-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural neu·ro·ses -"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: a mental and emotional disorder that affects only part of the personality, is accompanied by a less distorted perception of reality than in a psychosis, does not result in disturbance of the use of language, and is accompanied by various physical, physiological, and mental disturbances (as visceral symptoms, anxieties, or phobias)

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

I am not flat accusing foxfyre of lying when she claims to have worked for organizations against racism. However, she does have a history in these A2k threads of inserting anecdotal evidence into almost every debate as though that gives her some kind of advantage over whomever she happens to debating or conversing with at the time. If everything she has claimed is true she must have a resume out of this world.

The point which has made repeatedly in these threads is that there is no way to prove she is telling the truth. Therefore, her anecdotal evidence is worthless in terms of giving her any kind of advantage in an ongoing discussion.

I believe you can't find an example where I have ever used an anecdotal illustration as evidence of anything, Revel, but if you are so sure of your accusation here, I will ask you to produce an example. Or perhaps you can produce evidence that your judgment of me is accurate?

I have stated at times that an anecdotal incident reinforced my conviction about something. And I do find anecdotal incidents useful and often interesting to illustrate where a person is coming from. Do you think speaking from one's personal experience should be out of bounds on a discussion board?

I have no idea of how to search back through post and find the many times you used anecdotal evidence in a discussion forum. I wish I did. However, most people in these forums are long time members and I believe that it is pretty well known you often use anecdotal evidence in your posts.

I've never denied using anecdotal evidence in my posts nor have I ever suggested they were anything other than anecdotal. Others use numerous anecdotal "evidence" that they cut and paste and while I object to these as "evidence" I don't object to them being posted.

It really does not matter if you use it to back up your convictions because for the reader of your posts there is no way they have of knowing if you actually either experienced said anecdote or worked in a particular capacity so it offers no useful purpose in terms of debates. Not all of these discussions are debates but if you are in a middle of a dispute and you offer some kind of unsubstantiated personal experience into the discussion there is really only one reason of doing so and that is try and give yourself an advantage and it is not credible and disingenuous to suggest you only want to stress where you are coming from.

I see. And is it credible and genuous to call somebody racist when there is zero evidence for that? How does one defend themselves against that?

For instance, Lets say that we are discussing the correct way to debate and right in the middle of the discussion, I brought up how I was a debating judge. Right there I give an impression of expertise in the discussion.

And if one possesses the expertise, one should not mention it? I believe the only time I have used that particular analogy is when somebody is claiming to have won a debate when they clearly did not. But I suppose it was unnecessary to mention it. But do you fault Setanta when he cites his history degree? Or Farmerman when he cites his scientific background? Or Walter when he cites his experience in the university? Or is it just me who can't cite those kinds of personal experience because I irritate the hell out of you? If that's the case, I can live with that.

When you make such a habit of having some kind of expertise in almost any given discussion, then it starts to stretch the bounds of credibilty.

Or say we are in a discussion about Iraq and one side of dispute brings links of articles with quotes from various individuals of how bad the situation is there and the other side says, well, my nephew who just back from a tour in Iraq says that things are a lot better there but the newspaper only want to print the bad stuff. I mean that is a totally useless unsubstantiated anecdotal statement with no way to back up either that side really has a nephew in the services who just got back from a tour, or if he really said what that side said he said. And it really don't matter if you other evidence or not in terms of your personal experiences being truthful or not.

Totally useless? Then why do you object to it so much? It was interesting to me. I thought it might be to some others who don't accept the Leftish negative mindset on that. I didn't submit it as proof to anybody but me. I'm not supposed to mention that he reinforced the opinions I already held?

Do you really want every one of your posts analyzed as to whether your remarks are appropriate or are verifiable or are useful to the discussion. Or would you prefer to be allowed to express yourself as you are inclined to do and not be jumped on, even ganged up on, and accused of lying or making things up because others disagree with you or don't want to believe what you're saying?

When you have no way of knowing whether another is telling the truth or not, I was taught that it is extremely rude and combative to call that person a liar.

In this kind of setting, I really do expect my every post to be "analyzed as to whether your remarks are appropriate or are verifiable or are useful to the discussion. "

Also, it may very well be rude, I guess I don't care much. I stand by my previous statements and will let it go at that.

Well then, since you ignored most of the questions I asked you, I'll take your nonresponsive response as anecdotal evidence that reinforces my opinion that:

1) Many if not most leftwingers are unable to defend their perceptions and beliefs and therefore resort to ad hominems instead of formulating a rational argument on the issue.

2) Many if not most Leftwingers will ignore questions they can't answer without exposing the major flaw in their perceptions and beliefs.

3) Most if not most Leftwingers are at times unkind and/or judgmental and/or rude to people different from themselves, and they think that's okay.

Are you okay with that?

The DSM-IV-TR warns that, because it is produced for mental health specialists, its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropriate application of its contents. They generally advise that laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make diagnoses, and that people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychiatric counseling or treatment.

Allen's Stock Options Were Worth $1.1 Million

When news of undisclosed stock options broke yesterday, Sen. George Allen (R-VA) told the AP, "I got paid in stock options which were worthless."

However, according to SEC documents reviewed by Bloomberg, the stock options Allen "described as worthless were worth as much as $1.1 million at one point."

In one of his ads, Corker tells his mother, Jean, that he cut violent crime by 50 percent while mayor of Chattanooga.

"Fifty percent? Mmmm, not bad," Jean Corker responds, before giving her son an affectionate nod.

But analysis of the FBI's annual report, considered to be the most comprehensive source of crime data, shows violent crime dropped less than 30 percent during Corker's administration. That led Democrats to accuse Corker of lying to his own mother.

Tennessee hasn't elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1990, and the contest should have been relatively easy for Corker, the former Chattanooga mayor. Not only is Ford trying to buck the state's Republican trend, he is trying to become the first black senator elected in the South since Reconstruction.

[But a]gainst those odds, the charismatic Ford, a 36-year-old centrist Democrat and five-term congressman, has waged a nearly flawless campaign, combining self-deprecating television ads with solid oratorical skills and a direct appeal to religious conservatives who would typically vote Republican.

Can we say "lying" yet? Again?

Note the links in the text (Foxfyre) that lead to the referenced information.

Quote:

Allen's Stock Options Were Worth $1.1 Million

When news of undisclosed stock options broke yesterday, Sen. George Allen (R-VA) told the AP, "I got paid in stock options which were worthless."

However, according to SEC documents reviewed by Bloomberg, the stock options Allen "described as worthless were worth as much as $1.1 million at one point."

Detailed info about the questions at hand also here: AP: Allen failed to report stock options.

In an October 11 headline on the Drudge Report, Internet gossip Matt Drudge misrepresented as a "sweetheart land deal" a business transaction involving Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV), as described in a report that day by Associated Press writers John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey. In fact, far from establishing that Reid benefited from a "sweetheart" deal, the article charges Reid with "complex dealings" and improper reporting of a land transaction in Clark County, Nevada, but acknowledges that Reid paid market value for the land in question in 1998 and sold it to developers in 2004.