05-01-2017, 04:28 PM
(05-01-2017, 01:03 PM)Dill Wrote: You claim the stats I offered on gun ownership are flawed because of sample size. So what is the sample size of the stats on gun ownership? So far you have not answered.
This is absolutely untrue, you're mentioning two separate disagreements. The per capita argument involved my pointing out issues with sample size. My issues with your poll were due to the flawed methodology of the poll. It's difficult to debate with someone who apparently can't read or confuses one disagreement with another. This is ironic considering your claims later in this post.
Quote:You cannot demonstrate that you know how these stats were calculated. To ask that you do this is not to ignore your point. It is to ask for further specification, without which the point cannot stand. You brush off the request saying you have "already addressed" the point. Sometimes you deflect the request by saying it is "boring" to repeat your point. Other times you say that we can agree to disagree, as if there were no means of logically and factually deciding the issue. Your impression vs my impression.
Again, not true. I am known for addressing every point made. In fact, it was one of the chief complaints about a now defunct poster. I will not endlessly repeat myself though, especially to someone who appears to lack the capacity to even recall what is being discussed.
Quote:Ok, so you don't know. I would have let it go, despite all the puffery about how you know stats and I don't.
Again, you're discussing two separate issues and treating them like they're one. This is why you're insanely boring to attempt to converse with.
Quote:But here we are again.
Here is the pattern: 1) You challenge someone to support a claim. 2) The person responds with a substantive argument, logical and supported argument. 3) You launch into denial, making unsupported assertions about one or more points in that argument, often just quips. (Verbal abuse regarding others' character is not "support.") 4) When a quip/assertion is challenged as unsupported, you say you have "already addressed the issue," as if mere assertion does the job. 5) When it is pointed out that you most certainly have not addressed the issue, you insist you have, and repetition is "boring." Sometimes, as in your post #150 above, you assert someone's point is wrong, then proceed as if the matter is now settled on your say so, without staying to hear objections. You have "already addressed" it. Here we are on another thread now, and already up to point 3. Hence the Deja vu.
This "point" is so blatantly untrue as to be laughable. I have issue with the three headed sock puppet hydra, you, GMDabo and Fred. All three of you engage in the same BS, you dodge points or deliberately misconstrue arguments being made. I have these issues with no one else. Let me repeat it as you seem to have comprehension issues. I have these issues with no one else.
Quote:Accusing someone of plagiarism you cannot even specify--again grounding your entire claim on an "impression"-- is desperate. Just deflection.
I addressed your points at the same time I, correctly, accused you of plagiarism. So, once again, this is a sad attempt to make a point. One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Quote:As is the claim that, after four substantive posts on the issue of Islam in contemporary politics, I "have no answers" and am "not even trying to address anything now" because of a side response to Dino, not you. My posts are still there. And I have explained what you have not understood.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made. Where is your response? One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Quote:Tired of "repeating yourself"? Break the pattern.
Quote: Establish premises (not private impressions), then induct or deduct conclusions from them. Use those conclusions to build your next point. Respond to questions about factual accuracy and logical consistency without deflection and verbal abuse. Don't throw up a flailing barrage of negative quips. Avoid idle reporting of your feelings and speculation about who else agrees with you. No more "copypasta" smoke screens. Get back on the issues and the arguments which have been laid out. Do you see Masterp's response in post #159 below? Can you post something sustained, on that level?
Once again, I address all the "points" you made. Where is your response? One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
