11-29-2018, 08:27 PM
(11-29-2018, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: This is worth a comment. I have a lot of respect for all the guys mentioned there, whom I have also disagreed with. (B-zona is my oldest forum buddy, I believe, going back to 2005-06 on the old board.)
They make substantive contributions to the list. But--and here is the important point--NOT ONE of those guys would ever jump into a thread laughing at everyone else's stupidity and commenting on the low "intelligence" of posters, the "vapid unawareness" of their "benighted" ignorance, as you do in not one, but post after post. There are a number of closed threads in this forum now which began exactly with this kind of unnecessary intervention.
I think you'll find your responsible for at least as many closed threads as I. I've already asked that you stop making this thread about you and me, yet you continue.
Quote:Excusing your behavior as a problem with only a select few (what is the number exactly? certainly more than three), is part of the problem. Every one of those "select few" could claim to have a problem with only one poster.
I'm not excusing anything. Also, your second claim in this quote is laughable untrue.
Quote:That you admire the above posters speaks well of you. It can't be because they say nasty mean things about people all the time. They don't. They make sober and informed contributions. What would your rep be if you left off the nasty and just made informed contributions?
Have respect for, not admire. Unlike those of you who whine about rep, which is why neg rep went away, I could care less about it.
(11-29-2018, 08:08 PM)Dill Wrote:
Mods won't lock a thread down because people are disagreeing. It's the totally unnecessary personal comments about posters "intelligence" that rile them. As it should everyone.
Lot's of people have "professional expertise" in the forum. They demonstrate it though, rather than simply claiming/begging it. That's where the respect comes.
Ahh, I see. So when, after years on this and the old board I have brought such insight from my profession to this board I was simply "claiming/begging"? I suppose you didn't see those posts much like you don't see the posts labeling anyone who disagrees with the poster as a "Trump supporter". Selective blindness must be very convenient for you when having these types of discussion.
Quote:And regarding your "assertions"; a statement like "I have 18 years experience working in government" or "I just know how it works" cannot simply premise the conclusion that "Acosta could not have engineered a deal for Epstein." Neither INDUCTION nor DEDUCTION is apparent between those two statements. Same if you substitute "HIGH PROFILE CASE" or "higher ups had to sign off" for "18 years." They are still just juxtaposed claims--not connected by "simple logic." I don't think it would be difficult to find someone with 19 years of experience working in government who has worked on a higher profile case than you who agrees that even if a certain assent from higher ups is required, Acosta could have played a determining role shaping or creating the deal. It's not a matter of "what I want to believe" about what actually happened. It is a recognition of what claims the evidence at hand does or does not sanction.
Quite sincerely, if you can't see the basic, inherent, logic in my statements on this matter then you're not worth any time trying to convince you further.
Quote:Speaking of "professionals", I know a couple. Sometimes they argue from authority when dealing with laypersons ("I'm the doctor!"), but what happens when they disagree with one another? Professions are set up so that somewhere, at some point, there are protocols of logic and evidence that decide issues. E.g., when two biologists disagree over a possible route of E Coli contamination, one can't just say "I'm a biologist and have been for 18 years." To persuade the other biologists, and perhaps those in control of medical policy, he must make a case, refer to data, or collect and deploy it himself. And the professionals I know are pretty comfortable with identifying limits to knowledge--as in we can't know what occurred between point A and point B for sure (or in that closed room). We can only make inferences and determine degrees of probability.
I'll let you know when that occurs on this board. So far I've caught Fred making mistakes about his profession, the same cannot be said about me.
Quote:And yes, others do, now, have ample information to make up their own minds.
Indeed, maybe you'll now return to allowing the thread to be about the actual topic instead of a hamfisted attempt to smear me.
