Misnomers

lmao @ 'the wikipedia pause'. i'm going to be using that ad nauseum.

In your efforts to systematically stalk and harass me on Solo?

suspicious-husky.jpg


- - - Updated - - -

this is spot on.

suspicious-husky.jpg


- - - Updated - - -

How about move on with your life? :cool:

What life?
 
In your efforts to systematically stalk and harass me on Solo?

suspicious-husky.jpg


- - - Updated - - -



suspicious-husky.jpg


- - - Updated - - -



What life?

I thought you had mastered recognizing ad hominems? :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Jehne...the point of learning about informal and formal fallacies in the art of reason is to incorporate a vigilant awareness of them in your own discourse so that you do not abuse them yourself but rather create sound arguments.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some errands to run and have a hankering to feed my fat ass so I'll have to call recess at this point.
 
Last edited:
Boo! Boring turn of events. This is an exact rerun of when the wind-up doll was replying to every anonymous post with a picture of someone falling off of a bicycle, implying the posts were by The Bicycle Tragedy. (She had "proof" which she could not reveal.) Then she decided the posts were really by "the master," !Viva Hate!. Then she backtracked, apologized melodramatically, sucked up to him a little. Didn't work. Then it somehow became Dave, who I'm pretty sure was last here to complain about pop-up ads for Pizza Hut. (You can make her think your anonymous post is by anyone at all. Try it, I encourage you. Just refer to something that that person referred to at some point. She'll go for it every time. Refer to Morrissey Music, the site where she and Dave bickered? She'll think you're Dave. Refer to alchemy. You're CG. Refer to Mean Girls. You're Viva. I shit you not, it works. Every. Time.)

Join the saga in the blogs section! Third most popular blog on Morrissey-Solo!

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/entries/1617-Catch-Me-If-You-Can

Follow "Realitybites Holmes" as she gets to the bottom of things. "My instincts are fine-tuned. And my reasoning abilities are sound." Ah-ha. "I also believe this same person is posting under a registered name. I think—just a hunch—that he has carefully crafted a false identity."

WHO COULD IT BE?? It could be someone posting in this very thread, right now!!! CrystalGeezer?? No1uno? Troubleluvsme? MozzaNumbers? SteveTheJournalistWhoAsksReallyTiredQuestions? Robby??? Is Dave in China? Did he shave his head and chug weight gain shakes???

My fat ass needs popcorn!
 
I thought you had mastered recognizing ad hominems? :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Jehne...the point of learning about informal and formal fallacies in the art of reason is to incorporate a vigilant awareness of them in your own discourse so that you do not abuse them yourself but rather create sound arguments.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some errands to run and have a hankering to feed my fat ass so I'll have to call recess at this point.

Enjoy your footlong pastrami sandwich with side of chili cheese fries!

come to think of it, that sounds good.
 
Last edited:
Of course I am familiar with the book. Pretty much anybody who has written term papers is. Please defend your argument by posting a link to, or screenshot of, the rule that defends anonymous's sentence construction. Otherwise your argument is vacuous, and fallacious—an appeal to authority—lacking proper evidence to back it up. Thanks.

When you commented on his sentence structure, I paused because I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it.
I invested fifteen seconds of time and googled Elements of Style. I quickly satisfied my belief that his structure was correct and I thought it was worth posting. I truly don't understand why any of it really matters anyway. I think your reply to me was a little over the top, considering you didn't cite any sources explaining why he was wrong. Have you yet?
 
When you commented on his sentence structure, I paused because I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it.
I invested fifteen seconds of time and googled Elements of Style. I quickly satisfied my belief that his structure was correct and I thought it was worth posting. I truly don't understand why any of it really matters anyway. I think your reply to me was a little over the top, considering you didn't cite any sources explaining why he was wrong. Have you yet?

Technically, his sentence was passable. Was it preferable? Heck no. And I am certain you would agree, as you are a skilled writer. Less is more. If you read an article in The Times that had numerous sentences constructed like that you would go bonkers. As would I. But you won't, as they wouldn't make it past the editor. Writing with colons and semicolons is pretentious. Nobody who writes with any measure of confidence writes like that. No one. It is freshmen English writing. While technically sound, it is archaic, pedantic, and like I suggested, pretentious.

I am sorry if I was too harsh in my words and tone. My apologies.
 
Technically, his sentence was passable. Was it preferable? Heck no. And I am certain you would agree, as you are a skilled writer. Less is more. If you read an article in The Times that had numerous sentences constructed like that you would go bonkers. As would I. But you won't, as they wouldn't make it past the editor. Writing with colons and semicolons is pretentious. Nobody who writes with any measure of confidence writes like that. No one. It is freshmen English writing. While technically sound, it is archaic, pedantic, and like I suggested, pretentious.

I am sorry if I was too harsh in my words and tone. My apologies.

Formal fallacy: Affirming the disjunct. His sentence was passable. His sentence was not preferable, therefor his sentence was not passable.

Informal fallacy #1: False Attribution. Argument appeals to the unqualified opinion that since she is a skilled writer, she would agree that the sentence was not passable. EVEN THOUGH SHE BROUGHT UP IT WASN'T PASSABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE WHICH LEADS TO...

Informal fallacy #2: Begging the question. You start with the false conclusion that she thought his sentence was not passable to prove that it was pretentious.

- - - Updated - - -

I spent two weeks breaking down the logical fallacies of one Rush Limbaugh opening monologue. I can do this all. f***ing. day. Jehne. Just a warning.
 
Formal fallacy: Affirming the disjunct. His sentence was passable. His sentence was not preferable, therefor his sentence was not passable.

Informal fallacy #1: False Attribution. Argument appeals to the unqualified opinion that since she is a skilled writer, she would agree that the sentence was not passable. EVEN THOUGH SHE BROUGHT UP IT WASN'T PASSABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE WHICH LEADS TO...

Informal fallacy #2: Begging the question. You start with the false conclusion that she thought his sentence was not passable to prove that it was pretentious.

- - - Updated - - -



I spent two weeks breaking down the logical fallacies of one Rush Limbaugh opening monologue. I can do this all. f***ing. day. Jehne. Just a warning.

We know you can cause you have no f***ing life or friends or boyfriend or nothing. Just food, keyboard and a troll mentality.
 
We know you can cause you have no f***ing life or friends or boyfriend or nothing. Just food, keyboard and a troll mentality.

I have friends, sometimes too many. And a job. And a pretty cool life. Sorry your misconceptions of me are wrong. :o
 
And your misconceptions of me have ALWAYS been wrong but that never stopped you.

EXCELLENT Point. Weren't you an old man? I was Steve Croce, fenner, Justin Playfair...

Oh her new word is free thinker. She thinks in opposites of herself. She has no clue where the concept originated or why someone is or is not one. She talks out of her behind, ya know. That is why everything she says stinks of poo.
 
Last edited:
Of course I am familiar with the book. Pretty much anybody who has written term papers is. Please defend your argument by posting a link to, screenshot of, the rule that defends anonymous's sentence construction. Otherwise your argument is vacuous, and fallacious—an appeal to authority—lacking proper evidence to back it up. Thanks.

Technically, his sentence was passable. Was it preferable? Heck no. And I am certain you would agree, as you are a skilled writer. Less is more. If you read an article in The Times that had numerous sentences constructed like that you would go bonkers. As would I. But you won't, as they wouldn't make it past the editor. Writing with colons and semicolons is pretentious. Nobody who writes with any measure of confidence writes like that. No one. It is freshmen English writing. While technically sound, it is archaic, pedantic, and like I suggested, pretentious.

I am sorry if I was too harsh in my words and tone. My apologies.

I appreciate the sentiment of your apology, but I did not consider either your words or tone harsh.
Your reply seemed "over the top" because you demanded evidence from me, yet you presented none in your initial argument with Anonymous.

Speaking of "less is more" I actually would have understood your above statement had you chosen any one of those highlighted words, rather than all of them.
But thanks for tossing in the definition, just in case.

This is a forum on the internet. I don't understand why any of matters so much.
Life is short. Are these battles worth it? Really?
 
EXCELLENT Point. Weren't you a old man? I was Steve Croce, fenner, Justin Playfair...

Oh her new word is free thinker. She thinks in opposites of herself. She has no clue where the concept originated or why someone is or is not one. She talks out of her behind, ya know. That is why everything she says stinks of poo.

Would you like to address my analysis of your faulty thinking and unsound argument style? Or would you like me to analyze this post? Feel free to reread and analyze it yourself since you represent the forum educated elite.

- - - Updated - - -

I appreciate the sentiment of your apology, but I did not consider either your words or tone harsh.
Your reply seemed "over the top" because you demanded evidence from me, yet you presented none in your initial argument with Anonymous.

Speaking of "less is more" I actually would have understood your above statement had you chosen any one of those highlighted words, rather than all of them.
But thanks for tossing in the definition, just in case.

This is a forum on the internet. I don't understand why any of matters so much.
Life is short. Are these battles worth it? Really?

She's the one who released the Cracken.
 
I'd like to know how a comma is "less" than a colon.

Does it weigh less?

Cost less?

It's all about habitudes. (I know you have no f***ing clue what thatt concept means. It will take far more than a quick Wiki read to grasp it. So don't try to 'pass' as if you understand it.) It's all about preference, not grammar. Language, mannerisms, tastes of a particular class. You know...
 
It's all about habitudes. (I know you have no f***ing clue what thatt concept means. It will take far more than a quick Wiki read to grasp it. So don't try to 'pass' as if you understand it.) It's all about preference, not grammar. Language, mannerisms, tastes of a particular class. You know...

Clearly you have no idea it is not habitude, but habitard. This is most likely due to your lower-class upbringing.
 
Formal fallacy: Affirming the disjunct. His sentence was passable. His sentence was not preferable, therefor his sentence was not passable.

Informal fallacy #1: False Attribution. Argument appeals to the unqualified opinion that since she is a skilled writer, she would agree that the sentence was not passable. EVEN THOUGH SHE BROUGHT UP IT WASN'T PASSABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE WHICH LEADS TO...

Informal fallacy #2: Begging the question. You start with the false conclusion that she thought his sentence was not passable to prove that it was pretentious.

As I stated earlier, I didn't think there was anything incorrect with his sentence structure. That's why I looked it up and made the post in the first place.
 
As I stated earlier, I didn't think there was anything incorrect with his sentence structure. That's why I looked it up and made the post in the first place.

These are realitybites words, not mine.
 
Back
Top Bottom