Re: HAY Ratch, where is your objective criterion of evidence ?


"hutch--" <hutch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1186001400.693375.71380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
HAY Ratch !!!!

1. Bush lied to start a war.
2. Young Americans are dying in Iraq for no reason.
3. The US economy is on its knees funding two wars that are lost.
4. The security of the US has been compromised by its level of debt.

He had them and used some of them on the Kurds. Then kept the
technology on standby until he could do it again.
And not only that but there IS a tooth fairy, the moon is made of
swiss cheese and fairies dance in the garden at midnight.
Believe what you want.

So you argument about being able to prove Saddam had WMDs collapses to
naval introspection as expected.

Not at all. He had WMDs, and used them on the Kurds and the Iranians
before the 9-11 attack. He got rid of them somehow before the invasion
began. He still had a shadow WMD program afterwards.


I have and you have been found wanting.
That's right, I wanted your input.
No you don't, mine requires a viable criterion of evidence.
All you can hope for is a variable criteria of evidence.

In your case I have given ip on that, it appears to be beyong your
capacity.

I cannot change what is.


It was a good explanation that you could not accept.
I always have this problem with anecdotal waffle.
You have had problems with common sense.

Anecdotal waffle does not function as a "Defence of common sense".

It is all in the eye of the beholder.


Yes, I learn nothing from defective arguments based on anecdotal
waffle.
So you say.
I have no doubt you do get something out of anecdotal waffle but it
has nothing to do with learning.
I try to propagate learning.

No, you try to propagate anecdotal waffle.

I thought it was a cogent response.


Shame you cannot get a taker for it.
Not you anyway.
Have you found a patsy at last ?
Some agree with me.

Wow, you HAVE found a patsy at last.

It's nice to be right.


Common usage in a dictionary is ancillary information. It primarily
defines the meaning of a word.
More cart before the horse. How do you think companies construct a
dictionary ?
Gather data, edit and collate it, then make a book or CD.

So you are getting wiser, gathering data is different from defining
it.

You make it sound as if I am publishing a dictionary.


Not as silly as your assumptions and anecdotal waffle to back them up.
Ho hum.
Yes I find your anecdotal waffle a bit Ho Hum.
You should find it ... enlightning.

I do I do, it is enlightening to see someone beguiled by their own
anecdotal waffle.

It's called beliving in oneself.


Fortunately my dreams are not yours.
Yours are nightmares.
They would be if I believed you.
Can't stand the truth?

Which truth, THE truth or your relative one depending on which
criterion of evidence you choose to use ?

Only one truth exists for each properly defined question. You imply
there are two "truths".


Now you are trying to pull your own leg.
Hard to do.
Probably but I have no doubt you could delude yourself if you tried hard
enough.
So can anyone.

Such common teste in self delusion, must be that criterion of
evidence.

That which is, just is.


Yes but you shure failed. Comes from having a lousy evidence criterion
that varies from person to person.
Comes from trying to explain to a closed mind.
Do your patsies have open minds (IE easily manipulated ).
I assume those that believe me have checked and verified what I say.

I assume therefore it is. You are starting to sound profound. Beware
of the Aspartame plot.

I will.


If it was you would not be making these mistakes. Have you accepted
the Aspartame plot ?
Nope, not sweet enough.
Waddya want, sugar ?
No, facts.

What, objective facts or the type that fit into your variable
criterion of evidence ?

Both.


The same as before, failure to observe the law of excluded middle.
You mean the law of the included muddle.
I will leave that one to you, you seem to have special expertise in that
area.
Of excluding it, that's for sure.

Delusion of grandieur as well ?

Facts dispell delusion.


Yep, it exists, therefore it is. Or is it vice versa?
Its evident that you have mastered included muddle.
I have mastered excluding the included middle muddle.

Certainly not from what you SAY with your conflation of the two words.

From what I analyze from the facts presented.


Only if you slip up as often as you do.
That grease is slippery all right.
I don't care how many times you slip over but its the hearing of it that
wears you out.
That's why I mentally filter it.

Wow, Anecdotal waffle has now become a filter.

No, the filtering comes from experience.


Failure to observe the Law of excluded middle.
Included is the muddle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
You will have to get over this Wikipediacentric view of the world. Try
Russell & Whitehead in Principia.
I wanted a summary, not a treatise.
Another purveyor of second hand unreliable information, must come from
that defective criterion of evidence.
They give references which can be checked, which you hardly ever do.

All truth is defined on the internet ? Don't mind if I laugh.

Go ahead and laugh. Who said "all truth"? The references are
presented, not defined on the internet.


I am glad to see your argument reduced down to the formulation of the
law of excluded muddle.

Not my argument, your pronouncements and reasons for making them.
Ratch


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HAY Ratch, where is your objective criterion of evidence ?
    ... mine requires a viable criterion of evidence. ... Anecdotal waffle does not function as a "Defence of common sense". ... Its evident that you have mastered included muddle. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: HAY Ratch, where is your objective criterion of evidence ?
    ... Young Americans are dying in Iraq for no reason. ... This is your latest excuse for a defective criterion of evidence? ... Only one truth exists for each properly defined question. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... and he admitted to have no evidence in order ... Except apparently for axioms and definitions. ... Well empirical evidence would certainly be one criterion for the truth ...
    (sci.math)