Re: Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- From: SpooK <keith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:00:17 -0700
On Aug 4, 12:29 pm, "Wolfgang Kern" <nowh...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"hutch--" keeps posting HAY:
would you mind to continue hold this private hutch-ratch conversation
elewhere ? I think nobody in ALA is interested in.
__
wolfgang
On Aug 4, 12:29 pm, "Wolfgang Kern" <nowh...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"hutch--" keeps posting HAY:
would you mind to continue hold this private hutch-ratch conversation
elewhere ? I think nobody in ALA is interested in.
__
wolfgang
Conversation??? Steve is just here to blow smoke since he knows that
this place isn't moderated.
Steve has yet to address his original post (http://www.masm32.com/
board/index.php?topic=7356.0) and provide some hard evidence that
support his claims.
Steve's major issue is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority"
in that Steve can't resist injecting his opinion as some form of fact
and forcing people to swallow such poison. Anyone who opposes him or
his myopic point-of-view gets gets a hefty dose of Soviet-style
authority. He gets away with it at his masm32 forum because he is the
top admin and there people have no choice but to avoid his annoying
rants in order to utilize his materials and bandwidth.
The reality of the matter is Steve has no evidence, fact or formal
knowledge on most of the subjects he brings-up and it always comes
down to a pissing-match of who can post more at ALA (i.e. blowing
smoke.) However, for everyone here at ALA, Steve is only dangerous in
that he has too much time on his hands... so all you have to do is
ignore his posts :)
All-in-all... the Burden of Proof is on you, once again, Steveo ;)
Enjoy the broken record called Steven Leslie Hutchesson... everyone :)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- From: Betov
- Re: Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- References:
- Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- From: hutch--
- Re: Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- From: Wolfgang Kern
- Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- Prev by Date: Re: Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- Next by Date: Re: Definitions - What are yours?
- Previous by thread: Re: Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- Next by thread: Re: Ratch's evidence criterion revisited.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|