Sure, some people don't like what I post. Hiro is an odd example for you to embrace, given his history. thompr might not believe I post intelligent responses, you would have to ask him. I suppose we could go browsing to find a few posters that have issues with your posts. There seem to be quite a few these days. In any case, is this still part of your game?
Is this really your best attempt at avoiding a little honesty? Perhaps my responses are less than intelligent. Perhaps they are over your head a bit. They are, however, honest. Can you even try to claim the same?
"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
What do you know? You've finally made a true statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
They are, however, honest. Can you even try to claim the same?
Absolutely. You haven't shown any reason to believe otherwise, anyway. The fact that you're in denial about Gizmodo knowingly purchasing stolen property doesn't change the fact that my posts are 100% accurate.
What do you know? You've finally made a true statement.
One of many. Nice dodge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Absolutely. You haven't shown any reason to believe otherwise, anyway. The fact that you're in denial about Gizmodo knowingly purchasing stolen property doesn't change the fact that my posts are 100% accurate.
100%? Let's review some of your recent posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The phone did not belong to Hogan - and Gizmodo knew that. EVEN IF a single call to AppleCare (which apparently never happened according to Hogan) were considered a reasonable attempt to return it, it wouldn't become Hogan's property for 90 days or more.
Mostly truthful. Except you have no idea if that call was made or not. You are basing that on a single article (Wired?) that said the roommate offered to call but that it was unknown if the call was made. That is not the same as "which apparently never happened according to Hogan". Unless of course you have a quote from Hogan or the police report where Hogan explicitly says no calls were ever made.
But there was no need to distort the truth to make your point. In a different thread, much earlier, you knew this. You stated:
Quote:
They guy who found it said (in his public interview) that he did NOT try to call Apple. He had a friend who said he'd do it - but there's no evidence that he actually followed through.
At this time you were aware that Hogan claimed a friend offered to call. You knew someone said they don't know that this call was actually made. So, why did you later feel the need to massage the facts and state that Hogan said the call was never made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Let's look at the facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO:
- They claim that the guy made 'a' call to AppleCare (which would not constitute a reasonable effort to return it by ANY standards)
I don't think this was an honest mistake. I think this was an intentional mis-stating of the facts. Gizmodo's story was that Hogan made calls to multiple numbers at Apple. This doesn't mean he actually made any calls or that even if he did they constitute a reasonable effort. But it does mean Giz claimed multiple calls were made, not a single call as you wrote. Why would you change their statement like that?
Looking at just these posts we see that facts sometimes seem problematic to the point you are trying to make and you feel the need to change them to fit. The unfortunate thing, is that in those cases, your posts, without the liberties taken with the truth, would stand on their own. So why the need to twist and bend the facts?
So much for your 100%, hmm?
It's these little dishonesties that I take issue with. Never any grand lies, just little 'inaccuracies' meant to either bolster your point or paint a party in a more negative light. It is unfortunate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sorry, I choose to associate with honest people.
Had to throw this one in for fun. Funny.
Honesty shouldn't be a challenge, but it should be the goal.
So you're relying on your distortion of the facts to try to prove that I was lying?
Sorry, but the REAL facts (not the voices in your head) back me up.
Wow.
A clear demonstration of your 'inaccuracies' and you think this backs up your claim of 100% accuracy? And you call me delusional? Nothing was distorted. Those are quotes are exactly what you wrote. They don't look very good in daylight, but you shouldn't try to distance yourself from them now by calling them distortions. At least be honest now and own your words.
If a man doesn't have his word, what does he have? It comes down to integrity, I guess.
HI HIRO! Nice to see you jump in again without any contribution to the discussion
Glad to be of service. I think your opinion of what is of value is a tad bit over-strained though.
There really isn't anything new to say from the side of rational thought, the actual evidence has been stated repeatedly in the early parts of this thread. Your choice to ignore it doesn't equate anyone else not having offered it. So don't equate my unwillingness to manufacture and pull ever new crapola out my arse sideways as lack of content. Noting the ever growing pile of logical dung in this thread is most definitely a contribution to the positive.
Or, maybe we could look at what everyone else seems to be saying about you:
Hiro:
"That's just a tired rhetorical trick you are attempting to employ. On top of the same old tired reasoning."
thompr:
"Your devil's advocate tinkering is entertaining, and perhaps good exercise for the brain, but at the end of the day, a debate that tries to support the notion that Gizmodo did no wrong is going to lose. And just in case you want to say that you were never actually supporting any side, I would point out that that is the topic that brought me into this thread to begin with. My assertion is that Gizmodo is guilty of much, supported by the elements we have discussed today, and if you intend to engage on that assertion then eventually you should strongly make a counter point. At least one that is believable."
So no one seems to believe that you have any intelligent responses.
Well, I'm not going to assert that Tulkas' responses have no intelligence in them. I would, however, question the motivation, execution, and value.
Here's an analogy:
You go to the horse track one day to enjoy the races and make some wagers. You engage in whatever logic (or other process) you use to come to your conclusions. Perhaps you actually own one of the horses. Whatever. But there you are, along with a few thousand other folks who are there for similar reasons.
But there in the crowd next to you is someone who is there for entirely different reasons. He doesn't much care about the horses themselves, or the results of the races. He is far more interested in observing stuff that he can critique. He has no horse in the race. He has no wager on the line. He recognizes that there is a risk in taking a position, and he avoids the risk. But he reserves the right to jump in with his opinion about anything and everything. He'll criticize the horse owners & trainers, if he observes anything that he could reasonably question. He'll criticize the logic that the other patrons present to support their conclusions, even though not specifically denying the conclusion. Hell, he'll even (lightly, of course) criticize himself if it manages to win a more significant argument.
This other fellow loves a battle of wits, especially when there is no risk. And winning the battle of wits is everything to him. If you deign to pull your attention from the race and engage him, he will gladly introduce new fronts to fight over, picking at your words, your motivations, your character. Meanwhile, his prime motivation is to display how logical he is. Everything else is secondary. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that.
That other person is Tulkas, and the issue of Gizmodo's guilt is one of the races associated with the "stolen iPhone" race day. Tulkas doesn't care who wins this race (or any other, for that matter). He's just looking for something - anything - to argue with, and then doing so. Once I realized that, I decided to turn and watch the race... pausing this once to turn to you and explain why this other fellow is acting this way, and suggesting you have two choices: (1) understand what he is doing and engage on that level, or (2) understand what he is doing and get back to watching the race.
Note that there is nothing particularly wrong with this behavior in the right setting (such as an anonymous place where people argue about stuff) and in the right manner. If done constructively, openly, and with the right motivation, playing devil's advocate can be a very helpful role for many intellectual endeavors. It has value. If not done constructively, or if just done for "points", the person is just being a horse's ass.
So as I said in the beginning, the question here is not about intelligence. The question is about motivation, execution, and value. You can decide how you answer that question (with respect to Tulkas) for yourself. The next question is what to do about it, continue or ignore.
Thompson
P.S. Clearly, this thread is pretty much dead, and rightly so. But people like Tulkas will show up to other "races", and they will behave the same way pretty much every time. So my closing advice for you with respect to Tulkas (continue or ignore) transcends this particular thread.
Well, I'm not going to assert that Tulkas' responses have no intelligence in them. I would, however, question the motivation, execution, and value.
Here's an analogy:
Actually, not a bad assessment. There are a few exceptions. I will often take a position, but only when reason dictates it is the right one. If one allows feelings for a 'side' be the driving and motivating force behind one's arguments, then one tends to fall into certain traps wrt to logic and honesty. I am not trying to prove my ability to use reason or logic, nor to prove that I am 'right'. It is more a matter of seeing and commenting on obvious mistakes and dishonest discussion. If it is an honest mistake, fine, a correction shouldn't be a problem, perhaps even welcome. I know I make mistakes and have no problem when some corrects me (politely). I also take issue with people that bully others to try to shut down opposing views. As your interaction with me shows, I can do the same and come off too harshly sometimes. This doesn't make it right and I don't think it reflects as my default behavior. Others seem to resort to this as their main tool and the occasional liberties with facts.
If someone tries to build a case to support their 'bet', they ought to be willing and able to back up the information they choose to use to make the case. Otherwise it just a lot of hot air.
Next time you are at a race track and engaging in conversations with the other patrons over what horses to bet on, see how well you make out by slipping 'inaccuracies' into your discussion. Start making things up about the jockeys, horses or the track to make your bet sound better and see if no one challenges those parts of your discussion. Or tell everyone else they have no right to comment and should shut up unless the are champion jockeys or trainers and that only your opinion matters (though strangely, you are also not an owner or trainer, but are exempt from your rule). Whether they have a bet in or not, your behavior is going to be questioned. Your 'decision' might be valid, but your behavior would not be. It might make someone question your individual statements instead of debating the whole of your argument. Hell, even some that agree with your argument as a whole might take issue with a small subset of your discussion point.
EDIT: anyway, we (I) have derailed this thread enough, so we can let this tangent die.
Comments
Sure, some people don't like what I post. Hiro is an odd example for you to embrace, given his history. thompr might not believe I post intelligent responses, you would have to ask him. I suppose we could go browsing to find a few posters that have issues with your posts. There seem to be quite a few these days. In any case, is this still part of your game?
Is this really your best attempt at avoiding a little honesty? Perhaps my responses are less than intelligent. Perhaps they are over your head a bit. They are, however, honest. Can you even try to claim the same?
"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
- George Carlin
Perhaps my responses are less than intelligent.
What do you know? You've finally made a true statement.
They are, however, honest. Can you even try to claim the same?
Absolutely. You haven't shown any reason to believe otherwise, anyway. The fact that you're in denial about Gizmodo knowingly purchasing stolen property doesn't change the fact that my posts are 100% accurate.
What do you know? You've finally made a true statement.
One of many. Nice dodge.
Absolutely. You haven't shown any reason to believe otherwise, anyway. The fact that you're in denial about Gizmodo knowingly purchasing stolen property doesn't change the fact that my posts are 100% accurate.
100%? Let's review some of your recent posts.
The phone did not belong to Hogan - and Gizmodo knew that. EVEN IF a single call to AppleCare (which apparently never happened according to Hogan) were considered a reasonable attempt to return it, it wouldn't become Hogan's property for 90 days or more.
Mostly truthful. Except you have no idea if that call was made or not. You are basing that on a single article (Wired?) that said the roommate offered to call but that it was unknown if the call was made. That is not the same as "which apparently never happened according to Hogan". Unless of course you have a quote from Hogan or the police report where Hogan explicitly says no calls were ever made.
But there was no need to distort the truth to make your point. In a different thread, much earlier, you knew this. You stated:
They guy who found it said (in his public interview) that he did NOT try to call Apple. He had a friend who said he'd do it - but there's no evidence that he actually followed through.
At this time you were aware that Hogan claimed a friend offered to call. You knew someone said they don't know that this call was actually made. So, why did you later feel the need to massage the facts and state that Hogan said the call was never made?
Let's look at the facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO:
- They claim that the guy made 'a' call to AppleCare (which would not constitute a reasonable effort to return it by ANY standards)
I don't think this was an honest mistake. I think this was an intentional mis-stating of the facts. Gizmodo's story was that Hogan made calls to multiple numbers at Apple. This doesn't mean he actually made any calls or that even if he did they constitute a reasonable effort. But it does mean Giz claimed multiple calls were made, not a single call as you wrote. Why would you change their statement like that?
Looking at just these posts we see that facts sometimes seem problematic to the point you are trying to make and you feel the need to change them to fit. The unfortunate thing, is that in those cases, your posts, without the liberties taken with the truth, would stand on their own. So why the need to twist and bend the facts?
So much for your 100%, hmm?
It's these little dishonesties that I take issue with. Never any grand lies, just little 'inaccuracies' meant to either bolster your point or paint a party in a more negative light. It is unfortunate.
Sorry, I choose to associate with honest people.
Had to throw this one in for fun. Funny.
Honesty shouldn't be a challenge, but it should be the goal.
One of many. Nice dodge.
100%? Let's review some of your recent posts.
snip
So you're relying on your distortion of the facts to try to prove that I was lying?
Sorry, but the REAL facts (not the voices in your head) back me up.
So you're relying on your distortion of the facts to try to prove that I was lying?
Sorry, but the REAL facts (not the voices in your head) back me up.
Wow.
A clear demonstration of your 'inaccuracies' and you think this backs up your claim of 100% accuracy? And you call me delusional? Nothing was distorted. Those are quotes are exactly what you wrote. They don't look very good in daylight, but you shouldn't try to distance yourself from them now by calling them distortions. At least be honest now and own your words.
If a man doesn't have his word, what does he have? It comes down to integrity, I guess.
HI HIRO! Nice to see you jump in again without any contribution to the discussion
Glad to be of service. I think your opinion of what is of value is a tad bit over-strained though.
There really isn't anything new to say from the side of rational thought, the actual evidence has been stated repeatedly in the early parts of this thread. Your choice to ignore it doesn't equate anyone else not having offered it. So don't equate my unwillingness to manufacture and pull ever new crapola out my arse sideways as lack of content. Noting the ever growing pile of logical dung in this thread is most definitely a contribution to the positive.
...
There really isn't anything new to say from the side of rational thought, ...
Amen.
Or, maybe we could look at what everyone else seems to be saying about you:
Hiro:
"That's just a tired rhetorical trick you are attempting to employ. On top of the same old tired reasoning."
thompr:
"Your devil's advocate tinkering is entertaining, and perhaps good exercise for the brain, but at the end of the day, a debate that tries to support the notion that Gizmodo did no wrong is going to lose. And just in case you want to say that you were never actually supporting any side, I would point out that that is the topic that brought me into this thread to begin with. My assertion is that Gizmodo is guilty of much, supported by the elements we have discussed today, and if you intend to engage on that assertion then eventually you should strongly make a counter point. At least one that is believable."
So no one seems to believe that you have any intelligent responses.
Well, I'm not going to assert that Tulkas' responses have no intelligence in them. I would, however, question the motivation, execution, and value.
Here's an analogy:
You go to the horse track one day to enjoy the races and make some wagers. You engage in whatever logic (or other process) you use to come to your conclusions. Perhaps you actually own one of the horses. Whatever. But there you are, along with a few thousand other folks who are there for similar reasons.
But there in the crowd next to you is someone who is there for entirely different reasons. He doesn't much care about the horses themselves, or the results of the races. He is far more interested in observing stuff that he can critique. He has no horse in the race. He has no wager on the line. He recognizes that there is a risk in taking a position, and he avoids the risk. But he reserves the right to jump in with his opinion about anything and everything. He'll criticize the horse owners & trainers, if he observes anything that he could reasonably question. He'll criticize the logic that the other patrons present to support their conclusions, even though not specifically denying the conclusion. Hell, he'll even (lightly, of course) criticize himself if it manages to win a more significant argument.
This other fellow loves a battle of wits, especially when there is no risk. And winning the battle of wits is everything to him. If you deign to pull your attention from the race and engage him, he will gladly introduce new fronts to fight over, picking at your words, your motivations, your character. Meanwhile, his prime motivation is to display how logical he is. Everything else is secondary. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that.
That other person is Tulkas, and the issue of Gizmodo's guilt is one of the races associated with the "stolen iPhone" race day. Tulkas doesn't care who wins this race (or any other, for that matter). He's just looking for something - anything - to argue with, and then doing so. Once I realized that, I decided to turn and watch the race... pausing this once to turn to you and explain why this other fellow is acting this way, and suggesting you have two choices: (1) understand what he is doing and engage on that level, or (2) understand what he is doing and get back to watching the race.
Note that there is nothing particularly wrong with this behavior in the right setting (such as an anonymous place where people argue about stuff) and in the right manner. If done constructively, openly, and with the right motivation, playing devil's advocate can be a very helpful role for many intellectual endeavors. It has value. If not done constructively, or if just done for "points", the person is just being a horse's ass.
So as I said in the beginning, the question here is not about intelligence. The question is about motivation, execution, and value. You can decide how you answer that question (with respect to Tulkas) for yourself. The next question is what to do about it, continue or ignore.
Thompson
P.S. Clearly, this thread is pretty much dead, and rightly so. But people like Tulkas will show up to other "races", and they will behave the same way pretty much every time. So my closing advice for you with respect to Tulkas (continue or ignore) transcends this particular thread.
Well, I'm not going to assert that Tulkas' responses have no intelligence in them. I would, however, question the motivation, execution, and value.
Here's an analogy:
Actually, not a bad assessment. There are a few exceptions. I will often take a position, but only when reason dictates it is the right one. If one allows feelings for a 'side' be the driving and motivating force behind one's arguments, then one tends to fall into certain traps wrt to logic and honesty. I am not trying to prove my ability to use reason or logic, nor to prove that I am 'right'. It is more a matter of seeing and commenting on obvious mistakes and dishonest discussion. If it is an honest mistake, fine, a correction shouldn't be a problem, perhaps even welcome. I know I make mistakes and have no problem when some corrects me (politely). I also take issue with people that bully others to try to shut down opposing views. As your interaction with me shows, I can do the same and come off too harshly sometimes. This doesn't make it right and I don't think it reflects as my default behavior. Others seem to resort to this as their main tool and the occasional liberties with facts.
If someone tries to build a case to support their 'bet', they ought to be willing and able to back up the information they choose to use to make the case. Otherwise it just a lot of hot air.
Next time you are at a race track and engaging in conversations with the other patrons over what horses to bet on, see how well you make out by slipping 'inaccuracies' into your discussion. Start making things up about the jockeys, horses or the track to make your bet sound better and see if no one challenges those parts of your discussion. Or tell everyone else they have no right to comment and should shut up unless the are champion jockeys or trainers and that only your opinion matters (though strangely, you are also not an owner or trainer, but are exempt from your rule). Whether they have a bet in or not, your behavior is going to be questioned. Your 'decision' might be valid, but your behavior would not be. It might make someone question your individual statements instead of debating the whole of your argument. Hell, even some that agree with your argument as a whole might take issue with a small subset of your discussion point.
EDIT: anyway, we (I) have derailed this thread enough, so we can let this tangent die.