Why would you consider that an ad-hom Jr? Weren't you accusing her of actions bordering on incompetence (you may have actually used that word to describe her but not certain) when she initially denied the Apple requested Galaxy injunctions? That you're now so comfortable with her decisions that you no longer see any need to question them doesn't seem rational on the surface.
I know that you're confused about logic and rational thinking, but let me try to explain it to you.
Koh originally refused to grant an injunction. I pointed out the logical fallacy in her position and stated that I believed that it would be overturned on appeal. If I had said "what do you expect from a woman" or "she's Korean, so she would undoubtedly decide that", it would be an ad hominem attack. Instead, I showed the error in her logic using critical thinking.
As it turned out, the appeals court agreed with me and said that her decision was not correct. Thus, my critical analysis was accurate and supported by subsequent facts.
Now, she has issued a new decision. The same critical thinking process makes me think that this new decision will hold up - because there are no obvious logical fallacies as there were the first time.
So please explain why that position is irrational.
In fact, you're suggesting that I should be arguing "she was wrong once, so she must be wrong this time, as well" which is obviously poor logic. Or, at least, it would be to anyone with critical thinking skills above that of a 2nd grader.
Seriously. It seems that opinions are based upon confirmation bias rather than an objective asessment of the facts at hand.
Had this gone the other way, I would expect bleating about this being "only one lower court" with a "biased judge" who will be "overturned on appeal".
I guess the Jerrytroll and googleguy team is back in action.
See above. I'm taking the logical position. I analyzed her arguments and found that she was in error the first time - and the appeals court agreed with me. I do not see any logical errors in her argument this time. So why should I be arguing that she's wrong now even though the facts don't support that position? I'll leave the silly, irrational arguments to the two of you.
I know that you're confused about logic and rational thinking, but let me try to explain it to you.
Koh originally refused to grant an injunction. I pointed out the logical fallacy in her position and stated that I believed that it would be overturned on appeal. If I had said "what do you expect from a woman" or "she's Korean, so she would undoubtedly decide that", it would be an ad hominem attack. Instead, I showed the error in her logic using critical thinking.
"....she's (Judge Koh) apparently not all that careful to make sure she has the law to back up what she decides...
That's not to say that Koh is biased in any way (I'm inclined to believe incompetence is the cause for her blatant errors)"
That kind of "logic and rational thinking"? Looks a lot to me like you don't feel she's qualified to be a judge as you suspect she's "incompetent".
By the way, why the name-calling? It seems to pepper most of your posts and plainly violates forum rules. I'd be surprised to find they don't apply to you as much as the rest of us.
Where you say" <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">"....she's (Judge Koh) apparently not all that careful to make sure she has the law to back up what she decides...</span>
<br style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">
<br style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">That's not to say that Koh is biased in any way (I'm inclined to believe incompetence is the cause for her blatant errors)"</span>
That kind of "logic and rational thinking"? Looks a lot to me like you don't feel she's qualified to be a judge as you suspect she's "incompetent".
By the way, why the name-calling? It seems to pepper most of your posts and plainly violates forum rules. I'd be surprised to find they don't apply to you as much as the rest of us.
And, yet, you seem to keep forgetting - I was right when I predicted that she would be overturned. There were too many logical errors in her decision. It doesn't matter what you call it, I was correct.
I also say that her current decision doesn't have the same logical errors. So, based on my experience and the fact that I correctly predicted what the Appeals Court would do, there's no reason to be saying that she's wrong this time around.
Meanwhile, all you Apple haters were just plain wrong when you said that she wouldn't be overturned.
And, yet, you seem to keep forgetting - I was right when I predicted that she would be overturned. There were too many logical errors in her decision. It doesn't matter what you call it, I was correct.
I also say that her current decision doesn't have the same logical errors. So, based on my experience and the fact that I correctly predicted what the Appeals Court would do, there's no reason to be saying that she's wrong this time around.
Meanwhile, all you Apple haters were just plain wrong when you said that she wouldn't be overturned.
No, but it matters what you call it. Rational and logical?
So to clarify, you were right about the reasons that the Appeals Court would remand a small part of her original decision, or just right in a general sense that something would be overturned? Perhaps you could link the post showing the reasons you thought she was wrong so we can congratulate you on recognizing the same problem as the Appeals Court? Sincerely, I'll be happy to note you called it right. Or was it really just a general "she'll be overturned but I really don't know why"?
Additionally you keep repeating I was wrong in claiming she would not be overturned. I never made any such claim as you know. The truth is your friend Jr. You can depend on it not to lead you astray.
No, but it matters what you call it. Rational and logical?
So to clarify, you were right about the reasons that the Appeals Court would remand a small part of her original decision, or just right in a general sense that something would be overturned? Perhaps you could link the post showing the reasons you thought she was wrong so we can congratulate you on recognizing the same problem as the Appeals Court? Sincerely, I'll be happy to note you called it right. Or was it really just a general "she'll be overturned but I really don't know why"?
Additionally you keep repeating I was wrong in claiming she would not be overturned. I never made any such claim as you know. The truth is your friend Jr. You can depend on it not to lead you astray.
I didn't say that you specifically denied that it would be overturned. Reading comprehension is your friend. I said that all you Apple haters (as a group) were denying it.
I didn't say that you specifically denied that it would be overturned. Reading comprehension is your friend. I said that all you Apple haters (as a group) were denying it.
As for the rest, do your own research.
Then by logic I can't be in your Apple-hater group since I never claimed that. And if you don't have proof you were right so be it. Just wanted to give you a chance to gloat.
"....she's (Judge Koh) apparently not all that careful to make sure she has the law to back up what she decides...
That's not to say that Koh is biased in any way (I'm inclined to believe incompetence is the cause for her blatant errors)"
That kind of "logic and rational thinking"? Looks a lot to me like you don't feel she's qualified to be a judge as you suspect she's "incompetent".
By the way, why the name-calling? It seems to pepper most of your posts and plainly violates forum rules. I'd be surprised to find they don't apply to you as much as the rest of us.
She was wrong then and is right now, after the appeals court corrected her error.
The fact has always remained that Samsung IS infringing Apple's valid patents and deserves to be punished.
Hey you seem to know a bit about Android, why am I being bombarded with spam across multiple inboxes, everything from fake pharmaceuticals to penny stock promotions all with one thing in common:-
"Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android"
in the body of the email.
Do you think it's a botnet running on people's handsets?
I've been getting them for a few days now, hundreds of them, to my spam gathering, garbage email accounts.
One security researcher says he can trace it to a fake Yahoo Mail app apparently downloaded by some users to avoid paying for a legitimate copy. "Jailbreaking" in a sense by turning off the default security setting. It didn't come from Google's PlayStore according to the report.
Comments
I know that you're confused about logic and rational thinking, but let me try to explain it to you.
Koh originally refused to grant an injunction. I pointed out the logical fallacy in her position and stated that I believed that it would be overturned on appeal. If I had said "what do you expect from a woman" or "she's Korean, so she would undoubtedly decide that", it would be an ad hominem attack. Instead, I showed the error in her logic using critical thinking.
As it turned out, the appeals court agreed with me and said that her decision was not correct. Thus, my critical analysis was accurate and supported by subsequent facts.
Now, she has issued a new decision. The same critical thinking process makes me think that this new decision will hold up - because there are no obvious logical fallacies as there were the first time.
So please explain why that position is irrational.
In fact, you're suggesting that I should be arguing "she was wrong once, so she must be wrong this time, as well" which is obviously poor logic. Or, at least, it would be to anyone with critical thinking skills above that of a 2nd grader.
I guess the Jerrytroll and googleguy team is back in action.
See above. I'm taking the logical position. I analyzed her arguments and found that she was in error the first time - and the appeals court agreed with me. I do not see any logical errors in her argument this time. So why should I be arguing that she's wrong now even though the facts don't support that position? I'll leave the silly, irrational arguments to the two of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I know that you're confused about logic and rational thinking, but let me try to explain it to you.
Koh originally refused to grant an injunction. I pointed out the logical fallacy in her position and stated that I believed that it would be overturned on appeal. If I had said "what do you expect from a woman" or "she's Korean, so she would undoubtedly decide that", it would be an ad hominem attack. Instead, I showed the error in her logic using critical thinking.
Ah like this one then Jr.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150849/judge-pares-down-apple-v-samsung-case-exhibits-limits-argument-time#post_2132541
Where you say"
"....she's (Judge Koh) apparently not all that careful to make sure she has the law to back up what she decides...
That's not to say that Koh is biased in any way (I'm inclined to believe incompetence is the cause for her blatant errors)"
That kind of "logic and rational thinking"? Looks a lot to me like you don't feel she's qualified to be a judge as you suspect she's "incompetent".
By the way, why the name-calling? It seems to pepper most of your posts and plainly violates forum rules. I'd be surprised to find they don't apply to you as much as the rest of us.
And, yet, you seem to keep forgetting - I was right when I predicted that she would be overturned. There were too many logical errors in her decision. It doesn't matter what you call it, I was correct.
I also say that her current decision doesn't have the same logical errors. So, based on my experience and the fact that I correctly predicted what the Appeals Court would do, there's no reason to be saying that she's wrong this time around.
Meanwhile, all you Apple haters were just plain wrong when you said that she wouldn't be overturned.
Inadvertent duplicate
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, yet, you seem to keep forgetting - I was right when I predicted that she would be overturned. There were too many logical errors in her decision. It doesn't matter what you call it, I was correct.
I also say that her current decision doesn't have the same logical errors. So, based on my experience and the fact that I correctly predicted what the Appeals Court would do, there's no reason to be saying that she's wrong this time around.
Meanwhile, all you Apple haters were just plain wrong when you said that she wouldn't be overturned.
No, but it matters what you call it. Rational and logical?
So to clarify, you were right about the reasons that the Appeals Court would remand a small part of her original decision, or just right in a general sense that something would be overturned? Perhaps you could link the post showing the reasons you thought she was wrong so we can congratulate you on recognizing the same problem as the Appeals Court? Sincerely, I'll be happy to note you called it right. Or was it really just a general "she'll be overturned but I really don't know why"?
Additionally you keep repeating I was wrong in claiming she would not be overturned. I never made any such claim as you know. The truth is your friend Jr. You can depend on it not to lead you astray.
I didn't say that you specifically denied that it would be overturned. Reading comprehension is your friend. I said that all you Apple haters (as a group) were denying it.
As for the rest, do your own research.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I didn't say that you specifically denied that it would be overturned. Reading comprehension is your friend. I said that all you Apple haters (as a group) were denying it.
As for the rest, do your own research.
Then by logic I can't be in your Apple-hater group since I never claimed that. And if you don't have proof you were right so be it. Just wanted to give you a chance to gloat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Ah like this one then Jr.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150849/judge-pares-down-apple-v-samsung-case-exhibits-limits-argument-time#post_2132541
Where you say"
"....she's (Judge Koh) apparently not all that careful to make sure she has the law to back up what she decides...
That's not to say that Koh is biased in any way (I'm inclined to believe incompetence is the cause for her blatant errors)"
That kind of "logic and rational thinking"? Looks a lot to me like you don't feel she's qualified to be a judge as you suspect she's "incompetent".
By the way, why the name-calling? It seems to pepper most of your posts and plainly violates forum rules. I'd be surprised to find they don't apply to you as much as the rest of us.
She was wrong then and is right now, after the appeals court corrected her error.
The fact has always remained that Samsung IS infringing Apple's valid patents and deserves to be punished.
Hey you seem to know a bit about Android, why am I being bombarded with spam across multiple inboxes, everything from fake pharmaceuticals to penny stock promotions all with one thing in common:-
"Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android"
in the body of the email.
Do you think it's a botnet running on people's handsets?
I've been getting them for a few days now, hundreds of them, to my spam gathering, garbage email accounts.
One security researcher says he can trace it to a fake Yahoo Mail app apparently downloaded by some users to avoid paying for a legitimate copy. "Jailbreaking" in a sense by turning off the default security setting. It didn't come from Google's PlayStore according to the report.