-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 17, 2017, 05:57:04 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Pet Sounds and Race
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Pet Sounds and Race  (Read 17753 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7134


View Profile
« Reply #275 on: January 10, 2017, 05:51:19 AM »

Emily would greatly benefit from ending every single statement she makes with "...in my opinion".
In my opinion*, it's usually unnecessary to say "in my opinion" because that's generally obvious to the reader. The phrase is just a waste of space: obviously if a person is making some sort of argument, it's is an opinion. (If it is presented as indisputable fact, a person can always request sources.) And presumably that opinion is the writer's (though I guess it's also funny how many opinions tend to be almost verbatim talking points from media or politicians).

In short, if everyone involved can see it's an opinion, why waste the keystrokes?

*This opinion was adopted from a long-banned poster.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius, Patronizing Twaddler, Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick, and Sensationalist Dullard, and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 934



View Profile WWW
« Reply #276 on: January 10, 2017, 06:08:35 AM »

You are the one who's being inconsistent.
Interesting. Where was I inconsistent?

In my opinion*, it's usually unnecessary to say "in my opinion" because that's generally obvious to the reader. The phrase is just a waste of space: obviously if a person is making some sort of argument, it's is an opinion. (If it is presented as indisputable fact, a person can always request sources.) And presumably that opinion is the writer's (though I guess it's also funny how many opinions tend to be almost verbatim talking points from media or politicians).

In short, if everyone involved can see it's an opinion, why waste the keystrokes?

*This opinion was adopted from a long-banned poster.
I would usually agree with you, but Emily is a special case who, as I recall, has a history of presenting things as facts when they're nothing more than opinions (and who doesn't come up with sources when asked for them).
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #277 on: January 10, 2017, 10:17:48 AM »

You are the one who's being inconsistent.
Interesting. Where was I inconsistent?

In my opinion*, it's usually unnecessary to say "in my opinion" because that's generally obvious to the reader. The phrase is just a waste of space: obviously if a person is making some sort of argument, it's is an opinion. (If it is presented as indisputable fact, a person can always request sources.) And presumably that opinion is the writer's (though I guess it's also funny how many opinions tend to be almost verbatim talking points from media or politicians).

In short, if everyone involved can see it's an opinion, why waste the keystrokes?

*This opinion was adopted from a long-banned poster.
I would usually agree with you, but Emily is a special case who, as I recall, has a history of presenting things as facts when they're nothing more than opinions (and who doesn't come up with sources when asked for them).
That's false. I have often provided sources when challenged.
You were inconsistent above, in this thread, in your twisting around trying to put down someone who you find irritating.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 4416


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #278 on: January 10, 2017, 11:02:38 AM »

You are the one who's being inconsistent.
Interesting. Where was I inconsistent?

In my opinion*, it's usually unnecessary to say "in my opinion" because that's generally obvious to the reader. The phrase is just a waste of space: obviously if a person is making some sort of argument, it's is an opinion. (If it is presented as indisputable fact, a person can always request sources.) And presumably that opinion is the writer's (though I guess it's also funny how many opinions tend to be almost verbatim talking points from media or politicians).

In short, if everyone involved can see it's an opinion, why waste the keystrokes?

*This opinion was adopted from a long-banned poster.
I would usually agree with you, but Emily is a special case who, as I recall, has a history of presenting things as facts when they're nothing more than opinions (and who doesn't come up with sources when asked for them).

Yep.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24672.msg599035.html#msg599035

It's irritating that those who are supposed staunch proponents of facts choose to use guesstimates instead of using facts when it helps their argument. Just sayin.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 934



View Profile WWW
« Reply #279 on: January 10, 2017, 12:31:34 PM »

I would usually agree with you, but Emily is a special case who, as I recall, has a history of presenting things as facts when they're nothing more than opinions (and who doesn't come up with sources when asked for them).
That's false. I have often provided sources when challenged.
I would replace "often" with "rarely" from what I've seen. For instance, I'm still waiting for this one.

Quote
You were inconsistent above, in this thread, in your twisting around trying to put down someone who you find irritating.
This doesn't make any sense. Twisting around is what I criticized you for (by providing a clear, detailed example). Again, please explain how I was "twisting around". By providing a clear, detailed example.
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #280 on: January 10, 2017, 03:16:25 PM »

I would usually agree with you, but Emily is a special case who, as I recall, has a history of presenting things as facts when they're nothing more than opinions (and who doesn't come up with sources when asked for them).
That's false. I have often provided sources when challenged.
I would replace "often" with "rarely" from what I've seen. For instance, I'm still waiting for this one.

Quote
You were inconsistent above, in this thread, in your twisting around trying to put down someone who you find irritating.
This doesn't make any sense. Twisting around is what I criticized you for (by providing a clear, detailed example). Again, please explain how I was "twisting around". By providing a clear, detailed example.
One occasion in which I didn't find something for YOU does not establish "rarely". I challenge you to count the cases I've been asked for sources on this site and did NOT provide them. I will find twice as many cases in which I DID.
Regarding the Clinton emails, you implied that she had done something that she wasn't even accused of doing. To insist that I provide evidence that she was NOT accused rather than you provide support for saying she WAS accused is absurd and, really, dumb.
You can find myriad articles regarding the deleted emails that discuss the process. If you actually made an attempt to learn about that upon which you comment, it would've been unnecessary for me to google it for you.
Here's one: http://www.abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story%3Fid%3D42389308
How does you criticizing me for something make it "not make sense" that you did it. Indeed, it's quite likely you criticized me for it because you projected your own "intellectual dishonesty".
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 03:18:05 PM by Emily » Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 934



View Profile WWW
« Reply #281 on: January 11, 2017, 12:43:51 AM »

I obviously wasn't talking only about this. I read this board, you know. I don't even need to provide anything apart from the link rab2591 posted above, as that single page shows just how much you like guesstimating, "twisting around", and how when proved wrong it suddenly "shouldn't be an issue" to you. What's more, the page we're currently on shows that when asked for a "clear, detailed example", you reply with "it's quite likely [...]" and fail to come up with an actual fact. I could see that one coming from miles away, and seeing it tells me I need to stop arguing with you as you can't have a rational discussion.

Also, that link is interesting but doesn't provide much evidence, to be honest. I can instruct my attorney to tell pretty much anything about me, even false information. I was hoping for a much more detailed process explanation. Even if the shortly summarized process is to be believed, the mere fact that the emails weren't actually read shows the process wasn't thorough enough. So my point stands.
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #282 on: January 11, 2017, 04:14:31 AM »

I obviously wasn't talking only about this. I read this board, you know. I don't even need to provide anything apart from the link rab2591 posted above, as that single page shows just how much you like guesstimating, "twisting around", and how when proved wrong it suddenly "shouldn't be an issue" to you. What's more, the page we're currently on shows that when asked for a "clear, detailed example", you reply with "it's quite likely [...]" and fail to come up with an actual fact. I could see that one coming from miles away, and seeing it tells me I need to stop arguing with you as you can't have a rational discussion.

Also, that link is interesting but doesn't provide much evidence, to be honest. I can instruct my attorney to tell pretty much anything about me, even false information. I was hoping for a much more detailed process explanation. Even if the shortly summarized process is to be believed, the mere fact that the emails weren't actually read shows the process wasn't thorough enough. So my point stands.
The one rab posted above is a pathetic example. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I provide sources. And even when rab actually bothered to calculate the quantity/day it was 6! I post d fewer times there than he and GF posted in other Trump threads! So that whole thing was ridiculous.
So we have a repeat. You are doing what you accuse me of doing. This time, not supporting your false assertion. And now you excuse yourself because you can't. Bye!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 04:37:06 AM by Emily » Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 4416


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #283 on: January 11, 2017, 07:00:27 AM »

And even when rab actually bothered to calculate the quantity/day it was 6! I post d fewer times there than he and GF posted in other Trump threads! So that whole thing was ridiculous.

This is exactly what we mean by you twisting things around. Firstly, "actually bothered" - yes, I actually bothered to fact check a laughably inconceivable claim you were making because you were trying to prove a point with false information (or as you so eloquently put it after being proven wrong, a "guess"). And the quantity/day being 6? You were claiming there was probably an average of 30 posts made in a one month span about Trump in the Sandbox. When in reality 198 about Trump were made in just one thread in that time....in a thread that you were actively involved in nearly every day. So go ahead, put a small number in your post above in an attempt to make my findings look inconsequential...but the fact is that in regards to the time period we were discussing your claim was off by 168 posts - which is far from a ridiculous finding.

And yes I post in Trump related threads THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE BEACH BOYS. I made it very clear during our very tedious discussion that the Trump talk regarding the inauguration would likely end soon after the inauguration (and inauguration talk was ON TOPIC). But the whining about Trump's policies in the Sandbox could go on for the next four to possibly eight years. So on-topic discussion lasting at best one month vs off-topic discussion lasting 48-96 months? That was the discussion. I'm with Sloop John B, it's obvious you can't have a rational discussion without twisting things around. And now I'll excuse myself. Bye!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 07:02:21 AM by rab2591 » Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #284 on: January 11, 2017, 10:06:28 AM »

Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'probably'? Obviously I was not presenting said "claim" as a calculated fact. It was obviously a guess from the start. An incorrect guess, yes, but a guess - or I wouldn't have used the word 'probably'. Had I gone and found the information and calculated, I would have presented it as a certainty, as did you.
Your whole argument in that thread was predicated on the front page having so so many Trump posts. An average of 6 a day came from that thread, fewer than other threads and fewer by me than you and GF. If you were honest about your concern - that the landing page had too many Trump posts - then your targeting that thread or my posting was incorrect. If you meant to target that thread or my posts, you shouldn't have pretended your concern was with the quantity of Trump appearances on the landing page.
I can only have rational discussions with those who present rational arguments.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 10:20:47 AM by Emily » Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 4416


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #285 on: January 11, 2017, 11:13:27 AM »

Your "guess" was just so laughably bias and wrong that prefacing the word "probably" before your guess doesn't even come close to defending your 168 post error. You claimed a guesstimate when a small amount of research would have gotten you a factual result - and for someone who appears to be so staunch about facts and intellectual honesty I find it highly ironic that you didn't spend a couple minutes trying to ascertain the facts about the core of our discussion. And then when you were proven wrong you flipped the argument around and said that given how popular posting about Trump was here it should be allowed. A perfect example of the twisting around Sloop John B was referring to.

Your whole argument in that thread was predicated on the front page having so so many Trump posts. An average of 6 a day came from that thread, fewer than other threads and fewer by me than you and GF. If you were honest about your concern - that the landing page had too many Trump posts - then your targeting that thread or my posting was incorrect. If you meant to target that thread or my posts, you shouldn't have pretended your concern was with the quantity of Trump appearances on the landing page.
I can only have rational discussions with those who present rational arguments.

Also, you blatantly refuse to read what I'm writing (or you have a serious comprehension problem). Having to read Trump's name on this forum for conceivably the next 8 years because you and others refuse to find a better suited forum for your whining is something that bothers me. Whereas the month or two in which we talk about the inauguration plans (which directly relate the Beach Boys) will be gone before we know it. I don't want to see Trump's name here on this forum for the next possible 8 years...but when his inauguration directly relates to the band that this forum was made for, then yes I do believe it's logical that we talk about said inauguration. Sorry if the logic of that flies right over your head.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 11:14:54 AM by rab2591 » Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #286 on: January 11, 2017, 11:24:25 AM »

Your "guess" was just so laughably bias and wrong that prefacing the word "probably" before your guess doesn't even come close to defending your 168 post error. You claimed a guesstimate when a small amount of research would have gotten you a factual result - and for someone who appears to be so staunch about facts and intellectual honesty I find it highly ironic that you didn't spend a couple minutes trying to ascertain the facts about the core of our discussion. And then when you were proven wrong you flipped the argument around and said that given how popular posting about Trump was here it should be allowed. A perfect example of the twisting around Sloop John B was referring to.

Your whole argument in that thread was predicated on the front page having so so many Trump posts. An average of 6 a day came from that thread, fewer than other threads and fewer by me than you and GF. If you were honest about your concern - that the landing page had too many Trump posts - then your targeting that thread or my posting was incorrect. If you meant to target that thread or my posts, you shouldn't have pretended your concern was with the quantity of Trump appearances on the landing page.
I can only have rational discussions with those who present rational arguments.

Also, you blatantly refuse to read what I'm writing (or you have a serious comprehension problem). Having to read Trump's name on this forum for conceivably the next 8 years because you and others refuse to find a better suited forum for your whining is something that bothers me. Whereas the month or two in which we talk about the inauguration plans (which directly relate the Beach Boys) will be gone before we know it. I don't want to see Trump's name here on this forum for the next possible 8 years...but when his inauguration directly relates to the band that this forum was made for, then yes I do believe it's logical that we talk about said inauguration. Sorry if the logic of that flies right over your head.
The word is 'biased'. The guess was based on my recent memory at the time, which was that 3-4 days had recently gone by without any posts and that that had happened a few times. I agree, it was very wrong. It doesn't negate the fact that it was a guess and was presented as one, therefore is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about whether I provide sources for things that I assert as fact.
As ever in the last couple of months, I was on a phone and it's awkward to go look something up mid-post. I'm often on a train and my connection comes and goes. If I leave the page, I have to rewrite the whole comment.
Your whole argument is now based on me making an incorrect guess and yet the real numbers still support my point. That, and you pretending you didn't repeatedly go on about the quantity of Trump posts on the landing page.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 11:46:09 AM by Emily » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.157 seconds with 21 queries.