Re: The job of NASA

On Nov 24, 4:46 pm, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:51:20 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

BTW NASA is absolutely correct about its selection of astronauts, even
if it is incorrect to select any at all. You are not a team player and
you would be a liability if you had to do anything with anyone else.

Assuming that this is referring to me (one never knows, because you,
as is often the case, idiotically remove all context), I've worked on,
and am currently working on, many teams. None of them, fortunately,
have lunatics like you on them.

I connot see anyone in their senses employing you in any capacity. If
you slandered a colleague like that you could destroy any teamwork and
goodwill there was in an organization.

I haven't slandered you.

Even though I think it's been explained once, I'll do it again,
because you're apparently an idiot, and still don't get it (and
probably still won't even after I explain it again).

You committed a logical fallacy called a Complex Question, in which a
question is asked in such a form as to imply that another question had
already been asked and answered. It's also known more popularly as a
"trick question," or "loaded question."

Here are some web pages on it.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_complex.htmhttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questionshttp://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

If you read them all, slowly and carefully, and think about it, very
hard, there's a slim possibility that you'll finally get the point.

The classic example is "When are you going to stop beating your wife?"
This implies, with no evidence, that the questionee is a wife beater.

You asked the group such an (idiotic) and loaded question. To wit (or
in your case, non-wit, or nitwit): "How is it that the Republican
party can live in the gutter?"

Since it has not been established that "the Republican party can live
in the gutter" (it's not even clear that it has attempted to do so,
let alone that it *can*), then it's completely idiotic to ask us how
it can do so. If you'd like to argue that "the Republican party can
live in the gutter," then you should do that (though it's quite off
topic here), but we're not going to allow you to steal a rhetorical
base by just accepting your foolish assertion.

To make my point, I responded with a complex question of my own,
though not in the form of a question--it was in the form of a response
to your moronic question: "I'll explain that when you tell us why you
continue to engage in pederasty."

You see, this is what is called a "rhetorical device" (something else
with which you seem to be unfamiliar, being such a literal and
simple-minded bloke).

It doesn't mean that I literally believe that you do now, or have ever
engaged in pederasty (though I have to admit some amusement at your
guilty conscience in your response).

It also does not mean that I'm accusing you of that. I was simply
making a point about your idiotic question, which anyone with an IQ
above room temperature (leaving out, of course, you and Eric Chomko)
could see. I *didn't* claim to have evidence of your propensity for
young boys. In fact, the very point of a complex question is that it
is making an implication with zero evidence.

But your response that, because I used such a rhetorical device, I
must be a CIA agent, or am "hacking your personal life" is, to me,
indicative of someone with paranoid delusions. As I said, if I were
you, I would seek professional help.

Then again, if I were you, I'd be nuts, so maybe I wouldn't.

The amount of sheer lunacy here amazes me. In fact, I'd say the ratio
of sense to nonsense is far less than unity.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The job of NASA
    ... Since it has not been established that "the Republican party can live ... in the gutter" (it's not even clear that it has attempted to do so, ... guilty conscience in your response). ... But your response that, because I used such a rhetorical device, I ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: The job of NASA
    ... Since it has not been established that "the Republican party can live ... in the gutter" (it's not even clear that it has attempted to do so, ... guilty conscience in your response). ... But your response that, because I used such a rhetorical device, I ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • OT: Confessions of A Republican in Recovery
    ... in response to a question from a reporter suspicious ... instead ?try to tell the American people what I believe will ... Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? ... That is why the Republican party is in shambles. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: The job of NASA
    ... This implies, with no evidence, that the questionee is a wife beater. ... in the gutter" (it's not even clear that it has attempted to do so, ... engaged in pederasty (though I have to admit some amusement at your ... guilty conscience in your response). ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: What FIFA (the other "football") Stands For:
    ... Venturing into the gutter now? ... I take it from your response that you admit that he meant no disrespect ... American I deem as a sign of disrespect. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)