Re: The job of NASA

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 06:32:12 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

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.h...

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.- Hide quoted text -

I think you are dead right. There are a number of facts about Rand -
based purely on his postings. The first of these is that he made a
completely unwarranted personal slur against myself. I cannot just let
that go.

The second fact is that he makes an assertion in a posting. For
example in his last but one postings he repeated the slur. In his last
posting he denied it. Where are you? You simply cannot have a
discussion.

In other words, as I predicted, you didn't comprehend a thing that I
wrote.

There are but 2 possibilities.

Ah, here comes more of the paranoid theorizing. And note the fallacy
of the excluded middle--there can be only two possibilities--no more.
He leaves out entirely the possibility that his comprehension of
written English is abysmal, and that he's stark raving mad, which is
not just probably, but at this point, almost certain.

1) He is a psychopath - on reflection I think this is the most
probable.

<laughing>

2) He is in the CIA or some other intelligence organization. This is
in fact unlikely because even the Central Stupidity Agency would not
employ anyone quite so stupid. Let us take this slur. If it did come
from my conversation with Bassam al Kuwaiti as I first supposed,
Syrian Intelligence would be on to it like a shot. Nobody even in the
CSA could do that. BTW - Bassam has had a full run down.

Do you have any idea whatsoever that paragraphs like this tell us
about your mental state?

<rest of raving lunacy snipped>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The job of NASA
    ... in the gutter" (it's not even clear that it has attempted to do so, ... example in his last but one postings he repeated the slur. ... entirely the result of a lack of comprehension. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Flaws in XP SP2
    ... As for the evidence, it is largely in the 850,000. ... Another group simply needs a setting change necessitated by SP-2, ... > they get done to come back and tell these folks who are supposed ... > those postings and determine the real cause. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Jerry Demonstrates the Neocon Trait of Dishonesty
    ... Still no evidence for your assertion, ... What a friggin liar you are. ... You dismissed everything he said as ancient third hand postings. ... Lie by being a moron. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: liar truth keeps records like a lawyer...LOL
    ... the liar truth keeps records/copies of whatever you posted here, ... so he could use it again and again as if these were evidence to ... He even wondered WHY my postings are not archived by any news ... postings & records to be used to incriminate when convenient to ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......
    ... The tree of responses (postings) going back to ... I see two scientific questions that are embedded ... As such, one asks an 'open' ques, collects data (evidence) ... interpretations, and then states a best conclusion. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)