[lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:14:25 +0100
This, to me, is no more than obfuscation. Just because I'm too much of an idiot
to frame an argument correctly has no bearing on whether the fundamentals of
that argument are correct or not.
Deal with the evidence I subsequently provided Lawrence.
Or else be labelled 'The Obfuscator'.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:23 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world
Simon:
I saw no point in further responding to you. You seem unable to understand
the nature of a logical fallacy. When I described it to you, you merely said I
was obfuscating (misspelling the word didn't help in that case) and repeated
the fallacy. Showing your argument to be fallacious isn't to throw scorn on
it. It is to show that it is no argument at all. And in the note below you
continue to think you have a good argument. I explained the nature of your
fallacy to you. The fallacy you committed has a name. You can read about it.
That should be sufficient. I shouldn't have to repeat myself. The fact that
you are insisting on your fallacious argument is merely pitiful.
Lawrence
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:34 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world
Lawrence, are you unable to deal with me directly.
Or is it that you can't deal with the argument (fallacious or not) that I was
presenting.
Or might it be that you were so stunned that I was unable to spell
'obfuscation' that you just couldn't bring yourself to speak to me ever again.
Just for your predilection, let me explain the context of my use of the word.
Obfuscate: to darken, to obscure (it can also mean drunk but that wasn't the
intended meaning). In my experience, when Lawrence is presented with an
argument that threatens his viewpoint his typical response is either to
obfuscate, or else to leave the conversation. In this instance, having been
prevented recourse to the second option, he had to rely on the first method.
This was to throw scorn at the logic of the argument, rather than deal with it.
(On some occasions, he will merely laugh at the opposition.) When subsquently
(in the obfuscation post) I gave evidence, the response was a distinctly
stamping foot.
This is called petulance...
I've just watched a new episode of Cracker, and I'm really in the mood for it
now. For example (says Jimmy McGovern, writer), every bullet, every bomb, every
death at the hands of IRA during the Northern Irish troubles was bought by
American Dollars, more than likely deposited into a bucket... but after 9/11,
it all paled into insignificance; that wasn't real terrorism, they weren't real
casualties...etc.
So Lawrence, can you cope, or will you carry on your indirect complaining.
Simon
Pretending to be an overweight psychologist with a bad drink problem... a
gambling addiction...woman trouble...probably a heart condition...more than
likely high blood pressure...an enviable sort of person.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:22 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world
No, but saying what Simon said, which after all was what I was talking
about, does.
Lawrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 9:46 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: An American student's history of the world
>Why not? A fellow Lit-Idear recently described me as
>"Lawrence, the obfucation King." for producing evidence
> that he was guilty of a fallacy.
I don't really think saying the War on Iraq has radicalized some Muslims
(and increased the number of extremists) counts as a hasty generalization,
even it it is not true.
Judy Evans, Cardiff
Other related posts:
