Sauron

Uh, no. Maybe you should re-read his answer. You will find I am correct.

Interesting claim. You'll forgive us if we don't take it at face value.

I have no such precedent. You, however, have a habit of employing an awkward or uncommon way of phrasing things; i.e., 'ignorant to the issue' vs 'ignorant of the issue'.

You also seem to have gained a quickly-earned reputation for ducking direct questions and substituting games for discussion. As I asked earlier:

Now you seem to have a personal list of your own that you are working from. If you already have a list, then why not present it?

Your self-appointed mission is hardly our concern.

I think you'll find that your suspicions are whatever you want them to be. The reality of the historical expertise in this folder, however, bears little resemblance to the baggage of your suspicion.

I have no evidence that you know anything worth teaching, or that your expertise exceeds my own. So what would be my motivation?

I thought not.

1. Your statement (italics, above) contains a built-in assumption.
2. The assumption is questionable.
3. Can you identify the assumption in your example?

~M~

:wave: [QUOTE]
I am sorry but i do not see any other reasonable interpretation other than my own.


No, i won't.

errr...yes, yes you do and it was confirmed by Toto too.



dude, you clearly missed the negation; it has nothing to do with "to" or "of".



oh, jeesh. if you really want me to hold your hand, then listen up: it would defeat one of my purposes for the existence of this thread. This is not something i want to do and hence i won't do it (at this time).


it is, however, my concern.


blah, blah. i am getting bored with this foreplay. Answer my initial questions or i will be neglecting you, henceforth.

then we will leave it at that, eh?




Nope. I do not think there are any relevant and questionable assumptions. :wave: remember that i said "not"; this is a negation. negations are tricky (apparently) and people tend to read over them.

Sauron

You can see no other interpretation other than the one you force upon it. Color me surprised. However, at some level you know that there is more than just your interpretation - your own words undermine you, as the original statement you made was

if your answer is that it is legitimized blah blah blah


Nice little word - 'if'.

Back to the issue: his answer is not what you think it was. Try again.

Then you're consigned to sit in a puddle of your own impotence, since we give such little weight to your inference.

1. Err, no I don't.
2. Toto confirmed no such thing.

Another interesting thing that Toto did say, however - something which you ignored, because it didn't serve your self-appointed mission - was the following valuable snippet:

But we don't often use the word "fact" and do not often talk about "reliable sources." I think there was some recent discussion about how some sources are more reliable than others, but in general all historical sources are suspect. Obvious forgeries and obvious fantasies can be rejected outright, but even honest sources are not necessarily the truth.

In response to your question, Toto gave an honest and careful answer. But it was inconvenient, because it didn't enable the fight you were trying to pick. So you ignored his nuanced explanation, since you never really wanted a discussion in the first place.

Both the negation and the conjunction above are evidence of what I said: you have an awkward or uncommon way of phrasing things. Which Toto also confirmed, by the way.

Don't flatter yourself. In point of fact, I already know why you don't present your private list of criteria - for the same reason you ignored Toto's careful response, above.

Indeed.

If you say so. The rest of us are under no obligation.

Apparently not, since you continue to hide your list of criteria and play "guess my secret".

1. Another imperative demand? A fan of your own impotence?

2. Neglect me? Is that a threat? Should I cower in fear? Do whatever you like. I'm free to do the same, and your decision imposes no obligation upon my behavior.


Depends on my mood. Who knows?

Then you're wrong. There are at least two.

~M~

research the word: enthymeme. >yawn<

yes, yes it is.

meh.

he was clear that you misread me but only said it was understanable.




i did respond to this.


it did not even answer the question. lols.


in other words: it didnt answer my question.



tell me more, jung!
no. actually he said good communicators are adviced to stay away from "not". hehe. anyhow, that's not all he affirmed. he did note a misreading.






no.

Sauron

Unnecessary. You are (1) misinterpreting his response, and you (2) slipped and acknowledged that there exist more than your forced interpretation.

Sorry; still wrong. Refusal to re-read isn't helping your case out.

Agreed; it can't be a very attractive situation for you, now can it?

1. Which is not what you claimed about me. You aren't very good at recalling your own comments.

2. And to correct you - Toto was clear that your communication failures, not my understanding, were the problem.

You posted text. But you did not address Toto's comment. Your post merely ignored Toto and ducked. Here; let's have a look:

This does not seem to answer my question. i am not too sure if it were intended to.

Yes it did. But his answer didn't give you ammunition to further your self-imposed mission of starting a fight. So you ignored his answer.

No, it answered your question - but in an adult and nuanced way that didn't give you much ammunition to start (or continue) a fight. Since it was of no use to your agenda, you pretended it wasn't answered.

It hardly takes psychoanalysis. You flatter yourself.

Uh, yes he did. And by targeting your usage of the word "not", Toto indicated where the responsibility for confusion resided.

Yes. Probably more than two, in fact.

NZSkep

nice grammar thread btw.

oh, and this summarises nicely what I was trying to convey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

xrayzed

Am I the only person who feels like he/she is reading responses generated by an ELIZA-type program?