Re: Ove Interest?

On 2/19/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:35:28 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
 

On 19 Feb 2025 18:11:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On 19 Feb 2025 17:37:28 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

>
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he
can deny a correlation.
>

>

>
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
>

...

>
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
>

>
Uneducable.
>

>
indeed.

>
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
>
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
>
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.

>
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
>
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that is committed when it
is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the
antecedent is true as Krygowski did in the following statement:
>
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
>
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
>
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
>
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
>
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
>
>
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
>

>
Indeed failure to respond certainly in my case can mean I?ve given up not
worth the Electrons and frankly it?s not going anywhere.
>
Very unlikely to be ooh gotcha he?s won that argument! Or he?s so right!
>
Clearly occasionally do learn something, which is interesting, or at least
hopefully so!
>
Roger Merriman

>
I understand your and Mr Muzi's lack of interest, but when someone
directs an attack at me and then runs away from the rebuttal, it's the
actions of a coward...  what else can it be?
>
At any rate, it needs to be pointed out.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
>

>
Frankly that’s absolutely the time to walk away and go for a bike ride/cafe
etc put down the iPad or at least the newsreader.
>
Continuing an argument which has dissolved into just name calling quite
frankly I see no reason to continue that!
>
Roger Merriman

>
The rebuttal was anything but name calling. Krygowski is the name
caller. That's his standar behavior. You note that I seldom respond to
Junior Carrington's (Zen) name calling.

 "Zen", a rather unusual nickname as it is the name of a branch of the
Buddhist religion which believes that meditation leads to Nirvana.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen

Do you really think people in think people in this forum didn't already know that?