Re: OT: Regarding honesty and honor part 2 - Was- Re: Apple sued over LCD screens

In article <C27A3B37.82062%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-18B1FC.19145423052007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/23/07 6:14 PM:

In article <C27A0E45.82027%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-6A4F58.11480923052007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/23/07 10:48 AM:

Lovely for you to say so, Steve, but you did not answer the question:

Do you also agree with me that it is OK for people to look
at the facts of an event and determine for themselves if
someone has broken the law - even outside of a court of law?

I never disagreed that you should be able to do that.

Well, you almost answered... though you still are a weasel... you never
disagreed... OK, did you *agree*?

How can I have *already* agreed when you *just* asked me this question?
I'm
saying that I have never disagreed with the idea put forth in your
question.
This means that, while I have never agreed with you on it to date
(because
you JUST asked me), I do agree that you can "look" and "determine" things
outside of a court of law. Frankly, I don't see the point of the
question.

Thank you. Now you have stated you agree - not merely that you never
disagreed. A subtle difference, but I feel it is important with you to be
clear.

Being that you never asked me the question before I couldn't have ever
agreed
to it before you asked it.

Lovely... but irrelevant to my comments.

I don't know what "comments" you are referring to. What I wrote was completely
relevant to what I responded to.

We now know we agree that it is OK for people to look at the facts of an
event and determine for themselves if someone has broken the law - even
outside of a court of law

"We" never had any reason to doubt that. If you think you can show a
reason,
by all means, show it.

I am merely noting a place of agreement... not looking to play your games.

You are not "merely noting a place of agreement"... you are implying that we
"now" agree on this. The facts show that I never disagreed with the premise of
your question, which read:

"Do you also agree with me that it is OK for people to look at the facts of an
event and determine for themselves if someone has broken the law - even outside
of a court of law?"

To state that we "now" agree implies that we once disagreed. Being this is not
the case, I refuse to accept your wording that uses the word "now" regarding
this issue. Nothing tricky about it (that means your little trick didn't work;)


Let us assume you are not being a complete weasel and that you do.

What's with the weasel BS? You're asking questions and I'm answering
them.
That is a helluva lot more than you are doing.

OK, we *agree* on two points:

1) The presumption of innocence is not absolute.

Generally speaking, it's no more or less an absolute than is a
proclamation
of guilt.

Can you expand on what you mean about this? Do you mean a court finding of
guilt, a personal determination of law breaking, or something different?

No response. Does this mean you cannot explain what you mean?

2) It is OK for people to look at the facts of an event and determine
for
themselves if someone has broken the law - even outside of a court of
law

Sure, as long as you don't define the words "look" and "determine" as
anything other than what they mean.

Not sure what you are getting at, but still, good to see we agree that it
is
OK for people to look at the facts of an event and determine for
themselves
if someone has broken the law - even outside of a court of law

I never had any disagreement with anyone looking at something and making
their
own determination about it. Why you keep continually gushing like this is a
revelation is more than a bit weird.

I am noting our agreement... and wondering why you feel the need to debate
even when we agree. Oh well... that is a question you will never answer.

No, I answered it up above, in great detail. Do you need to see it again? Here:

--You are not "merely noting a place of agreement"... you are implying that we
"now" agree on this. The facts show that I never disagreed with the premise of
your question, which read:

"Do you also agree with me that it is OK for people to look at the facts of an
event and determine for themselves if someone has broken the law - even outside
of a court of law?"

To state that we "now" agree implies that we once disagreed. Being this is not
the case, I refuse to accept your wording that uses the word "now" regarding
this issue.
--

I can cut and paste it as often as you need to see it;)


Can you tell me what point you are trying to make that you think I
disagree
with? Are you just debating to debate?

I made my point... but you obviously missed it. Did you have a point in
asking me this question? If so, I fail to see what it is.

Where do you think we disagreed? If nowhere, what are you debating about?

You didn't answer the question. I'm not debating, I'm asking you a
question.
Yes, I know you only ask questions, you never answer them.

What question do you think I have not answered?

Questions... plural... and I talk about them in great detail here:

<noone-2F5434.21123823052007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I'll save you the time of having to look... this is the gist of it:

[begin quoted material]

LOL! In this very post you have even admitted you refuse to answer my first
question, which was about you going to the police and read as follows:

1 - Why are you hypocritically seen above questioning me about taking things
outside of csma when you admitted to csma that you did this very thing yourself?

Your admission that you would not answer was:
"So, what question do you think I have evaded... other than the one where you
try to re-start ancient debates that got so out of hand I contacted the police?
Sorry, Steve... not going there... even if you beg a whole lot".

See? You flatly admit you are "not going there". You can't spin this any other
way, Snit;)


The second question regarding Bush's guilt reads:

2 - Do you think it was appropriate for you to have labeled a sitting President
a war criminal and stated that he is guilty of breaking the law given that you
had the following to say about the evidence that has convinced you of his guilt:

"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."

The second question clearly did not receive an answer, either... all I got from
you on it was:

"It is absolutely reasonable to come to a conclusion about someone's guilt
based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt (evidence) but not absolute proof
(proof)". - Snit

And I'll reply with the same basic logic that pointed out that your response was
a non- answer here, too (just as I did up above). Here is what I wrote:

"For you to have "come to a conclusion" is a far different matter than you
publicly stating that conclusion as an absolute all across usenet, especially
given the fact that, just today, you have stated the following regarding
"absolute proof" ...


When Alan Baker wrote:
"Basic common sense says that, Edwin. The times when anything is ever known
beyond any doubt are very few and very far between".

You replied with:
"Exactly; they are limited to mathematical and logical proofs - other than
that there can always be *some* doubt, even if extremely remote.  There is a
reason why the courts ask for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and not
absolute proof.  If you define proof to mean absolute proof then most (if
not all) court cases are decided on the basis of no proof at all".

<C2786240.81EBC%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"

You didn't answer this question, either... and its plain for anyone to see;)

[end quoted material]



Had I ever written anything that made it appear like I was against a
person
'looking' at or 'determining' events for themselves as done outside of a
court of law I could see your reason for asking me this. Being that I
haven't ever done that, I fail to see your motive other than to try and
make
it appear that's what I've done. You care to comment on this or will you
remain the weasel you're acting like?

Ignoring your baiting...

You're the guy doing the baiting here and a poor job of it, too;)

You are welcome to think that.

It is my view you have belittled me for my sharing my conclusions (and
evidence) from my looking at various events where I concluded someone had
broken a law (was guilty of law breaking).

And then you publicly announced it in absolute fashion.

I didn't belittle you for anything... I pointed out how it's silly of you
to
state things like "Bush is guilty of breaking the law" when it's not any
more
absolute than is anything else that isn't a 'mathematical proof'.

I am not interested in rehashing old debates, Steve, nor in bringing them
up. Can you please stay focused?

You referenced "various events where" you "concluded someone had
broken a law (was guilty of law breaking)" ... claiming that I had "belittled"
you regarding it. Were you *not* referring to your Bush argument? I believe you
were doing just that... and I also believe that the lack of focus here is yours;)


If you believe otherwise I can
live with that disagreement; it is more important to me that we now agree
that people should be able to make their own determinations.

I never disagreed that a person could "look" and "determine"... not
"now"...
not ever.

Good to hear you say that.

Do you agree people should feel free to share what they determine?

Depends on who they share it with and how they share it.

Can you answer more fully and explain what you mean? I bet not - you are
being quite evasive!

Not evasive... I just feel that questions and answers should be done in a give
and take fashion. I'm only going to give you so much before I expect to get
something in return. So far, you are the one being evasive here... as I have
pointed out above in great detail. You take but you won't give.


An example:

Say I am in a store talking to a cashier and an irate customer initiates
violence and ends up killing the cashier. All of this in front of me and
I
witness the whole event. Based on all the details it is clear that the
irate customer was not in any way threatened - and say I look up the
criteria for murder and the actions clearly fit.

We seem to agree that I have the right to determine the person has
murdered
the person (and is thus actually guilty). Do you also agree I should be
able to state so?

State so where?

In the context of this discussion: in CSMA.

And in what fashion?

Honesty.

Being that you have admitted absolute proofs are limited to "mathematical and
logical proofs" it's inconsistent, if you *truly* wish to remain honest, for
you to state that a person IS guilty in an absolute fashion the way you have.

Consider... if we were to combine Alan's statement as quoted above and yours
that directly followed it (also quoted above) we would have:

'The times when anything is ever known beyond any doubt are limited to
mathematical and logical proofs'.

*It's notable that *you* put the limitation to mathematical and logical proofs",
not Alan.

So, while I can see you *believing* a person is guilty, being that you freely
admit you cannot know with absolute certainty (because, according to you, that's
" limited to mathematical and logical proofs"), it's goes outside the realm of
"Honesty" for you to state a person's guilt AS an absolute the way you have with
Bush.

You may have forgotten that you also wrote (quoted in full up above):
"... there can always be *some* doubt, even if extremely remote".

If there is always the potential for *some* doubt, you cannot say you are being
honest by putting the thing out there AS an absolute. I'm sure you get the point
by now;)




I feel it would extremely inappropriate for you to go online and post about
what you believe you saw all across the internet and state that it *IS* a
fact
that such an event occurred simply because you entertain a belief that you
saw
what you will claim to have seen.

Elsewhere you have tried to defend people speaking of accusations of rape.
How do you reconcile your different comments?

Really, Steve, a simple yes or no would do... though you can add some
explanation if you please.

I agree... you should be able to "look" at what you consider to be the
facts and then "determine" for yourself if someone has broken a law.

OK. Great.

I don't see why you are bringing this up... I have never stated
anything
other than this.

While we disagree on this... who cares?

You *don't* feel that a person should be able to look and determine for
themselves what the facts are as done outside of a courtroom? I suspect
you
meant to write that we agree. I DO care that you have asked the question
at
all as I have never indicated anything to the contrary and you damn well
know it.

You misunderstood what I wrote: we disagree that you have never stated
otherwise,

Until you show this is the case, your unsupported opinion that we 'disagree
I
have never stated otherwise' is just that, another of your unsupported
opinions.

You are welcome to think that.

Being that your opinion remains completely unsupported here, I do think that.

but that is of no importance to me as long as we are looking to
reach agreement. I am not interested in a debate about what you said in
the
past.

As I said nothing of the kind in the past there is nothing to debate on
this.

You are welcome to believe that. I will not go off topic and dig up old
quotes. There is no value in that.

Why are you continuing to discuss that which you refuse to discuss... makes no
sense. You should just drop it. Continuing on without really saying anything
makes you look dishonest.


It won't work, Snit.

What won't work, Steve?

You have clarified your views - and we have reached agreement.

We'll see how you react to my suspicion before we make that leap.

You have made it clear we have reached agreement that it is OK for people
to
look at the facts of an event and determine for themselves if someone has
broken the law - even outside of a court of law.

This possibly implies that we have been in disagreement on this topic...
this
is not the case. Like I said, this won't work. Apparently you really enjoy
wasting your time on such nonsense;)

Well, I am talking to you... what bigger waste of time can their be?

You could be talking to yourself. There... I answered another of your questions.


There still may be some murkiness as to if you agree with me that people
should be able to share their determinations.

Murkiness for you, perhaps... it's clear as a bell to me.

Then please clarify and be specific!

You are claiming that we are in agreement "now"... thereby implying that we had
previously been in some sort of disagreement. This is not the case... but you
are free to show otherwise if you feel you can. So far, this 'suggestion'
remains unsupported.


I do not care to enter some absurd meta-debate about whose fault any
misunderstanding was. I believe it was you... you believe it was me.

Uh... you're glossing over the fact that you have done more than "look"
and
"determine".

Done more? In this discussion I have not, in the context of law
breaking,
done either!

The context is not you breaking the law. I'm referring to the fact that you
did more than "look" and "determine", you stated something as an absolute.

In the context of this discussion I most certainly have not.

So you have changed your position regarding your previous absolute that Bush is
guilty of breaking the law... good to hear. I'd ask you what changed your mind
but I have a feeling you will evade that one, too;)

Again: not
going to discuss ancient debates with you in any detail. This is true even
if you keep trying to pull up those debates.

Splendid! Let's move on!

Gee, does that mean I get to ask you a question now?

Do you think you have not been able to up until now?

I don't expect you to give back what you take. I fully expect you to
continue
asking questions and avoid answering mine like you are doing elsewhere in
the
honest and honor thread I renamed. Notice that I have also renamed this
one.

I cannot stop you from saying I am not answering your questions, but I will
note our views are very different here.

Well, I am doing more than merely "saying" it... up above I offered proof that
you have done it. Naturally, you will claim my proof doesn't prove this is the
case... and, strangely, you will do so in a post where you *admit* you WON'T
talk about the very thing which you claim to have answered. Very strange, that;)


I'm figuring that you are unable to differentiate between what you have
asked me about here and making your determination public as if it is an
established fact which should be recognized by everyone... all the
while
labeling as unreasonable anyone who disagrees with your own personal
fact
finding mission.

p.s. How come you expect people to answer your questions but you are
always seen running from theirs? How does that work in your head? I
mean... how can you justify it to yourself and then look at yourself in
the mirror?

Ok, I get it: you think you answer questions and I do not.

You just said I answered your question and we could "move on".

Correct. Let me rephrase: You think you answer questions; you also think
I
do not.

I think you owe me an answer here now:

Owe? A strong word. As is my norm, however, I will gladly answer.

Can you explain the difference, as you see it, between a person 'looking'
at
the facts of an event and 'determining' for themselves if someone has
broken
the law (as done outside of a court of law) and publicly proclaiming that
a
person IS guilty of breaking the law?

Let's take my example above: the difference between looking and
determining
that the irate customer is guilty of murder and that of reporting or
sharing
that determination are not the same. Not sure what other explanation you
need for that.

That one is fine... it perfectly explains that when you believe something
is
true you feel justified in publicly reporting it as an absolute even when
you
simultaneously believe that absolutes "are limited to mathematical
and logical proofs". Alan Baker wrote:

"Basic common sense says that, Edwin. The times when anything is ever
known beyond any doubt are very few and very far between".

You replied with:

"Exactly; they are limited to mathematical and logical proofs - other than
that there can always be *some* doubt, even if extremely remote".  

<C2786240.81EBC%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I believe you that your comprehension level is weak enough where you think
there is a contradiction in there.

LOL! You are the guy that put the *limitation* in there, not Alan. You have
*obviously* "limited" "The times when anything is ever known beyond any doubt"
to *only* those times where there are "mathematical and logical proofs".

I don't expect you to admit to it... in fact, I'm counting on you not doing so;)


This gets back to my question as to if you think it is OK to
report your own determination (in this theoretical case if I could report
that the irate customer had committed murder!)

--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tchiowas utter ignorance on everything
    ... Wage Law created the Middle Class. ... It's only your sick mind that is dreaming I am. ... I speak facts, you speak ideology. ... They fared worse before the minimun wage law was passed. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Silvers "Controls" Dont Work
    ... I have proven you wrong with facts that you continue to ignore. ... Lott is an economist at the University of Chicago Law School who last ... Olin fellows are funded by the ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Tchiowas utter ignorance on everything
    ... unsubstantiated by facts, article about the poor not being poor. ... below the poverty level, *NOT* middle class. ... They fared worse before the minimun wage law was passed. ... Is this really what you understand of economics, ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Stop lying Dan Christensen
    ... Due to recent law changes he is a bit safer now, ... using Cuban data from Cuba's submission to the millennium goals achievement and the value of imports one arrives at the same figure reported by the WFP. ... You can't refute the facts reported by the WFP and others. ... I will take their word over your lies any time. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: OT: Regarding honesty and honor part 2 - Was- Re: Apple sued over LCD screens
    ... someone has broken the law - even outside of a court of law? ... guilt, a personal determination of law breaking, or something different? ... OK for people to look at the facts of an event and determine for themselves ... I never had any disagreement with anyone looking at something and making their ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)