Re: Shall We All Leave At Once?


"Phil Bowles" <philipbowles2003@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f7a42bd6-5564-462c-95c2-8eff819c1b93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 16 May, 17:35, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Phil Bowles" <philipbowles2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5cccdb88-d71d-482d-be26-46ac71d12377@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





> On 16 May, 13:57, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Phil Bowles" <philipbowles2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>>news:2c2e5563-0fa6-47b5-be30-5397ac0455f0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > On 16 May, 11:57, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> <stevesi...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >>news:5a14179c-aff3-40e6-b9cf-e1fa7da79645@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> > It's a bit ***, this Usenet Group. Time has passed. The Doctor >> >> > is
>> >> > the
>> >> > winner of some prize that matters to him alone. Aggy is always
>> >> > right,
>> >> > in a fly's eye. TopPoster is... well, whatever.

>> >> TOSH!

>> > JAPBIRD!

>> >> Yads has always been here and I've been here for over a decade so >> >> the
>> >> problems with this group are nothing to do with us. TopPoster is an
>> >> obsessive compulsive spamming troll.

>> > Hey, Aggy's got a point (about TopPoster anyway)...

>> > At least Yads tries to comment on the
>> >> actual series. The facts are that 95% of the time I am right and >> >> its
>> >> those
>> >> opposing me who are wrong.

>> > ...and then he ruins it. Still, it's funny.

>> > The should stop posting on subjects then know
>> >> nothing about such as ancient history, religion and production >> >> matters
>> >> otherwise I will continue to make fools of them.

>> > See what I mean? Oh, I do so love irony.

>> >> Now lets get down to the real problem. People who try to defend RTD >> >> no
>> >> matter what, and what's worse its exactly the same people who want >> >> to
>> >> lick
>> >> RTDs arse

>> > But at least they try to comment on the actual series...

>> No. All they do is slag of other posters who disagree with them or >> think
>> the
>> new series is not as good as the original or that RTD is crap.

> No, no, can't say I've read anything from anyone like that. Care to
> give any examples? There are people who defend Davies against
> irrelevant personal criticism about his sexuality and the like, but I

And way do they waste their time doing that? It's an issue that doesn't
concern them in any way but these PC LOONIES take it upon themselves to
intervene when no one else is bothered.

Read the above again - "defend Davies against irrelevant personal
criticism". In other words, whoever's criticising him is plainly
bothered, and frequently homophobic.

No. I was talking about the people defending RTD. The reference to PC LOONIES should have given you a clue who I was referring to.


>> > Aggy, I think we'll have to add punctuation to the list of concepts
>> > you struggle with (you know, along with English, Greek, linguistics,
>> > religion, history ancient or recent, television production,
>> > philosophy, logic, drama, physics, biology...) I have to say I've >> > been

>> That just proves your ignorance. I know what I am talking about but >> you
>> just
>> slag off anything you don't understand

> What a bizarre world you live in, where STUPID IGNORANT, FOOL and so
> forth don't represent "slagging off" but patient criticism of bad
> arguments does.

They are statements of fact.

You've really got to learn the difference between "fact" and "opinion"
- not to mention between "fact" and "insult".

What I post are facts, always substantiated. What you post are opinions, mostly unsubstantiated.




> and people who talk about subjects
>> you have no comprehension of.

> You are funny, I'll give you that. I shouldn't give you this advice,
> as it will only spoil my fun in the unlikely event you heed it, but
> it's a good idea, when you find that absolutely everyone else is
> pointing out that you're mistaken about something, to go back and
> check that you have actually understood it correctly yourself rather
> than assuming everyone else is wrong. I will admit, your commentaries
> can be a fascinating educational experience as they prompt me to check
> the material you're referring to to check the veracity of your claims.
> But alarm bells should start to ring given just how many times I've
> checked and pointed out that you've completely misunderstood the
> source material, or are using it to claim someone said something other

Nope. You've never understood the source material, source language or
anything. You try to pretend you know about subjects you not only don't
understand but have never studied. All you do is parrot ignorant common
beliefs which are totally wrong and won't accept being corrected by people
who have actually studied the subjects and the source texts and source
languages and religions.

As I've told you before, sophistry won't let you get away with sloppy
thinking. If you manifestly (and repeatedly) get things wrong, and

Except I haven't got things wrong. You just think I'm wrong because you don't understand and have never studied the subject and what I say goes against your ignorant uneducated conditioning.

then claim to have studied that subject, that doesn't make people
think "Ah, he's an *expert*. He must be right so I should back down".
It makes them think, quite rightly, "He's studied this and is still
spouting this crap? Must be a bit too dim to have taken his training
onboard". You claim that one of the things you've studied is a science
subject, so you ought to be especially familiar with the concept of
providing evidence to back up your claims to expertise, not expect to
get away with spouting nonsense because people will uncritically
accept that you're an "expert".

More parroting of your nonsensical conditioning. In science if you make a claim then the claim stands on its own merit until proven wrong. One does not have to substantiate anything unless you are claiming that something someone else has said is wrong, in which case you have to demonstrate why it is wrong. If what you say goes beyond what is said by an existing theory and is supported by what is already known about the existing theory then your theory is as valid as the existing theory itself until proven otherwise. What you then do is subject your theory to test to demonstrate its validity and modify it if it fails a test so that it does not fail it again.


> than what they actually did. Most of this material is pretty widely
> accessible, and you get caught out remarkably easily. And trying to
> cover your mistakes by waving around a claim of expertise is just
> sophistry.

I have not covered up any mistakes. I have admitted any mistakes I have
made.

So, have you admitted what a pronoun is yet?


It is obvious I got it confuse with proper noun.

>> > thinking they themselves are better than
>> >> anyone else and qualified to challenge the experts on any subject
>> >> simply

>> > I will give you this, though - you have an *excellent* grasp of >> > irony.

>> > Either that, or you're throwing a tantrum because people are always
>> > pointing out where your reasoning or grasp of facts are flawed - >> > best

>> No. These people are just showing their ignorance of the facts. Just >> like
>> they attack the Doctor Who authors and members of the Restoration Team
>> and
>> prominent fans and website creators they attack anyone with competence
>> who
>> brings up any subject or fact they are ignorant of.

> So, just sour grapes then. The only criticism I've heard levelled has
> been against a website owner who supposedly claims to have sourced
> missing episodes and then fails to deliver - no idea how accurate that

He never made the claims you attribute to him.

I'm not attributing anything, merely reported what other people have
said that I've noticed in thread titles - note the part where I say
"no idea how accurate that is".

> is, and I don't have any interest in the subject. As for you "bringing
> up any subject or fact they are ignorant of" (since you're the only
> person you credit as being "anyone of competence").

Lets take the subject of the word "homosexual".

Yes, let's. Note the apostrophe.

I made the valid point that
it doesn't mean what you think it does

You made that claim. It was demonstrated not to be a valid point by

No it was not.

not only directing you to the actual meaning of the word, but

There was no such directing. What I was directed to was to a dictionary which carried the wrong meaning of the word. I already demonstrated why it was wrong. I have therefore done everything that is requited by the scientific method. I further wont on the propose an alternative word which did mean what you thought "homosexual" meant and subjected it to tests to demonstrate its validity. These tests showed that it was not completely valid so I modified it. Idioanthrpinogenogamotic is the word you need to use.

explaining in detail to you that the logic you were using to define
the word - that it was defined as the meanings of each of the
individual words it was derived from - is flawed. Someone even gave an

And you never managed to convincingly do that. All that you did was to express a personal opinion.

example of a case where the literal meanings of the source words bear
no relation to what the word itself actually describes, a point you
ignored completely - the case was "video recorder".

And your point is what? That we need a new word for "video recorder"?


Moreover, the one valid point you made in that thread is that the word
"homosexual" is NOT derived from the Greek for "same", the derivation
was from the Latin for "man". Yes, the word was later applied also to
lesbians, but that didn't change its derivation to Greek, just meant
the word itself had become divorced from its literal etymology.

No. Someone changed it's etymology from Latin-Latin to Greek-Latin and got it wrong. If you remember how this whole debate began a year ago, I claimed "homosexual" was from the Latin Homo meaning Man and Sexualis meaning Pertaining to Sex, and then someone corrected me saying that Homo was from the Greek meaning Same, and then I proceeded to show that if that was the case then the meaning of the word was nonsense.


but all you do is parrot out ignorant
dictionaries without actually considering the meaning of the word itself.

"Ignorant dictionaries", eh? You really need to find out just what a
dictionary is.

Do you know what Ignorant means?


You have no competence whatsoever in either Greek or Latin and you slag off
the people that do. The same goes for ancient religion or history. You have
never studied a primary or secondary text in your life let alone one in the
original language

I can assure you've I read many secondary history texts in their
original English; some primary ones too...


Obviously nothing to do with ancient history then if they are secondary texts and their original language is English since most of the secondary text pertaining to ancient history are either in Greek or Latin or Aramaic.

and when someone who has tells you what they actually say
you refuse to accept their authority

Yes, it's this thing called critical analysis, something you ought to
be aware of if you ever were trained as a scientist. You see, when an
apparent "authority" demonstrates a poor grasp of their subject
matter, their claims become suspect. You can shout as much as you like
about being an "authority" or an "expert", but I'll tell you once
again - attaining the status of an expert requires demonstrating
expertise, not just saying "I'm an expert". And even if accepted as an
expert your interpretation would still be open to critique. You may
rattle off your half-understood memories of Plato and Aristotle,
refusing to acknowledge that anything they say could possibly be a
value judgment rather than a fact or even, gasp, *incorrect* (even if
you were accurately representing what they said, which when it came to
points you were called out on you invariably weren't), but no semi-
competent scientist or philosopher would demonstrate that sort of
unthinking obeisance to an authority figure.

So you are still reeling from when I showed using copious quotes from the source texts that you knew nothing about Plato or what he actually said, let alone actually read him. All you had done was to read someone else's personal opinion which was based on someone else's personal opinion who never read the original texts either and then parroted it out as your personal opinion. Wikipedia was it?


>> > advice is for you to heed your own about not posting on subjects you
>> > know nothing about. I'll give you credit - you know a lot about
>> > classic Who (if it makes you feel better to describe yourself as
>> > "qualified to talk about that subject" or an "expert" rather than a
>> > nerd).

>> >> because they worship RTD and the new series.

>> > You're the one who keeps giving it 7-10 out of 10...

>> No I don't.

> Okay, 7-9 out of 10 then - wasn't there one episode you said you'd
> given 9 rather than 10 because the Doctor wasn't serious enough or
> some such nonsense?

When was the last time I gave an episode 9 for this season? The highest mark
I've awarded was 8.

Never said it was this season, but certainly in the new series. And
what's the lowest you've given? 5? 6? As someone who regards the new

Minus infinity to Fear Her.

series as generally superior in every respect to the vast majority of
the old series, I'd rate an episode like Partners of Crime 2 or at
most 3 out of 10. And I don't think there's been an episode so far
this season I'd give an 8.

Then again, that might have something to do with my perspective on Who
in general - the fans who rate new Who below the old series generally
rate that series very highly, and even a fairly good opinion of the
new series might not be as high. Since I start from the basis that the
old series was enjoyable crap, the bar's set much lower - a pretty low-
rated episode of the new series can still beat the old one.

Phil

.

Loading