Re: speeding

On Aug 13, 9:59 am, Ed Chilada <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:18:37 GMT, "Douglas Hall"





<douglashall13th_nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ed Chilada" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7h5pb3lhnaqeps1o53q5a4kiv18p5u21lu@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:13:05 GMT, "Douglas Hall"
<douglashall13th_nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ed Chilada" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:np5kb3pk5tplqilcncrfda608f5fm6838i@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:10:48 GMT, "Douglas Hall"
<douglashall13th_nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Have you ever consider that you may have some form of Aspergers?

Douglas, are you *really* trying to use the implication of an actual
mental illness in this discussion? That seems to be in *rather* bad
taste, and is a pretty low thing for you to resort to.

Bollocks - I genuinely asked you whether you'd considered a /condition/
that
seems to explain your method of "discussion".

And what brought on this sudden bout of altruism I wonder? <rubs chin>

I was genuinely curious. Because it's uncannily congruous.

I can only assume you are familiar with the condition in the first
place if you suggest that it was congruous. How come?

What does is matter what my "method" is? Does it have any bearing on
whether or not the content is valid?

Your content wasn't valid

Which of course it was, it was mainly your comprehension that let you
down. It's tricky to say whether this is intentional or not, only you
could know. I guess that's for the other subthread to discuss.

- and so tedious in approach it just seemed, well, a bit odd.

I'm amused that you're trying to make out some kind of general
interest in such a mental illness that you thought it compelling to
ask at this stage... Yeah sure Douglas, bull<cough>***. I'd be
surprised if anyone else is buying that. The fact is, you wheeled out
a bit of ad hominem but at such a tasteless and desperate level that
rather than ignore it as usual, I figured I'd pull you up on it and
shine a torch on it. Your subsequent flounderings in claims of genuine
interest in such conditions is of course very amusing to see - but
obviously lies all the same.

But it's not even very clever ad hominem, in fact according to
Wikipedia, it's about the most basic bit of ad hominem there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Let me quote:

"A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about person A
Therefore claim X is false"

So essentially, since you've struggled to address "claim X", you've
figured you'll go down the other route and make claims about "person
A", in the hope of discrediting "claim X".

This in itself is fairly common in usenet and is regularly the
favoured resort of those struggling with the on-topic points. You'll
notice how Steve tried all this by abandoning any effort of addressing
my points and just claiming that I was a troll and a "newsgroup
wrecker". All false and just rather silly of course. However, it
usually doesn't lower itself quite to suggesting states of mental
illness which IMO is a rather a bit crass and tasteless. A level of
scruples that would seem to have escaped you.





Are you really not capable of simply sticking to responding to the
points without trying to make out I have a mental illness?

1. I simply asled you whether you'd ever considered that you /may/ have
some
form of this /condition/.

2. I did respond to your repeated "points" which were total bollocks,
which
is why I questioned the possibility of 1.

Ah.. y'see thus effectively suggesting that the nature of my points is
borne of a mental illness.

I'm questioning whether your clear and apparent method of debating this,
could be related to /Aspergers/ of some form, yes.

What difference would it make to whether my point was right or wrong?
And therefore how would it be relevant?

This kind of ad hominem you've stooped to is a new low in this thread

More bollocks.

LOL!

I was simply attempting to understand why you've argued your
case in the way you've argued your case.

The answer is simply that I've had to. I really felt like I had to
spoon-feed step-by-step explanations to you, since you'd struggled to
understand anything more complicated that proceeded it. In fact come
to think of it, if the level of explanation I've had to resort to
reflects badly on anyone, it's actually *you*!

And I'm far from the only person to question your approach.

Who else did? I'm confident that you're the only person desperate
enough to stoop to asking whether I have a mental illness.

and is showing a new level of desperation.

What utter twaddle. Your entire thrust of argument, at this point, and the
foisting of some misapplied and broken logic, was clear to see - and
recognised by others.

Douglas, what was actually clear to see is how much you didn't (and
sadly still don't) understand the points. How you are confused and
suggesting that there was no reaction if the driver decides not to
take action etc..

I was simply curious as to whether there's some other reason for
the overly pedantic, logic dominated argument, where it's quite
unsuitable and wrongly applied.

I wonder, should I also perhaps do the same and suggest a reason for
the angry angle you took (though granted you seem to have calmed down,
which is good)? Should I suggest that perhaps things aren't so good at
home, maybe the wife's having an affair - that might explain it.
Course, I'm only *curious*...

Perhaps I should be indirectly complimented that you've been driven to
this level of desperation as some way of discrediting my points.

Be flattered by whatever takes your fancy, mate.

I didn't need to raise such a consideration to discredit your points - I
discredited them on their merits - or absolute lack of. As have others.

Pretty much everyone (yourself included), that has replied has shown
that they either don't understand the point (hence the level of
repeated explanation that gets your goat so much) or that they'd
rather *deliberately* misinterpret to avoid taking on board the point.
No-one has discredited the main point, which was always achingly
simple.

Maybe there's one of those
usenet 'laws' where the longer a discussion goes on, the more people
get accused of trolling, strawmen, mental illnesses and presumably
ultimately nazi-ism as one party, driven by anger,

I'm not driven by any anger, mate.

Oh no, but your comments say otherwise, your actions say otherwise.
Your desperation says otherwise. Sheesh, your callous use of the
unfortunate and extremely serious mental illnesses of others so
frivolously in a mere usenet petty argument says otherwise.

I though you said you didn't have such a condition?

Huh? I don't! I said "of others". Come on Douglas, I can't believe
that you're so *easily* confused. You *must* be doing this on purpose!

And besides, Aspergers is termed as a high functioning autistic condition,
not a "serious mental illness". It's a condition on the autistic spectrum,
and the "high functioning" bit is quite relelvant.

Interesting that you're so familiar with it. Have you looked up all
this since suggesting your initial diagnosis or were you already this
familiar?

There's at least the possibility that plenty of people have such conditions
that aren't recognised by them.

LOL! so I can't even deny it now! But of course, nor could anyone...

seeks to attack the
other poster ad hominem, rather than what they post.

There was no attack, I merely asked a question that would seemingly
explain a lot. Why you are getting so defensive about something, if
you're quite happy that it doesn't apply...

LOL! So now if I deny it, it must be true?

I'm struggling to understand why somebody who's been so vocal in
saying that you don't have the condition is getting his pants in such a wad.

It would seem that I have some scruples and you do not. Hence you
don't seem to understand how low it is to use the genuine mental
problems of others in such a frivolous manner in a mere usenet
argument. I would consider it extremely tasteless and off-limits.
Clearly you do not, to such an extent that you are "struggling to
understand", why someone else might.

Sheesh Douglas, you're not exactly coming across like a nice person
here. Granted it's probably not your aim, but blimey try and show some
level of decency, it's only a usenet discussion after all. How low are
you willing to go? Just how desperate are you?

I'm quite happy that it doesn't apply, I just think it's relevant and
perhaps important that I point out how reprehensible (and *desperate*
of course) your actions are in this regard.

I simply questioned whether you'd considered the possibility. That's all.. I
didn't say, "You're fucking mental." So what's with all the whining - you
say it doesn't apply, so what's with all this protracted defence and hand
wringing?

Oh I'm just enjoying pointing out how desperate an act it was on your
part. I think it's important that people appreciate how low you're
sinking and how much ad hominem you're willing to attempt in order to
attack me and therefore try and attack my points without actually
directly addressing them. I think to point out how often you're doing
this is to actually point out the lack of confidence you have in your
POV. I believe that most ad hominem attacks generally backfire because
of this. Sure, you didn't literally say "You're fucking mental", but
it would have backfired all the same.

Why do you know about Aspergers in the first place anyway?

There's countless subjects and things that I've picked up in life. I
couldn't give you any particular reason why I know about certain subjects,
other than simply having read about things over time.

Well like you say, you're not a doctor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »

If someone came to me to settle an arguement s/he was having with
another, I asked the first person to set out the arguement of the
other person.
If they can't explain the case of the opponent, assuming that it was
clear, they have no right to have faith that their case is solid.

It cut down on those coming to me. I don't know if it was that they
thought I wouldn't back them or maybe they realized that the other
party had a point.

.

Loading