commentary

Someone shoot that PC bitch on the supers "Experts" team PLEASE

 

Be careful what you say Gerry.

Theo

 

Why don't you be Frank and he can be Furter

 

Or one of you could be Frank and the other, Ernest


Cheers

 

Are straw men those fake identities this newsgroup seems to be full of?
(of which this newsgroup is full?)

A straw is something you suck with.

 

That would cause an argument about the importance of being Ernest

Theo

 

You can be Frank and Ernest, but if you're not Ernest, you have no
credibility.

Theo

 

Ouch; that was frank!

 

Yeah, but logic students need to get out in the real world instead of
hiding in dark corridors in tweed jackets.
Reverse that supposition. "She has generally been wrong before, but
she might be right this time". Which one am I going to trust? I'll go
with credibility. There are no guarantees but I'll take my chances on
the first option.

Kev

 

My parents chose my name, I live with it. I do not care what ancient
meaning applies to my name. I see no need to adopt the name of a long-
dead Greek philosopher because I'm afraid of someone thinking my real
name has derogatory connotations of German soldiers or of being very
badly built.

Theo

 

Surely no-one who has a blog has any credibility at all.

You're a legend mate.
Beer? Or are you already on the plonk?

Theo

 

Checks Harris Tweed jacket is still hanging in the wardrobe.... OK.

Theo

 

Sometimes engaging in a logical fallacy can be an acceptable risk. It
depends on whether the decision requires irrefutable evidence, beyond
reasonable doubt evidence, or balance of probabilities evidence. Logic
really only deals with the first case, but the real world engages with the
other two all the time, and takes risks accordingly.

So to say 'She has always been right in the past, so she is probably right
now' is acceptable on balance of probability. It is definitely not
acceptable as irrefutable evidence. So whilst it is a logical fallacy, it
is not an unreasonable basis for some decisions.

What standard of accuracy need to be applied to the decision at hand?
Whether to eat at a restaurant she recommends, or whether to condemn an
accused suspect to death?

Potential consequence can play a role in determining how strenuously we
apply tests to the information used in making decisions, and therefore how
strenuously we apply logical standards to those decisions.

P

 

Paging Biker Betty to the thread


G-S

 

The said lass is far from stupid and she's an absolute stunner in my book.
She appeals to me a lot more than the previous Box Head

Nothing wrong with a bit of glamour I reckon. I'm also in favour of keeping
umbrella girls and promo girls and any attractive girl on or near anything
associated with motorcycles.

Biggus you may prefer to look and listen to fellas and that's fair enough,
just be a little considerate of the hetro's amongst us.

Capt. A. L.

 

The said lass is far from stupid and she's an absolute stunner in my book.
Looks dont = brains...

didnt see the last one, but I find it hard to imagine anyone dumber.

Just let her stand in the background, instead of pretending to be an
EXPERT.

so you'd be happy with kerrie ann kennelly and jeanie little
commentating then? I'd stick with ... I dont really know who is any
good anymore.

 

LOL - credibility as what? The reasons people blog are many and varied...

betty

 

Which is what I hate about your "logic". If someone has been right 99
times out of 100 and the other person has been right 1 time out of
100, I really couldn't give a **** about a philosophical discussion as
to who has been "logically" right. I'm going with the one with
experience. Feel fee to take your chances in the other direction.

Kev

 

Any Emu stains on it?

Kev

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So why waste (our) time trying to argue with them?