Things that annoy the HELL out of you.

[Assume Nothing]

synonym [sin-uh-nim]  

Origin

syn·o·nym   [sin-uh-nim] Show IPA

noun

1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad. A dictionary of synonyms and their opposites, or antonyms, such as Thesaurus.com is called a thesaurus.

 

You've admitted that there's differences. In the case of inference vs. assumption, the difference is significant. Given that you're likely to overlook what I'll post, I'll put it in big writing for you.

 

The difference is reasoning and evidence, making your point moot.

[Assume Nothing]

@Assume_Nothing, Assuming isn't necessarily a bad thing, lol. You do it all the time. Maybe assuming irrationally is bad, but assuming with rationality is still assuming.

 

It depends on how you define assumption. I go by a strict definition of acceptance of a truth without a basis of (well founded) reason, or a lack of evidence.

 

I consider assumptions, by that definition, as bad reasoning. It's implied in his snide posts that inferences are bad reasoning, which is blatantly untrue.

[Hedgehog]

Every thesaurus I've looked in has inference as a synonym for assumption.

 

Omg I found one:

 

http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/assumption

[Assume Nothing]

Every thesaurus I've looked in has inference as a synonym for assumption.

 

Omg I found one:

 

http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/assumption

It's still absolutely irrelevant to the conversation until you pull up both definitions and examine the differences in meaning.

[Hedgehog]

It's still absolutely irrelevant to the conversation until you pull up both definitions and examine the differences in meaning.

Unless, of course, you choose not to be totally ridiculous.

[obfuscator]

Every thesaurus I've looked in has inference as a synonym for assumption.

 

Omg I found one:

 

http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/assumption

Because they mean practically the same thing. Something assume is incapable of understanding.

 

I'm not implying that inferences are bad reasoning, I'm implying that you're not inferring at all, you're assuming. But you refuse to admit that because you have some sort of infallibility complex, apparently.

[Assume Nothing]

Every thesaurus I've looked in has inference as a synonym for assumption.

 

Omg I found one:

 

http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/assumption

Because they mean practically the same thing. Something assume is incapable of understanding.

 

I'm not implying that inferences are bad reasoning, I'm implying that you're not inferring at all, you're assuming. But you refuse to admit that because you have some sort of infallibility complex, apparently.

Wrong. I'm simply irritated when you manipulate what I say to make your position look stronger than it really is. If you're going to criticize that my inferences are assumptions, thus implying that I'm doing something wrong, then you've got to illustrate how it makes my position worse.

 

I understand the differences between the terms - it looks like you refuse to accept that. Okay then, since you are so certain that my inferences are not inferences, but in fact, assumptions - then show me how you've come to that conclusion.

 

If you're incapable of doing so, then don't make ill-founded judgements. I like how you criticize me of having an infallibility complex when that more closely describes yourself.

 

EDIT - Oh, an appeal to ridicule, Hedgehog? Laughable that you can even dare criticize me of poor argumentation when you're doing it more-so.

[obfuscator]

I like how your comebacks are basically the equivalent of "no u".

[Assume Nothing]

I like how your comebacks are basically the equivalent of "no u".

That's absolutely irrelevant once again. Define equivalent.

 

EDIT - it's laughable how you omit anything that could actually damage your position though, obfuscator. You should rename yourself to 'Fallacious'.

[Hedgehog]

I'm going to make an assumption inference:

 

You like when people say "Dzi, you're a remarkably intelligent and capable person. I wish I could be more like you!"

 

In order to get people to say this, you try to act like you're intelligent by using complex words and not admitting that you're wrong (I'm not saying you're not intelligent, you just come off as a try-hard).

 

However, complex words make you less clear and it seems like the only purpose of them is to make your writing sound more scholarly (hint: most scholars are against the usage of these words).

 

The fact that you don't admit you're wrong just makes it look like you have no idea who you really are. You have a vision of yourself that doesn't hold up to reality.

 

And that annoys the hell out of me.

[champion]

^ Yup.

 

It also sounds like you read a few Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies so you think you can perfectly and rationally analyze everything. It's really annoying.

[obfuscator]

I'm going to make an assumption inference:

 

You like when people say "Dzi, you're a remarkably intelligent and capable person. I wish I could be more like you!"

 

In order to get people to say this, you try to act like you're intelligent by using complex words and not admitting that you're wrong (I'm not saying you're not intelligent, you just come off as a try-hard).

 

However, complex words make you less clear and it seems like the only purpose of them is to make your writing sound more scholarly (hint: most scholars are against the usage of these words).

 

The fact that you don't admit you're wrong just makes it look like you have no idea who you really are. You have a vision of yourself that doesn't hold up to reality.

 

And that annoys the hell out of me.

Great inference, I absolutely agree. You have ample evidence in the form of multiple posts and as a result this is probably true.

[Hedgehog]

^ Yup.

 

It also sounds like you read a few Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies so you think you can perfectly and rationally analyze everything. It's really annoying.

That's why it's an inference, not an assumption.

[Assume Nothing]

Great inference, I absolutely agree. You have ample evidence in the form of multiple posts and as a result this is probably true.

I'm just going to ignore this. You're not going to reason with me in the first place. You've been an absolute time-waste.

 

I'm going to make an assumption inference:

 

You like when people say "Dzi, you're a remarkably intelligent and capable person. I wish I could be more like you!"

 

In order to get people to say this, you try to act like you're intelligent by using complex words and not admitting that you're wrong (I'm not saying you're not intelligent, you just come off as a try-hard).

 

However, complex words make you less clear and it seems like the only purpose of them is to make your writing sound more scholarly (hint: most scholars are against the usage of these words).

 

The fact that you don't admit you're wrong just makes it look like you have no idea who you really are. You have a vision of yourself that doesn't hold up to reality.

 

And that annoys the hell out of me.

 

I don't consider that reasonable criticism because I've expressed that I shall work on reducing the use of overly complex/superfluous terms, but nobody would listen. It's as though you're blind to your own reality; myopic/arrogant/bigoted.

 

I do admit when I'm wrong - you're making a distorted manipulation of what I say/do. If you're going to make any personal criticisms, you better quote me instead of basing it off vague 'Oh, but you've posted 'x' before.' I'm not going to expend energy on finding these posts when you're incapable of doing so yourself.

 

I don't act like I'm intelligent at all. It would be unreasonable to suggest that if I'm doing so, I'm doing so with intention. I accept that some of my posts are unnecessarily wordy. What exactly are we disagreeing on? You, like the other people in disagreement, base everything off unstated (and often flawed) reasoning. I do point out why they're flawed, but oh, you're too blind to see it - or maybe you delete it because you understand that it's a good point, but you don't want to admit it out of an inferiority complex.

 

I never understand the clique that seems to be forming. What happened to the days when people actually read and fully understood what they were criticizing before they criticized? At least it would be a valid criticism.

 

If you're unclear about what I mean, why don't you ask? I don't understand your mentality. You have yet to pull up a single example of your recent claims.

 

EDIT @stolethepie - Hi, completely unfounded claim. Welcome to my 5paragraph lecture about how you know nothing about me.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm being criticized and scapegoated for having some knowledge in understanding of what constitutes good reasoning. You've got to love TIF.

 

EDIT - If you criticized that I'm stubborn, militant, argumentative, then I'd accept that to an extent. That's not what you're saying though, is it? Hmm? Is it?

[champion]

I'm being criticized and scapegoated for having some knowledge in understanding of what constitutes good reasoning. You've got to love TIF.

 

EDIT - If you criticized that I'm stubborn, militant, argumentative, then I'd accept that to an extent. That's not what you're saying though, is it? Hmm? Is it?

That's obviously what everyone has been criticizing you the most for. Also for using words you don't know and not accepting that you're wrong. Don't pretend like we're attacking you because we think you're good at reasoning.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm being criticized and scapegoated for having some knowledge in understanding of what constitutes good reasoning. You've got to love TIF.

 

EDIT - If you criticized that I'm stubborn, militant, argumentative, then I'd accept that to an extent. That's not what you're saying though, is it? Hmm? Is it?

That's obviously what everyone has been criticizing you the most for. Also for using words you don't know and not accepting that you're wrong. Don't pretend like we're attacking you because we think you're good at reasoning.

Hah. You've done a great job of expressing it. Quote where anyone has said 'stubborn', or something similar without the connotations of 'arrogant'. It doesn't count if you've recently edited it in either.

 

How could you gauge whether I know the words or not? Have you any proof, in the form of evidence or examples? No?

 

I've expressed multiple times that I've been wrong. Scroll up a bit and read. I deny faulty reasoning, and so far, a majority of the posts have been nothing but a critique on the twisted distortion of what I write. I've numerously identified what has been misquoted/interpreted, but oh, you're blind to it.

 

I'd like to see you admit that you're wrong. Can't do it? Then what have you got to judge me?

[champion]

I'd like to see you admit that you're wrong. Can't do it? Then what have you got to judge me?

What? I'll play by your reasoning here. How does not admitting that I'm wrong make it so that I can't judge you for being wrong? Surely you see that this is irrational.

 

 

There are such things as implications. There is such a thing as figurative language. Just because something is not expressly stated does not mean it does not exist or is not relevant to the topic at hand. You don't seem to recognize this, and this is a large part of everyone's frustration with you.

[Assume Nothing]

If this isn't criticism on having knowledge on what constitutes good/bad reasoning, then what is it? What's wrong with reading Wiki articles on improving understanding of how people commit flawed arguments? I know you're going to use evasive language, so I'm just waiting for your little response before I post a reply.

 

^ Yup.

 

It also sounds like you read a few Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies so you think you can perfectly and rationally analyze everything. It's really annoying.

[Assume Nothing]

I'd like to see you admit that you're wrong. Can't do it? Then what have you got to judge me?

What? I'll play by your reasoning here. How does not admitting that I'm wrong make it so that I can't judge you for being wrong? Surely you see that this is irrational.

 

 

There are such things as implications. There is such a thing as figurative language. Just because something is not expressly stated does not mean it does not exist or is not relevant to the topic at hand. You don't seem to recognize this, and this is a large part of everyone's frustration with you.

 

I'm merely illustrating your hypocrisy. I'm not suggesting that this makes you incorrect, but it makes you not the person to judge me because you've implied that you're logically supreme in that respect. It also implies that I'm actually wrong in the first place, which you have neither shown or proven.

 

If you admit that there are implications, then why would you deny that there are inferences? There's a thing about implicit language; it isn't enough, and is too open to (mis)interpretation that makes it so detrimental to the argument. I'm not saying that it wasn't relevant to the topic at hand - rather, I'm saying that it wasn't your point in the first place, so it wouldn't be relevant to the specific argument we were having.

 

I already realise that I'm extremely defensive in my positions, if I feel I'm being misjudged. What's wrong with it, though?

[Laikrob]

You do come off as stubborn, arrogant and trying way too hard. The fact that you counter any criticism, argument or post with an opinion different from your own with demands of proof, quotes or examples instead of actually addressing the posts... Well, it doesn't help your case.

 

I am sure you have lots of great qualities, but word fluff kills a potentially good post (and I read peer-reviewed scientific articles in several fields, so I have no problems with long words if they are needed) and you end up losing the message within the post. First rule of communication: the receiver is always right. If you are trying to get a message through to someone and they keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say, you are doing it wrong. They are not idiots, you are simply not being clear enough.

[Assume Nothing]

You do come off as stubborn, arrogant and trying way too hard. The fact that you counter any criticism, argument or post with an opinion different from your own with demands of proof, quotes or examples instead of actually addressing the posts... Well, it doesn't help your case.

 

I am sure you have lots of great qualities, but word fluff kills a potentially good post (and I read peer-reviewed scientific articles in several fields, so I have no problems with long words if they are needed) and you end up losing the message within the post. First rule of communication: the receiver is always right. If you are trying to get a message through to someone and they keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say, you are doing it wrong. They are not idiots, you are simply not being clear enough.

Or an alternate explanation: They hold a grudge against me for not accepting their flawed reasoning, thus they try to make personal attacks when I post on here, if the topic comes up. It's very clear that people do seem to hold a grudge and post before they've even fully read what I meant. In many instances, it's as clear as it could get, but arrogance seems to dominate.

 

The receiver is always right is such a flawed notion. If that was the case, then misinterpretation wouldn't exist. We all know that's not true. It doesn't matter how clear the person who delivers the message is, someone would misinterpret it. I have been clear, but no, they delete it out when quoting me. It's laughable though.

 

I'm not sure why people are holding onto the past as though it was still relevant today. I've yet to see anyone actually prove any of their bullshit with a shred of evidence. I demand it because it's necessary for settling the dispute. If they're incapable of doing so, then it's their fault. It's not my responsibility to prove your point now, is it?

[Assume Nothing]

It's funny you mention addressing the posts. How do you expect me to address a post when they haven't even shown what they mean? I demand some proof/quotes/evidence/examples so I can offer a counterargument, not to fulfill some egoistic pride thing your clique accuses me of.

[Alg]

Or an alternate explanation: They hold a grudge against me for not accepting their flawed reasoning, thus they try to make personal attacks when I post on here, if the topic comes up?

...If you want to know why people hold grudges against you, it's because of this sort of thing, this "I'm right and everyone else is against me" stance. If there's a clique of TIFers that are out to get you, it's because of this, not because they disagree with you (I'm sure some of them do agree).

 

Just something you can improve on. Not trying to offend you. Could be less blunt about it, but [insert excuse].

 

Quite frankly, that sort of thing annoys the hell out of me, and I'm not even part of that clique (Unless the Blogscape/HYT/FSC group is out to get you) :razz:

[Assume Nothing]

Or an alternate explanation: They hold a grudge against me for not accepting their flawed reasoning, thus they try to make personal attacks when I post on here, if the topic comes up?

...If you want to know why people hold grudges against you, it's because of this sort of thing, this "I'm right and everyone else is against me" stance. If there's a clique of TIFers that are out to get you, it's because of this, not because they disagree with you (I'm sure some of them do agree).

 

Just something you can improve on. Not trying to offend you. Could be less blunt about it, but [insert excuse].

 

Quite frankly, that sort of thing annoys the hell out of me, and I'm not even part of that clique (Unless the Blogscape/HYT/FSC group is out to get you) :razz:

It's evident within this thread. Is it unreasonable to suggest that everyone is actually against me at this point? It's not unreasonable at all. You're suggesting that it is unreasonable - I consider that to be a distortion of the truth.

 

I consider myself right when I have sufficient reasoning. I deny that I'm wrong if you are incapable of showing me that I'm in fact, wrong when the reasoning still stands. I admit that I'm wrong when someone does show me that I'm wrong with quotes/evidence/examples + sound reasoning. I don't make a position on something I don't know enough about.

 

It's a simple philosophy. The question here is - why is everyone incapable of quoting, giving evidence/examples, or giving an otherwise well-founded reason based on well-accepted notions? It seems that every time we go onto something relevant, someone has to make a personal criticism that bears no relevance to what we're talking about.

 

EDIT - In response to your own edit - I'm sure HYT/FSC/Blogscape does dislike me + is out to get me, but I don't make any communication with those parties anyway.