Tip.It times - 3rd October 2010

[stonewall337]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, its a stunning similarity to you and your pro-efficiency buddys bashing the author.

 

Its really just a group of people against another group of people, i'm not seeing the problem here.

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

I think you're getting a bit mixed up. I didn't 'call for my friends'. Wingless is on the Times, and edited the article, he's going to have an opinion on it. Miss_Suzumiya came when I was talking to her and told her that I was having problems with the Times.

 

So I'd like to say that I take offence to the idea that my friends come 'running to my defence'. I didn't ask them to, and suggesting that only people who aren't my friends are allowed to think I'm being treated unfairly is, well, unfair.

 

 

STRAW MAN DETECTED.

 

Obt never said you called for your friends, he just said that they came, because they always do when criticism of your work is in any way present. As well, they never give any reason why criticism shouldn't be given, other then "OMG ITS NOT A BIG DEAL". Since you are using a straw man, your whole argument falls apart.

 

I also don't see where you got the quote "Call for my friends". It seems non-existent, and a figment of your imagination. If it does exist, it isn't in this quote, or in this train of debate, as is as such irrelevant to this particular train of debate.

 

Now do you see why I continue to complain about poor quality of the Times, when such simple logical fallacies are continually perpetrated.

 

As such, any offense you may have taken on my statement is either based on your own inference, as I never said either of the quotes attributed to me, or else due to improper reading comprehension of the statement.

 

In this case, I believe offense should be taken by me, whereas you have no grounds for such logically, as not only did you create COMPLETELY fake quotes, but also evolved yourself in libel, due to said false quotes.

 

I, also, fail to see your point. In one case, where it could be said I came to Obt's defense, not only did I maintain an objective standpoint, but pointed out (logically) what was truly meant by said statement, (below)

 

[hide]

Gota say this. Obt actually never said that training any skill for 200 hours was/wasn't fun. Rather, he asked you to prove (Scientifically) that it is/isn't. One can assume that, for most people, without external stimuli (books, movies, skype, etc) it would be boring. But assumptions aren't what real math, or science, is based on. That is, unless formulating a hypotheses, which is partially an assumption currently lacking proof.

 

The argument made by the OP reminds me exactly of a "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"type of fallacy.

 

Some may find it fun, most would probably find it boring. The point is rather that you can't prove "fun", scientifically, or say what others enjoy.

 

See, it is easy to challenge one's stance if you chose a similar, but different viewpoint to attack. That is known as a straw man.

 

Personally, I'd say Obt is mentally challenged (more so then he is already since he lives in Cali... <3: ) if he DID enjoy training fishing for 200 hours, with nothing else to keep him occupied.

 

But then again, that isn't, and wasn't the point of his statement.

 

Now, I think THIS poll has merit, in and of itself, although the outcome is probably quite easy to predict. However, basing it on a fallacy is quite an easy way to skew the results.

 

OT: Hell No, fishing is boring.

 

And fishing in RS is probably more exciting, you catch more...lol

[/hide]

[Wingless]

Now do you see why I continue to complain about poor quality of the Times, when such simple logical fallacies are continually perpetrated.

 

Sorry, I don't see Racheya's previous post as part of the times - considering it is a reply, not an article. What one says outside of the line of work, that work being the articles, does not contribute to the quality of the Editorial Panel within itself. That's like saying that a Lawyer is bad at his job because he made one simple mistake. Since when is a mistake not allowed?

 

Also, as such, since when were people in the Times not allowed to have an opinion? I didn't come running, I gave my opinion on how everyone is recieving this article - that being pretty pathetically, I must say. Should I expect the Secret Police to visit me tonight, considering no opinion is allowed in the nation of Tip.It Times readers?

[Assume Nothing]

[hide]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, its a stunning similarity to you and your pro-efficiency buddys bashing the author.

 

Its really just a group of people against another group of people, i'm not seeing the problem here.

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

I think you're getting a bit mixed up. I didn't 'call for my friends'. Wingless is on the Times, and edited the article, he's going to have an opinion on it. Miss_Suzumiya came when I was talking to her and told her that I was having problems with the Times.

 

So I'd like to say that I take offence to the idea that my friends come 'running to my defence'. I didn't ask them to, and suggesting that only people who aren't my friends are allowed to think I'm being treated unfairly is, well, unfair.

 

 

STRAW MAN DETECTED.

 

Obt never said you called for your friends, he just said that they came, because they always do when criticism of your work is in any way present. As well, they never give any reason why criticism shouldn't be given, other then "OMG ITS NOT A BIG DEAL". Since you are using a straw man, your whole argument falls apart.

 

I also don't see where you got the quote "Call for my friends". It seems non-existent, and a figment of your imagination. If it does exist, it isn't in this quote, or in this train of debate, as is as such irrelevant to this particular train of debate.

 

Now do you see why I continue to complain about poor quality of the Times, when such simple logical fallacies are continually perpetrated.

[/hide]

I would almost agree with you. But here is the thing - Assumptions are present, but never stated. So I'd disagree with your second paragraph.

[Troacctid]

I also don't see where you got the quote "Call for my friends".

 

Obviously:

[hide]

 

...Racheya is secretly a Pokémon.[/hide]

[stonewall337]

[hide]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, its a stunning similarity to you and your pro-efficiency buddys bashing the author.

 

Its really just a group of people against another group of people, i'm not seeing the problem here.

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

I think you're getting a bit mixed up. I didn't 'call for my friends'. Wingless is on the Times, and edited the article, he's going to have an opinion on it. Miss_Suzumiya came when I was talking to her and told her that I was having problems with the Times.

 

So I'd like to say that I take offence to the idea that my friends come 'running to my defence'. I didn't ask them to, and suggesting that only people who aren't my friends are allowed to think I'm being treated unfairly is, well, unfair.

 

 

STRAW MAN DETECTED.

 

Obt never said you called for your friends, he just said that they came, because they always do when criticism of your work is in any way present. As well, they never give any reason why criticism shouldn't be given, other then "OMG ITS NOT A BIG DEAL". Since you are using a straw man, your whole argument falls apart.

 

I also don't see where you got the quote "Call for my friends". It seems non-existent, and a figment of your imagination. If it does exist, it isn't in this quote, or in this train of debate, as is as such irrelevant to this particular train of debate.

 

Now do you see why I continue to complain about poor quality of the Times, when such simple logical fallacies are continually perpetrated.

[/hide]

I would almost agree with you. But here is the thing - Assumptions are present, but never stated. So I'd disagree with your second paragraph.

 

 

One can't use assumptions, inference, or implications in a court of law, or debate, to hold anywhere near the same gravity which actual statements hold. You can't ASSUME what I meant with the same degree of certainty as what I actually said. As such, assuming someone perpetrated a crime is grounds for surveillance, and evidence gathering, but not for committing to jail as guilty.

[Racheya]

[hide]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, its a stunning similarity to you and your pro-efficiency buddys bashing the author.

 

Its really just a group of people against another group of people, i'm not seeing the problem here.

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

I think you're getting a bit mixed up. I didn't 'call for my friends'. Wingless is on the Times, and edited the article, he's going to have an opinion on it. Miss_Suzumiya came when I was talking to her and told her that I was having problems with the Times.

 

So I'd like to say that I take offence to the idea that my friends come 'running to my defence'. I didn't ask them to, and suggesting that only people who aren't my friends are allowed to think I'm being treated unfairly is, well, unfair.

 

 

STRAW MAN DETECTED.

 

Obt never said you called for your friends, he just said that they came, because they always do when criticism of your work is in any way present. As well, they never give any reason why criticism shouldn't be given, other then "OMG ITS NOT A BIG DEAL". Since you are using a straw man, your whole argument falls apart.

 

I also don't see where you got the quote "Call for my friends". It seems non-existent, and a figment of your imagination. If it does exist, it isn't in this quote, or in this train of debate, as is as such irrelevant to this particular train of debate.

 

Now do you see why I continue to complain about poor quality of the Times, when such simple logical fallacies are continually perpetrated.

[/hide]

I would almost agree with you. But here is the thing - Assumptions are present, but never stated. So I'd disagree with your second paragraph.

 

 

One can't use assumptions, inference, or implications in a court of law, or debate, to hold anywhere near the same gravity which actual statements hold. You can't ASSUME what I meant with the same degree of certainty as what I actually said. As such, assuming someone perpetrated a crime is grounds for surveillance, and evidence gathering, but not for committing to jail as guilty.

This isn't the court of law... I'm not on trial here. No matter how much it feels like I am. This is JUST a discussion topic for an article on Runescape... :-|

[Erewhon2]

As a debater, and as someone involved in local politics, one of the tricks one need's to learn early is to argue both sides. It isn't rare in debate to have to argue both affirmative AND negative. We shouldn't need 2 authors.

 

Well that explains a lot, after all politicians are well known for slinging mud at their percieved adversaries. And from the other perspective I've not seen you arguing both sides either.

 

 

Its easy, if you don't have a preconceived bias, which is not incredibly hard to achieve, if one can't make up his mind which side to come down on. Otherwise, you are right. If you already has his mind made up, there can be a bias, but it really depends on the author.

 

Everyone has a preconcieved bias and natural prejudice, usually directed by their upbringing and life experiences. It takes a strong personality and maturity to stand back and be truly objective, not something that I have seen evidenced by your posts in any way.

 

 

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

 

Is this an attempt to justify your arrogant and offensive attitude? I have no idea who Racheya is, other than a member of the Tip.it team, however I will not stand back and watch behaviour of this nature that is completely out of preportion to the circumstances.

 

What do I, or others need to evidence? That the article was great? That I agree with everything she put in there? Actually the article was fine for a friendly and fun site to put forward about a game. Your evidence is bias towards expectations way beyond was was needed or required. As has previously been stated by others, this is not an article in the Financial Times or Guardian. In my opinion you (and others) need to have a serious reality check.

[stonewall337]

As a debater, and as someone involved in local politics, one of the tricks one need's to learn early is to argue both sides. It isn't rare in debate to have to argue both affirmative AND negative. We shouldn't need 2 authors.

 

Well that explains a lot, after all politicians are well known for slinging mud at their percieved adversaries. And from the other perspective I've not seen you arguing both sides either.

 

 

Its easy, if you don't have a preconceived bias, which is not incredibly hard to achieve, if one can't make up his mind which side to come down on. Otherwise, you are right. If you already has his mind made up, there can be a bias, but it really depends on the author.

 

Everyone has a preconcieved bias and natural prejudice, usually directed by their upbringing and life experiences. It takes a strong personality and maturity to stand back and be truly objective, not something that I have seen evidenced by your posts in any way.

 

 

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

 

Is this an attempt to justify your arrogant and offensive attitude? I have no idea who Racheya is, other than a member of the Tip.it team, however I will not stand back and watch behaviour of this nature that is completely out of preportion to the circumstances.

 

What do I, or others need to evidence? That the article was great? That I agree with everything she put in there? Actually the article was fine for a friendly and fun site to put forward about a game. Your evidence is bias towards expectations way beyond was was needed or required. As has previously been stated by others, this is not an article in the Financial Times or Guardian. In my opinion you (and others) need to have a serious reality check.

 

Another straw man, the initial 2 quotes were simply in response to the idea of dual-author articles, and were in no way relating to the current times article. Maybe you should try and learn more about a certain quote before using it out of context. Just a tip. As well, the 3rd quote you used was directly pointed out as applying ONLY to the parties described, not you. As such, you don't fit the defined parties, and thus, it doesn't apply to you. I thought that was fairly obvious.

 

@Racheya. ONCE AGAIN you 100% missed my point. Why bother explaining anything to you when you JUST DON'T GET IT.

 

My point wasn't that you were "on trial". Rather that you were inferring things which weren't stated, and then basing your argument on inferences, instead of actual facts. That is called a LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

Not to mention you refused to either show where my (alleged) quotes were from, etc, or explain yourself, and your false quotes.

 

"its just a discussion topic"...Geez. That type of argument is overused. In fact, it is nothing more then an excuse, where one claims that poor job was poorly done because "its just so and so" or "it doesn't matter".

 

I've written several guest articles so far, and scrapped everyone. Why? Because I wasn't happy with them.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Another straw man, the initial 2 quotes were simply in response to the idea of dual-author articles, and were in no way relating to the current times article. Maybe you should try and learn more about a certain quote before using it out of context. Just a tip. As well, the 3rd quote you used was directly pointed out as applying ONLY to the parties described, not you. As such, you don't fit the defined parties, and thus, it doesn't apply to you. I thought that was fairly obvious.

 

@Racheya. ONCE AGAIN you 100% missed my point. Why bother explaining anything to you when you JUST DON'T GET IT.

 

My point wasn't that you were "on trial". Rather that you were inferring things which weren't stated, and then basing your argument on inferences, instead of actual facts. That is called a LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

Is all this venom because you didn't get your article posted in the times?

[stonewall337]

Another straw man, the initial 2 quotes were simply in response to the idea of dual-author articles, and were in no way relating to the current times article. Maybe you should try and learn more about a certain quote before using it out of context. Just a tip. As well, the 3rd quote you used was directly pointed out as applying ONLY to the parties described, not you. As such, you don't fit the defined parties, and thus, it doesn't apply to you. I thought that was fairly obvious.

 

@Racheya. ONCE AGAIN you 100% missed my point. Why bother explaining anything to you when you JUST DON'T GET IT.

 

My point wasn't that you were "on trial". Rather that you were inferring things which weren't stated, and then basing your argument on inferences, instead of actual facts. That is called a LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

Is all this venom because you didn't get your article posted in the times?

Nope, as I stated before, I haven't submitted the ones which I've written, as I wasn't happy with them. As well, due to college, work, and real life, I haven't been able to either re-write, or write, more. Not to mention it would most likely be a futile attempt, as from past experience anything "official" on TIF is far more dependent on inter-politics then on any actual skill.

 

As well, I don't see any "venom". That is, unless pointing out errors is now called Venom in these politically correct days...

[Erewhon2]

Another straw man, the initial 2 quotes were simply in response to the idea of dual-author articles, and were in no way relating to the current times article. Maybe you should try and learn more about a certain quote before using it out of context. Just a tip.

 

@Racheya. ONCE AGAIN you 100% missed my point. Why bother explaining anything to you when you JUST DON'T GET IT.

 

My point wasn't that you were "on trial". Rather that you were inferring things which weren't stated, and then basing your argument on inferences, instead of actual facts. That is called a LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

Firstly don't make references that only you understand, what on earth is a "straw man"?

 

As for the quotes, are you saying they were 'off topic'? They appeared to have a lot of relevance to the arguement you are maintaining (I won't dignify your responses by calling them part of a debate). As for providing me with a tip, no thank you, I'm as likely to take advice from you as I would Nick Leeson on financial advice, and I would suggest Racheya takes the same stance. :grin:

 

As for you last point, I reiterate....take a reality check!

[stonewall337]

Another straw man, the initial 2 quotes were simply in response to the idea of dual-author articles, and were in no way relating to the current times article. Maybe you should try and learn more about a certain quote before using it out of context. Just a tip.

 

@Racheya. ONCE AGAIN you 100% missed my point. Why bother explaining anything to you when you JUST DON'T GET IT.

 

My point wasn't that you were "on trial". Rather that you were inferring things which weren't stated, and then basing your argument on inferences, instead of actual facts. That is called a LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

Firstly don't make references that only you understand, what on earth is a "straw man"?

 

As for the quotes, are you saying they were 'off topic'? They appeared to have a lot of relevance to the arguement you are maintaining (I won't dignify your responses by calling them part of a debate). As for providing me with a tip, no thank you, I'm as likely to take advice from you as I would Nick Leeson on financial advice, and I would suggest Racheya takes the same stance. :grin:

 

As for you last point, I reiterate....take a reality check!

 

 

Wow, Straw man is a very well known logical fallacy. A little research would have shown that to you.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Straw+man+fallacy

[n_odie]

Guys, I tried to ask that we stay on topic, but this thread isn't improving.

 

Going to go ahead and lock it, feel free to pm me with any concerns. :)