This seems to be happening a whole lot more than it should

[pcs]

No-one's going to question it and no-one doubts it, so it's factual.

 

Surprisingly, we won't disagree that claims to fact depend a large part on the claims popularity.

 

Acording to the link you posted, an ad hominem fallacy is has the "basis of some irrelevant fact about the author" and as it was a direct and factual awnser to your question, it was not irrelevant thus not an ad hominem.

 

"Don't feed the troll" was in direct response to what?

[pcs]

uh huh. one of my uni friends scored "retarded"(68) in his last IQ test but i'd say hes just as intelligent as me and i scored 120 on that same test.

 

Which has little to do with the fact that IQ is a positive predictor of educational success.

 

I severely doubt that IQ tests are even remotely accurate.

 

Severian made a similar point relevant here regarding any science expressing confidence in its theories short of those in typically produced by the particle physics community.

[Aardvark]

uh huh. one of my uni friends scored "retarded"(68) in his last IQ test but i'd say hes just as intelligent as me and i scored 120 on that same test.

 

I severely doubt that IQ tests are even remotely accurate.

 

I've taken several IQ tests and each time i've got wildly varying results. They seem to be seriously limited in usefulness.

[ydoaPs]

"Don't feed the troll" was in direct response to what?

you-being a troll

 

 

damn, i did it again

[pcs]

you-being a troll

 

 

damn' date=' i did it again[/quote']

 

So by Y's own admission, it was not in direct response to any argument made.

[the tree]

Surprisingly, we won't disagree that claims to fact depend a large part on the claims popularity.

Fine, we'll do it scientifically then.

Hypothesis: pcs is a troll.

Evidence: All above posts by pcs.

Proposed test: Inspect the following three posts by pcs for trolling.

"Don't feed the troll" was in direct response to what?

Since what you accused of being an ad honieum was: "lets see, you are a troll. that's where it came from...", that was a big fat and seemingly deliberate strawman.

But, like yourdad' said, it was in response to you being a trool.

[pcs]

Fine' date=' we'll do it scientifically then.

[u']Hypothesis:[/u] pcs is a troll.

Evidence: All above posts by pcs.

Proposed test: Inspect the following three posts by pcs for trolling.

 

Doesn't look like your hypothesis holds up.

 

Since what you accused of being an ad honieum was: "lets see, you are a troll. that's where it came from...", that was a big fat and seemingly deliberate strawman.

 

Where did I describe that statement in particular as being an ad hom?

 

But, like yourdad' said, it was in response to you being a trool.

 

So you agree, it's an ad hom.

[swansont]

Bush-Cheney Reelect was active in 2003. And how are you connecting this fluff to the issue of when Deutsch's resume was issued and transmited?

 

And what does the Reelect have to do with him being hired by NASA in 2005? The question is when he sent the resume to NASA. If he sent it in 2002-3, that's one thing, but he's not claiming that.

 

(swansont: That would seem to preclude the "in anticipation of a degree" defense.)

 

Actually' date=' it has nothing to do with the defense. [/quote']

 

But back in post 14...

 

How so? Deutsch says he wrote his resume in anticipation of graduating. What's the big deal?

[pcs]

And what does the Reelect have to do with him being hired by NASA in 2005?

 

That point was raised to indicate that his resume may have had

 

The question is when he sent the resume to NASA.

 

The question is did he send it himself at all, or if he did was it even relevant in the appointment process. For all you know, the story could be that some staffer filed his resume with the Bush-Cheney campaign at the appropriate personnel office.

 

If he sent it in 2002-3, that's one thing, but he's not claiming that.

 

He's not claiming that he sent it period.

 

But back in post 14...

 

Yes, restating the charge you're aiming to refute doesn't quite count as a refutation, right?

[swansont]

1. It has not been established that Deutsch's resume played any role in his appointment.

 

 

So the lying may not matter, because it might have been cronyism? Wonderful.

[the tree]

Where did I describe that statement in particular as being an ad hom?

Right about here.

lets see' date=' you are a troll. that's where it came from. until you stop being a troll, i'm done responding to you.[/quote'']And it ends...with an ad hom. Nice.

 

 

So you agree, it's an ad hom.

Delibarate strawman for the sake of being a plonker ergo test item #1 supports my hypothesis, only two to go.

[ydoaPs]

tree, the test can be an examination of past posts as well.

[pcs]

Oh, and Deutsch has taken on the "I informed NASA" defense.

 

Care to respond?

 

Right about here.

 

And how is that a response to that particular statement, as opposed to an acknowledge of the first statement y made on the issue?

 

 

Delibarate strawman for the sake of being a plonker ergo test item #1 supports my hypothesis, only two to go.

 

But you've shown no strawman whatsoever, let alone a deliberate one.

[the tree]

tree, the test can be an examination of past posts as well.

I'm being strict about this so I'm assessing my hypothesis for repeatability as well as consistency with existing observational infomation. So far, I've got 50/50 results. Further testing may ensue.

[Aardvark]

tree, the test can be an examination of past posts as well.

 

Looks like an A plus.

[swansont]

Yes, restating the charge you're aiming to refute doesn't quite count as a refutation, right?

 

Deutsch was quoted as saying that he wrote the resume before leaving school, expecting to get his degree. So I can't reconcile your "Actually, it has nothing to do with the defense." statement. The timeline has been established.

 

Your hypotheticals would carry some weight if you could make them jibe with what Deutsch said in his interview. Nothing I've read indicates that your scenarios are valid.

[pcs]

Deutsch was quoted as saying that he wrote the resume before leaving school, expecting to get his degree. So I can't reconcile your "Actually, it has nothing to do with the defense.[/i']" statement.

 

Then permit me to lay it out for you again. Deutsch claims he wrote his resume in anticipation of graduation. You've pointed out that the resume was received in 2005. You have not pointed out a contradiction between these two statements. Therefore, your observation of the timeline is irrelevant. Out of courteousy, let me elaborate further. If I pointed out there was no Santa Claus in 2005, it would be as relevant a timeline consideration as your point about when NASA received Deutsch's resume.

 

The timeline has been established.

 

On only one point to our mutual satisfaction, that NASA received the resume after Deutsch's presumed graduation.

 

Your hypotheticals would carry some weight if you could make them jibe with what Deutsch said in his interview. Nothing I've read indicates that your scenarios are valid.

 

What's not to jibe? Deutsch says he wrote a resume before he was supposed to graduate. You haven't shown a contradiction between that and the NASA's receipt of said resume after the anticipated graduation date.

[Pangloss]

Yourdad, you've done nothing *but* troll-feeding in this thread. I don't think you've made one single contribution of any significant value in this entire six-page thread. (Which I am now closing because it's going nowhere.)

 

At any rate, these minor issues like who signed off on who's resume amount to trivialities, IMO. Y'all are so busy making the troll wrong, and PCS is so busy getting the last word in, that the larger issue is going more or less ignored.

 

This is how ideologues marginalize arguments in the "real world" too. Change the subject, focus on trivialities, and distract people from the bigger scope. It's called "sucking the oxygen out of the atmosphere."

 

What feeds it? Making crass overgeneralizations and straw man arguments like this one.

 

What solves it? Paying attention to stuff that matters, but knowing where to draw the line.

 

Don't get sucked into tit-for-tat, last-wording, or trivial issues. Acknowledge when the other guy has a point by saying "well you might be right, and I'm keeping an open mind about it" -- the ideologue has nowhere to go from that. Don't draw lines in the sand that you can't back up just because you're annoyed at the troll.

 

Here endeth the lesson.