Monday, August 20, 2007

Arggghhh... Police brutality!!!

Still on the subject of climate change and these protesters. I did find it rather amusing reading the coverage in the Independent. A double page spread about how the protesters were all peace-loving hippies oppressed by the bastard fascist police, which then carried a caption saying "protester attempt to break police cordon".

Excuse me for a moment, if they're so "peaceful" why did they try to surge a police line? And why are they screaming about brutality when they discover that the Police weren't joking when they said, "you cannot cross this line"?

I don't doubt there were some genuinely peaceful protesters there, all eating pulses just waiting for the day that we're all living in the stone age washing ourselves with cold water and pumice, but lets not be kid ourselves here. If the Police stand in a long line and say "you cannot go past us", what in God's name do you expect to happen if you then get together and attempt to get past?

I did however particularly like this intellectually vacuous statement. Apparently, the officer at the end of the video gives "a somewhat embellished version of events into his radio." This is based on the fact that because he said something that you don't see in the video it can't possibly have happened.

Apparently the video won't be shown on the news "because left isn't on the only bias that fucks with our media feed". Alternatively the reason that it might not be shown is because the pathetic inferred conclusion is equivalent to saying that when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.

Who'd have thought it huh? Climate Change, protesters and intellectual dishonesty.

Update: Rather amusingly, my point is being beautifully played out now at the linked video above. I am, it seems, a "sceptic/denier/cynic/conspiracy theorist" for pointing out the intellectual vapidty of the inferred conclusion. Won't be long before I'm a fascist too I bet. See what I mean about playing the man and not the ball?

Update II: In a rare update on a day old post I just wanted to say that apparently this post from 8.30am yesterday was actually an exercise" in advance of a post that I somehow knew Tim Ireland was going to post five hours later. See, it's all part of a large conspiracy, as opposed to the fact that I thought Tim's reasoning was a big steaming pile of poo. I do own a time machine though, but I'm trying to keep that secret, so please don't tell anyone.

65 comments:

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 09:33:00  

There is a comment facility on my site, you know.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 09:38:00  

and?

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 10:17:00  

You could have said something there. But, as you clearly need traffic, I'll link/reply instead and send some over shortly.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 10:24:00  

Weak! I couldn't care less about the traffic. Your post was merely an aside in the wider topic I wanted to comment on. You're not that special, but the conclusion you have drawn was a particularly good example of the vapid and weak intellectual foundations that I was pontificating on.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 10:33:00  

Weak? You've assumed that this is my entire response, you silly person. As I said, I'll reply in kind shortly. Try to keep your knickers relatively untwisted until then.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 10:39:00  

I couldn't care less what your entire response is Tim. Your conclusion, as it stands, is bollocks.

Fidothedog said...
20 Aug 2007 10:44:00  

Riot gas and police dogs, that will sort them out. Or maybe a water hose, as most of them hippies look like they could you a bath.

JonnyB said...
20 Aug 2007 11:06:00  

Blimey... I knew you two weren't Civil Partnership material but I'd be obliged not to be dragged into your mutual antipathy.

I made the same point as you, Dizzy - it's no good as 'evidence', and that holds whether we agree or disagree that the incident took place.

You're sceptical, so that makes you a 'sceptic'. To be fair I think you probably read my '/'s as 'ands' rather than 'ors' - not all sceptics are conspiracy theorists, clearly.

But off at the deep end a bit, surely?

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 11:11:00  

Actually I'm not sceptical at all. This post was about the general use of dodgy logic and intellectual dishonesty. For all I know the Police could be lying through their teeth. But I can't say it on the basis on that video. I'm not sceptical of the conclusion, my issue is with the crappy mode of thought that reached the conclusion.

JonnyB said...
20 Aug 2007 11:21:00  

So, in fact, we agree entirely. Just have different styles of saying it.

I'm interested, though. You took it as an attack on you. Not being in anyone's 'gang' in this area of blogging, that sort of surprised me a bit. I'm genuinely not trying to pick a fight but... why?

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 11:25:00  

Actually I didn't take it as an attack on me by you. It was the comment after you said that, by Tim, which my update was actually about.

JonnyB said...
20 Aug 2007 11:34:00  

Ah. Yes - ok. Thank you.

I'll now retreat back to jokeland.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 11:35:00  

Good to see you acknowledging that no-one was ganging up on you (not all sites operate like Iain Dale's) but how does my identifying you as one or more of the options given by JonnyB constitute a personal attack?

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 11:47:00  

Oh jesus, probably the tone and laughter, just maybe.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 12:02:00  

Hahahahahahaha! Well, if you think *that's* a personal attack I can't want to see what you make of the updated version of my post.

In it, I point out that sometimes you're amusing, especially when (as now) you cherry-pick your data without linking sources, fail to consider all sources including the one right in front of your face, and display staggering inconsistencies that negate your faux-outrage about intellectual dishonesty.

In your world, does that classify as a personal attack? Perhaps even a sustained personal attack with repeated playing of the man?

god's lonely man said...
20 Aug 2007 12:17:00  

No one's visiting Tim's blog I take it? His trolling conspicuousness is usually inversely related to the abandonment of his site.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 12:18:00  

Oh dear oh dear. You really don't get it do you Tim. This isn't about whether or not the police were or were not right or wrong. It's about two things, firstly the juxtaposition and tone of the Indy's article in comparison to the captions with the photos which contradict it. And then, as an aside about the whole claimet camp thing, the manner in which you have leapt to a statement based upon a video and extrapolated theorising.

The truth is, you were not there when that video was filmed. You cannot make the statements you have as matter of accurate or fair knowledge. You're thought process leading to that point is crap.

As far as the links to Indymedia go, I don't care what an eye witness has said has happened, because that remains only their view. The default position you are taking in your analysis is that the Police were in the wrong. I don't take that view because I'm not a complete idiot. I know that the wisest man is the man who says he does not know.

I did nejoy the "he has a political agenda" line you threw back. This is my personal blog where I express my personal opinion, of course it is biased towards my view. The different between you and I though is that I am honest enough to acknowledge where I do not know, whilst you make your grandiose statements of certainty and think that having links makes them true.

You're entire response is littered with logical fallacies, but you carry on, there are enough people out there that buy the "lots of people say it so must be true" crap, take a look at the attitude of envrionmentalist to anyone who questioned there world view.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 12:21:00  

"As I've already pointed out under comments, if the police were under *sustained* attack... and were kicked *repeatedly* these actions would have been visible in *all* of the footage"

Why "would have been"? That's an awfully large leaping assumptuion you're making there based on what, your opinion? Like I said in my post, intellectually vacuos. Devoid of sound reasoning. This doesn't mean you're wrong Tim. What it means is that you're wrong to say you are right. Is that getting through yet?

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 12:39:00  

God's lonely man - in fairness to Tim he isn't trolling at all. I am. I planned to write about this subject this morning, and basically saw an opportunity to highlight some weak reasoning at the same time. The dominance of this sort fallacy driven stuff from the Left is starting to get on my tits.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 12:43:00  

If this statement were correct and not-at-all-embellished...

"officers came under sustained attack... punches were thrown... and were kicked repeatedly"

...then *all* of the raw footage would have included pictures of that sustained attack and *most* of it would have contained some of that repeated kicking and punching the officer mentions.

Did he say "officers came under occasional attack with isolated punches and kicks"? No, he didn't.

His radio report was embellished. Simple logic.

Kind of you to put your reputation for accuracy on the line as you 'troll' me, though. Tell me, could you point to the part where you prove your claim about personal attacks? I may have missed or misinterpreted some of what you've said, as the grammar/logic you've used defeats me in places.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 13:06:00  

If this statement were correct and not-at-all-embellished...
"officers came under sustained attack... punches were thrown... and were kicked repeatedly"
...then *all* of the raw footage would have included pictures of that sustained attack and *most* of it would have contained some of that repeated kicking and punching the officer mentions.


You're assuming a camera was pointing at it and was located in the middle of the scrum. Try again.

Did he say "officers came under occasional attack with isolated punches and kicks"? No, he didn't.

Irrelevant

His radio report was embellished. Simple logic

Flawed logic based on assumed premises. Try again.

Kind of you to put your reputation for accuracy on the line as you 'troll' me, though.

I have no reputation.

Tell me, could you point to the part where you prove your claim about personal attacks?

Where did I say I was proving my claim?

I may have missed or misinterpreted some of what you've said, as the grammar/logic you've used defeats me in places.

Whilst you may have a point about my fat fingered typing, highlighting grammar is a tad weak. The logic bit is interestuing. For whilst the logical path of deduiction you take appears sound it based on bedrock assumptions of sand. Try again.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 13:16:00  

Heh. Not if your version of logic involves you declaring that inconvenient items simply don't exist (and/or are 'irrelevant').... even when you look straight at them

One example: you know the video is edited, you must be able to tell from the linear style that it has been edited from multiple cameras, and you can see footage and multiple cameras *in* the footage that clearly show cameras right at the heart of the action.

If the policeman's report was not embellished, one of these cameras would have caught something; in fact, all footage from all cameras would, at the very least, have shown officers "under sustained attack"

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 13:33:00  

You're still making the assumption that the raw footage will have captured it, and, if it hasn't you are taking that as "evidence" that it did not happen. That's not sound reasoning, it's weak. You're (a) making assumptions about what "must" have been captured and (b) seeking to prove an assumed end by applying it to an assumed premise.

I think what's important here is to point out that I am not questioning whether the Police were or were not attacked in the video. I am questioning the reasoning that you are using to make claims of certainty that simply cannot honestly be made.

Now there are two possible reasons why you have a problem getting your head round this. Either you're blinded by the fact that you've already decided what the truth is; or you're a bit thick. Personally I go for the former rather than the latter, others may disagree.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 13:39:00  

sustained = continuous

NOT intermittent, sporadic or occasional (even if you've declared this comparison irrelevant)

If cameras were recording at the time and pointed at the event (as several cameras were) they would all contain footage of this alleged sustained attack.

His radio report was embellished. It described something that simply didn't happen. If it happened as he described, there would be footage.

Logic.

Eddy said...
20 Aug 2007 13:51:00  

I'd go for the former as well. It really is very sad when someone is so blinkered by ideology or a specific agenda that they can not entertain any opposing views.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 14:13:00  

If cameras were recording at the time and pointed at the event (as several cameras were) they would all contain footage of this alleged sustained attack.

Not necessarily, that is an assumption on your part.

His radio report was embellished. It described something that simply didn't happen. If it happened as he described, there would be footage.

Again another assumption which seeks to prove your already decided end.

Logic.

Actually it's called induction, and it's bad.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 14:25:00  

Yes, necessarily, not by assumption but by definition. If the action of attack was sustained, then *all* footage of the event would contain evidence of that sustained action.

The radio report was embellished.

(Oh, and your reluctance to back up your claims about personal attacks is quite revealing.)

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 14:28:00  

Yes, necessarily, not by assumption but by definition. If the action of attack was sustained, then *all* footage of the event would contain evidence of that sustained action.

If all swans you ever see are white, are all swans white?

The radio report was embellished.

This is not a valid statement.

(Oh, and your reluctance to back up your claims about personal attacks is quite revealing.)

Sweetie, I already did it, you're laughetr and tone was the answer. There is little more to add to it. What is genuinely revealing is your inability to identify the difference between inductive reasoning and logic.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 14:43:00  

I someone made the statement "there was a sustained presence of white swans on the pond" I would expect all video footage of the pond during the period described to show at least one white swan.

(PS - I am laughetr and tone is the answer? What?)

colbert said...
20 Aug 2007 14:43:00  

I think Tim believes in 'truthiness'

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

AntiCitizenOne said...
20 Aug 2007 14:51:00  

Who am I gonna beleive?

1/ The police.
2/ A bunch of GAIA worshipping eco-fascists trying to stop people from enjoying holidays, in order to appease their faith in the false-pollutant CO2.

It's a tough one.

Sod off swampy!

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 15:16:00  

Dizzy, will you be laying into AntiCitizenOne for his reliance on bias over logic? Just wondering.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 15:46:00  

I someone made the statement "there was a sustained presence of white swans on the pond" I would expect all video footage of the pond during the period described to show at least one white swan.

We're not talking about expectations Tim. We're talking about what you can validly say on the basis of your assertions. According to you, all the video footage will show X (which is an assumption because it might not but that doesn't mean it didn;lt happen), and if X is not shown then it proves that Y didn't happen (which it doesn't at all).

(PS - I am laughetr and tone is the answer? What?)

Attacking my shitty typing mistakes is just weak and you know it.

Dizzy, will you be laying into AntiCitizenOne for his reliance on bias over logic? Just wondering.

His reasoning is flawed for sure, but that is not the issue here and I think trying to redirect it onto some other comment maker is a bit silly. I consider your reasoning to be flawed. I have explained why because I think you're making leaping inductive assumptions in order to reinforce the conclusion that you've already reached.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 16:00:00  

If there are no swans in the footage, I can only conclude that they were invisible or that the statement was in some way false... at the very least embellished.

As for your other points, hey, it's not my fault your 'logical' case is undermined by your visible ignorance and bias.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 16:12:00  

If there are no swans in the footage, I can only conclude that they were invisible or that the statement was in some way false... at the very least embellished.

No Tim, if there are no swans in the footage all you can conclude is that there are no swans in footage. Anything else is inductive conjecture, not truth.

As for your other points, hey, it's not my fault your 'logical' case is undermined by your visible ignorance and bias.

Nice, if in doubt call your opponent ignorant and biased, always full back on the ad hominen abusive huh? Incidentally, it's not my logical case, it's David Hume's. The problem of empiricism 101. You've been arguing with a dead 18th century scottish philosopher which makes your charge against my ignorance all the more hilarious.

*hugs and kisses*

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 16:26:00  

I didn't call you ignorant and biased, I clearly said you had displayed some level of visible ignorance and bias.

Tut.

If I were to state that you have shown a sustained level of ignorance and bias over period of months or years or perhaps since birth, well then you could probably claim that my statement had been... embellished.

Oh, and "all you can conclude is that there are no swans in footage"

Or that I am unwilling or unable to seem them, eh Dizzy?

Anonymous said...
20 Aug 2007 16:41:00  

I haven't laughed so much since the Hunting bumpkins got their ears boxed.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 16:54:00  

You really do have a problem with getting this don't you? I'm not quite sure how many times I can say it, and perhaps I am failing to verbalise it in a manner which makes sense to you. But I am _not_ saying that your conclusion is wrong. I'm saying that the reasoning that you're using to reach that conclusion is wrong. It's not about being unwilling, or unable to see something. Nor is it about "visual ignorance" or "bias". It's about realising what you can and what you cannot say about the situation based on that which is presented to you.

You _cannot_ make the statement that the Police officer "embellished" his report based on the video you showed, period. Nor can you make that statement of certainty if - upon viewing the whole footage - you do not see it happen, because, as has already been pointed out to you, just because you can't see it it doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you insist on saying it did you're dealing in conjecture not reality. Of course your conjecture, as I've now said more than once, might actually be right, but it does not change the fact that it remains conjecture. One thing is for sure though, it could certainly not be considered truth.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 17:05:00  

I *can* make the statement that the Police officer "embellished" his report based on the video you showed, period... in fact, I believe I just did so several times.

:o)

OK, one last try; if there were evidence of a sustained attack, we would be looking at it right now for the same reason that if there were sustained rain, we would see evidence of it in the footage.

Therefore, there was not a sustained attack. The policeman embellished his report by including /describing something that did not happen*.

*Of course, perhaps the officer saw himself being calmly but clearly repelled and thought "I'm under attack!" much in the way that some bloggers do.... perhaps that is where the confusion lies.

Masked marvel said...
20 Aug 2007 17:07:00  

"What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer".

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 17:20:00  

I *can* make the statement that the Police officer "embellished" his report based on the video you showed, period... in fact, I believe I just did so several times.

:o)


Obviously when I said you cannot make the statement I was of course referring to the fact that the statement is an invalid one because the reasoning that it is based on, rather than the literal understanding of what you can and cannot do. You are of course free to make the statement, but it doesn't make the statement right, and nor will it stop me pointing it out. I mean, you're free to say that every pygmy in the world bites their toenails, but you cannot make such a blanket statement as a matter of fact. But I think you know that really hence the smilie.

OK, one last try; if there were evidence of a sustained attack, we would be looking at it right now for the same reason that if there were sustained rain, we would see evidence of it in the footage. Therefore, there was not a sustained attack. The policeman embellished his report by including /describing something that did not happen*.

You are still making the assumption that the footage has been captured and if it hasn't that its non-presence is evidence that it didn't happen. That's a bit like me telling you I own a Ferrari and you saying that because you cannot see it it doesn't exist. Is it that difficult to grasp that the issue is not your conclusion but the means by which you are reaching it?

Of course, perhaps the officer saw himself being calmly but clearly repelled and thought "I'm under attack!" much in the way that some bloggers do.... perhaps that is where the confusion lies.

Is this meant to be some clever and witty parallel where the "clear thought" is your insistence that because you cannot see something it doesn't exist, whilst my use of David Hume is muddled confusion? How quaint!

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 17:23:00  

Incidentally, should you still feel the need to explain to me how if you cannot see something it didn't happen then your comment will not be authorised for at least an hour and you may not receive a response until the morning.

Kevin Donnelly said...
20 Aug 2007 17:26:00  

perhaps the officer saw himself being calmly but clearly repelled and thought "I'm under attack!"


Incidentally, is this legal? repelling a police officer I mean, however calmly and clearly done. I thought we had to do what the coppers said. If not I'll bear it in mind next time I'm in front of the filth.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 17:34:00  

"You are still making the assumption that the footage has been captured."

No, I am *not*, because I am *looking at* the footage that's been captured.

I am saying that if there were an attack of a *sustained* (continuous, uninterrupted) nature we would see it in all of the footage including the footage we can see now (barring, if you like, any footage that was taken from inside a cardboard box).

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 19:21:00  

Oh but you are. You're making an assumption that the footage you have is of all the events. Unless you're telling me that there was a camera recording in every single point of space and time, then you cannot state that you have all footage of all the events. All you have is footage of some of the events from some of the angles but not all of them. As such it would be impossible to ascertain whether an attack was sustained or not because you cannot possibly have an omnipresent view of the events.

As such you cannot draw a factual conclusion that the lack of footage of the event as described by the police officer precludes that it happened as described. All you can do, as I seem to be having to say a lot, is produce conjecture about what you believe happened. It would however be intellectually bankrupt for you to claim that the lack of footage of incident X meant that incident X had not happened because of the reason already given in relation to your assumption about having an absolute view of all events.

Incidentally, are you enjoying this, because I tell you what, I'm loving it.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 19:44:00  

"You're making an assumption that the footage you have is of all the events."

*sigh*

No I am not. It is a selection of footage captured during the overall event... which simply did not happen as described by that police officer.

If the attack were sustained, it would be continual/uninterrupted - and therefore visible or detectable throughout the event. It would therefore register in all footage taken during the event (bar, as I said, any footage taken inside a cardboard box).

The only way for there to be any of the footage without attack-related content is for the alleged attack to have, at the very least, been interrupted (i.e. just often/long enough for the footage you have seen to be filmed).

Therefore, it was not a sustained attack.

I stand by my statement; the officer embellished his report.

You can bitch all you like about how much from here on in, but he did it.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 20:55:00  

"No I am not. It is a selection of footage captured during the overall event... which simply did not happen as described by that police officer."

Oh yes you are. You are leaping to a conclusion on the basis that you can't see something happening in your given footage, therefore you are assuming it didn't happen at all. There may be footage you haven't seen, or they may have been events that have not been recorded which show what you believe did not happen did happen. You're making an assumptive conclusion.

Incidentally, and purely as aside, you keep on defining "sustained" as "continual/uninterrupted" but over what period of time is that required? I mean, right now I just stopped typing and subjected my nose to a "sustained scratch". It was a scratch that was continual, as well uninterrupted after all.

Seems to me that you're not only making an assumption about the what can be known based on something that by your own admission you cannot see; but you're also playing loose and fast with a word that can be so broadly defined that no matter what you might or might not see in footage it can easily be brushed aside as "not sustained".

I stand by my statement; the officer embellished his report.

That's your prerogative. Doesn't change the inherent intellectual problem in the thought process that you are using to reach that conclusion.

You can bitch all you like about how much from here on in, but he did it.

I'm not bitching, I'm just pointing out, quite calmly and clearly, the fundamental flaws in the process of thought you are using to reach your conclusions.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 21:17:00  

Heh.

I love your picking at the definition of 'sustained' "purely as an aside".

There was no sustained attack. He embellished.

dizzy said...
20 Aug 2007 21:28:00  

Actually it was an aside. It's totally irrelevant to the discussion we're having about your flawed inductive reasoning. The only reason I mentioned it was genuinely because I suddenly realised how broad and useful a term it is. After all you can't deny it's a subjective word defined around the notion of an unspecified period of term. But again, I'm digressing into an irrelevant point. What remain key here is that your statement, which you stand by, is factually inaccurate, inherently flawed, and intellectually barren.

Tim said...
20 Aug 2007 22:12:00  

I'm sorry, but it is not an irrelevance. Either there was a sustained attack as reported or there wasn't. That the available footage is totally free of *any* indication of the alleged attack proves that the attack (if any) was simply not of the sustained variety as most reasonable* people would understand it.

(*may not apply to individuals blinkered by personal/political beliefs)

Carl Eve said...
20 Aug 2007 22:20:00  

And yet, by comparison, I still love reminiscing about the the pro-hunt protestors getting their heads smacked in outside Parliament and then - without any irony - complaining of police brutality and the fascist state.

Someone needs to get Bryan Ferry and Son down there - they'd sort them all out...

bored philosopher... said...
21 Aug 2007 01:10:00  

... yawn... just made the fatal mistake of clicking over to this sad fuckwit Tim's site... dear god... now it all becomes clear... was it Bertrand Russell who said 'Once a philosopher, twice - a pervert?' I shall remain a philosopher - as I suspect the majority who arrive there have and will... he seems - as we say round here - a right Billy No-Mates... Amazed you have the patience, Diz, even in the interests of fairness...

Ron said...
21 Aug 2007 03:15:00  

You are all missing the main point. In actual fact these police officers could have been more gainfuly employed by simply setting up speed traps to catch unwary motorists. In this way they could have cut the numbers of people killed or injured on our roads.

Like fuckin' not.



BTW Hi, Dizzy.

dizzy said...
21 Aug 2007 06:19:00  

I'm sorry, but it is not an irrelevance.

Surely you're not that silly enough to see that I was referring to my pondering over the definition of "sustained"? Or are you just trying to misdirect the discussion away from your flawed reasoning on to a matter of semantic distinction?

Either there was a sustained attack as reported or there wasn't.

This isn't actually what is in dispute Tim. The question is whether your reasoning that seeks - and believe it has - the answer to this question is sound. It isn't.

That the available footage is totally free of *any* indication of the alleged attack proves that the attack (if any) was simply not of the sustained variety as most reasonable* people would understand it.

No it doesn't "prove" it at all Tim. It merely shows that there is no footage available, thus providing you with a conjectured leap to an assumed end. As I keep saying, the lack of being able to see something does not preclude the existence of that something. Not unless you're some sort of extreme Descartian rationalist that thinks when people or things leave your presence they no longer exist.

(*may not apply to individuals blinkered by personal/political beliefs)

Tim, Tim, Tim, making an implied ad hominen to suggest I'm "blinkered" in a thread where I have consistently told you that your conclusion may in fact be right but the way you've reached the conclusion is wrong makes you look a tad petulant don't you think? You're not petulant are you?

Tim said...
21 Aug 2007 09:09:00  

I've explained it, you've refused to see it. But thanks for all of your time, effort and patience.

dizzy said...
21 Aug 2007 09:15:00  

I've explained it, you've refused to see it.

No Tim, I;ve not refused to see anything. All I have done is point out that your explanation does not stand up to critical scrutiny.

But thanks for all of your time, effort and patience.

A pleasure.

Prodicus said...
21 Aug 2007 10:09:00  

Is anyone expected to follow all this with interest? Get a room! Oh, wait... you did. This is your room, Dizzy, right?

Tim - do sod off, there's a good chap.

guido faux said...
21 Aug 2007 10:23:00  

Isn't 'sustained' pretty subjective anyway? And for that matter 'continuous'?

If so, then this is an argument which can't be won.

Sorry - didn't have time to read all comments in detail ...

dizzy said...
21 Aug 2007 12:22:00  

Indeed you are right, which is why I made it as aside and said it was irrelevant to the actual discussion we were having.

Tim said...
21 Aug 2007 18:41:00  

I love how you casually cast aside key elements of a statement you're refuting as if they don't matter.

Next time, let's do this at my place... or perhaps at Iain Dale's where logic reigns supreme.

dizzy said...
21 Aug 2007 19:59:00  

I love how you casually cast aside key elements of a statement you're refuting as if they don't matter.

I'm not casting aside anything Tim because I'm not refuting the statement. I'm refuting the reasoning that produced the statement, they are two completely different things. The former asserts that the statement is false, whilst the latter asserts that the statement is not based upon sound reasoning but could still be correct. It really isn't that hard to understand.

Next time, let's do this at my place

Why? Do you feel safer there or something? I mean, it's not like anyone has really interfered in this discussion, and you linked to it from your site so your regulars could have joined in if they'd wanted. I fail to see what the difference in location could possibly make.

or perhaps at Iain Dale's where logic reigns supreme.

You do realise throwing the word "logic" in at this point means even more of the people reading this thread are laughing at you... right?

Tim said...
21 Aug 2007 20:08:00  

"Why? Do you feel safer there or something?"

Tch. Your manners. I'd rather not have you over if you're going to be like that.

PS - Iain says 'hi'.

dizzy said...
21 Aug 2007 20:15:00  

Tch. Your manners. I'd rather not have you over if you're going to be like that.

I'm only being honest. I fail to see the point in "coming to your place" when we can discuss things here and you can invite your friends over with a link to support you in your discourse.

PS - Iain says 'hi'.

Impossible, I have him in a box under the stairs next to the time machine I just wrote about in the update.

Tim said...
21 Aug 2007 21:52:00  

"you can invite your friends over with a link to support you in your discourse"

Heh. Nice bit of spin. I'm sure it would be much more dignified to quietly beg for help via email. Perhaps via BCC from time to time.

And your 'time machine' comment is delicious. Iain was fuming long before either post was made, as the matter was raised on his blog late last week, sending him into a right tizzy. The magnitude of that tizzy did not become apparent until his latest post... so this exercise of yours now makes sense.

When Iain's in trouble, you come running with 'unrelated' interference... it's all-too predictable.

dizzy said...
21 Aug 2007 21:54:00  

I'm worried about you


 

dizzythinks.net is a participant in the Amazon Europe S.à.r.l. Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.co.uk/Javari.co.uk.