Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 3:46:21 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

For the record, I was, in fact, so "good" as the Allies at playing according to the game's mechanics and rules that in one game my opponent gave up in frustration, so strong was my position after only some six months of play.


I had intended on refraining from responding as I didn't feel this post was worth diving into until I saw your little blurb above. You'll have to forgive me if I fail to use your "Logic and reasonable Argument" points here.

Here are the point totals as of 6/11/42:

Game Points: Japan- 16128 / Allies- 7634
# of ships sunk by Japan- 198
# of ships sunk by Allied- 74
# Points gained for ships sunk: Japan- 2212 / Allies- 752
# of aircraft points lost: Japan- 2575 / Allied- 2689
# of Army points lost: Japan- 564 / Allied- 8079
# of capital ships lost by Japan- 1 BB, 1 CA, 4 Cl, 12 DD
# of captial ships lost by Allies- 2 BB, 1 BC, 4 CA, 8 CL
# of bases controlled by Japan- 274, by the Allies- 174

KB fully intact. No lands recaptured by Allies. So your position was strong, was it? BS!


Steve, this is ridiculous. The AAR is posted for anyone to view, and I've presented well-reasoned analysis of the play there for anyone to read who has the interest.

Here is the link: Tristanjohn vs ChezDaJez: Lemur's Scen 15

Joe Wilkerson, who took over for you, was dismayed at what he found after he inspected the Japanese positions, which is why I made the proposal to stand down operations in the central Pacific for the period of time specified above in my reply to Russ. I'm sure Joe would be happy to confirm that, but I wouldn't bother to ask. You might, though.

quote:

I quit the game because you had absolutely no desire to play with anything resembling even the slightest bit of historical context. Instead, you found and used every little gamey exploit. The more we played, the more your primary goal seemed to be, "Let's see how broken the game is!". I quit in frustration because you simply wanted to use our game as a soapbox to yell loud and clear as to how bad the game design was.


Well, as far as that goes all of my games are tests, which I clearly spelled out to you. My goal has always been to improve the game if possible. "Winning" isn't part of my agenda. That's important to you evidently, and Russ seems to set store by it, but for me, I'd just settle for a good simulation to play, and what we have doesn't fit that description.

As for my play style: I merely used Gary's published rules and the pieces he provided. If you have a problem with that you should take it up with Gary.

quote:

You knew that I was looking for a historical game when we began.


An impossibility with the current model.

quote:

And when I complained about your gamey tactics, what was your reply? Your reply basically said, "Tough!"


That isn't true, or at least that is not a completely representative statement.

quote:

Yet, you sure complained load and clear if I went near the map edge or if I bombarded. In fact, you complained every time I tried a historical tactic that didn't fit your perception of history. Your attitude then, as now, was condescending in the extreme. If you like, I can go back over the files and e-mails and pull out the specifics. I still have them.


Post whatever you want. Get your rocks off. Exercise yourself. Go for it. And have a good time.

quote:

Now, I'm sure I've just violated many of your "Logic and Reasonable Argument" so it won't hurt to violate the "Ad hominem" once more. It is my opinion that you are a "bad" player as opposed to "good." This comes from first-hand knowledge. So technically, it may not be an ad hominem attack as it is based on direct observation of your play. An example would be your "Sir Robin" defence of the SRA. You left it defenceless and then complained like hell because it fell so easily.


I don't recall complaining about the SRA. I recall you complaining about the SRA. In fact you told me I had no business moving anything out of the SRA, that that was a kind of "cheat" in your estimation, that I was supposed to leave everything there for the Japanese to kill at their leisure, presumably. That's what I recall.

I did point out to you at times how your own style of play exacerbated known problems with the rules and holes in the system. For instance, the "edge of the board" defense you wanted to use in the Indian Ocean. I told you plainly that you could do so if you wanted to, that it wasn't a critical matter with me, but it was just one more example of the model not up to its work and a phony way to play--I mean that kind of nonsense goes back to board wargames, right?

As for your various complaints, sometimes I was sympathetic, sometimes I was not sympathetic. Am I obliged to always agree with you right down the line? For example, I backed off on my B-17 raids of Rabaul, limited the number I'd send, went back and forth between night and day raids and whatnot, but no matter how I used my heavy-bomber assets your facility at Rabaul (and most everything else in the area) was slowly being reduced to pumice. So in fact I changed some things for you, Steve, and also offered suggestions about your play as well. Sounds like give and take to me.

The bottom line remains that the Japanese position, thanks to your hand, was in some respects untenable halfway through 1942. When you departed I was almost prepared to occupy all of the north coast of PNG and New Britain and the Admiralty Islands, meanwhile I was simultaneously in the process of shipping considerable assets up to Darwin, from which point I planned to take Timor and so forth as the first step toward kicking the Japanese out of the SRA. And that's not some pipedream of mine. I did just that.

Again, the link to the AAR is there for all to see, and it's clearly noted at which juncture you departed the scene and Joe took over. It's all spelled out in black and white as they say.

Anyway, all I cared to do was demonstrate how wanting the game model is given aggressive play by either side from what I've seen, in this case the Allies, and more importantly why it doesn't work properly (a poor logistics model), the latter with an eye to fixing things if possible.

quote:

So do me a favor. Next time you wish to embellish something, or in this case outright distort it, choose another player because this one will call your BS every time. Categorize that!


That's a snap. You apparently still are as you have always been since I've known you: a man fairly out of control, who does not accept criticism well, and who is furthermore given to personal attacks, and often at the top of his lungs. All of which is a matter of public record and can be easily verified by anyone who cares to go to that trouble.

Now I don't take pleasure in saying that, Steve, but then you did come here to challenge me. Yes?


< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 12/28/2005 3:56:57 PM >


_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 31
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 3:48:02 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This thread only lacks 2 things...logic and reasonable arguments...


Are you speaking for yourself?



_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 32
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 3:53:24 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MightyPaladin

Hi. My name is Paladin. and ... I'm a lurker.


I saw the first couple lines of the OP's post and thought "communications major"

Do I win?


    Bingo!

quote:

Your missing a dissertation on Aristotle's "Rhetoric," with the buzzwords of ethos (speakers credibility) logos (logic of speech, most often lacking here on da interweb ... and political speeches) and pathos (passion/emotion)

Sadly, I did not have to look this up. I remeber all too much of the communications class I once took Reading this post caused a flashback. With a few more latin/greek references, I would have seen my teacher

Syllogism
Enthymeme

(those two I had to look up)


By the way, Kudos and beer to the OP, which brings me to why I posted. Can I shamelessly copy your post and throw it onto any forum I see with relentless logic failures and worthless flamewars? I'll give credit!


Use it as you please. There's nothing original there, except for my own phrasing. I'm merely the messenger. The message itself has been common wisdom since forever.



_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to MightyPaladin)
Post #: 33
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 4:00:02 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

By the way, Kudos and beer to the OP, which brings me to why I posted. Can I shamelessly copy your post and throw it onto any forum I see with relentless logic failures and worthless flamewars? I'll give credit!


You'd better ask one of the principle authors first since it's copywrited.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

_____________________________


(in reply to MightyPaladin)
Post #: 34
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 4:54:46 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 35
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 5:26:55 PM   
WLockard


Posts: 183
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

By the way, Kudos and beer to the OP, which brings me to why I posted. Can I shamelessly copy your post and throw it onto any forum I see with relentless logic failures and worthless flamewars? I'll give credit!


You'd better ask one of the principle authors first since it's copywrited.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index


Nice catch Nikademus. TristenJohn, trying to pass off this as your own?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 36
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 5:48:46 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard

Nice catch Nikademus. TristenJohn, trying to pass off this as your own?


I believe he said it wasn't his.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Use it as you please. There's nothing original there, except for my own phrasing. I'm merely the messenger. The message itself has been common wisdom since forever


_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to WLockard)
Post #: 37
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 5:49:30 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

By the way, Kudos and beer to the OP, which brings me to why I posted. Can I shamelessly copy your post and throw it onto any forum I see with relentless logic failures and worthless flamewars? I'll give credit!


You'd better ask one of the principle authors first since it's copywrited.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index


Nice catch Nikademus. TristenJohn, trying to pass off this as your own?



That site was one of my sources. I believe I hit seven or eight sites in all. Why would you have a special problem with that? It's called r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h, and I wouldn't know how else to go about it. You don't suppose anyone carries all that up inside their heads all day, do you? Ask yourself this. Where do you suppose the Nizkor Project got its information? Do you suppose they invented this stuff?

As I clearly posted previously above in response to someone, there is nothing original about this work. I'm only the messenger. The information itself can be widely found in various forms, and it's all as old as the hills. I've given you my form of it here, and if you were smart you'd use it for the intended purpose.

But as always, follow your own heart.



_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to WLockard)
Post #: 38
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 5:51:33 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard

Nice catch Nikademus. TristenJohn, trying to pass off this as your own?


I believe he said it wasn't his.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Use it as you please. There's nothing original there, except for my own phrasing. I'm merely the messenger. The message itself has been common wisdom since forever



Errr . . . no how did the guy word that? Oh, yeah, "nice catch."



_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 39
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 5:59:17 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
I guess that shows that what you catch depends a great deal on what you're fishin' for....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 40
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 5:59:47 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

# of aircraft points lost: Japan- 2575 / Allied- 2689
# of Army points lost: Japan- 564 / Allied- 8079
# of capital ships lost by Japan- 1 BB, 1 CA, 4 Cl, 12 DD
# of captial ships lost by Allies- 2 BB, 1 BC, 4 CA, 8 CL


I'd say that reflects well on the Allies for June 1942. The historical Japanese had a stronger record by that date.

quote:

I quit the game because you had absolutely no desire to play with anything resembling even the slightest bit of historical context. Instead, you found and used every little gamey exploit.


Well, your claim is that you had him over the ropes but you quit the game because he used the mechanics of the game in ways that the game permitted and that you either did not anticipate or felt violated your sense of what was plausible in WW2 in the PTO.

So the difference there was that you basically quit the game because you felt the game was allowing him to accomplish things that a good model would not allow an allied player to do. He on the other hand played the game in part demonstrating that the game was allowing him to do things that a good model would not allow an allied player to do.

So you quit playing and he stayed in the game for basically the same reasons.

So Tristanjohn abandoned the SRA eh? Good for him. It was essentially ABDA's war plan to fall back to Timor or Soerbaja into a prepared position and rope-a-dope the Japanese until help could arrive. In the real war ABDA did not do so. I think TJ's doing same falls in the category of plausible alt history. To prevent it, all Japan had to do was put air and naval assets in the way to encircle and destroy army and fleet assets in the SRA... which is basically what the real Japanese did.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/28/2005 6:07:37 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 41
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 6:15:24 PM   
WLockard


Posts: 183
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard

Nice catch Nikademus. TristenJohn, trying to pass off this as your own?


I believe he said it wasn't his.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Use it as you please. There's nothing original there, except for my own phrasing. I'm merely the messenger. The message itself has been common wisdom since forever



Show me in the original post where he indicates that this is copywrited material. I never saw that so I when assumed that it was his own writting, not plagerized.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 42
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 6:20:25 PM   
WLockard


Posts: 183
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

By the way, Kudos and beer to the OP, which brings me to why I posted. Can I shamelessly copy your post and throw it onto any forum I see with relentless logic failures and worthless flamewars? I'll give credit!


You'd better ask one of the principle authors first since it's copywrited.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index


Nice catch Nikademus. TristenJohn, trying to pass off this as your own?



That site was one of my sources. I believe I hit seven or eight sites in all. Why would you have a special problem with that? It's called r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h, and I wouldn't know how else to go about it. You don't suppose anyone carries all that up inside their heads all day, do you? Ask yourself this. Where do you suppose the Nizkor Project got its information? Do you suppose they invented this stuff?

As I clearly posted previously above in response to someone, there is nothing original about this work. I'm only the messenger. The information itself can be widely found in various forms, and it's all as old as the hills. I've given you my form of it here, and if you were smart you'd use it for the intended purpose.

But as always, follow your own heart.




And what I see is that you copied their work word for word and did not provide any credit to them. Is this the normal way to do research? Just copy what others write with no reference? Normally when copywrited works are quoted and/or copied, I would expect some kind of aknowledgement.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 43
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 6:22:58 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
1. The link does not work, so the assertion that something has been plagiarized remains undemonstrated.
2. Whether or not it is copied the text is basically appropriate, so this diversion into whether or not TJ can be cast as a monster is merely a Red Herring and nothing more.
3. If said text is Copyrighted, were I TJ, I'd delete it and provide instead a link. One that works. But then, not everything that claims to be copyrighted is in fact copyrighted.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to WLockard)
Post #: 44
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 6:46:03 PM   
WLockard


Posts: 183
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

1. The link does not work, so the assertion that something has been plagiarized remains undemonstrated.
2. Whether or not it is copied the text is basically appropriate, so this diversion into whether or not TJ can be cast as a monster is merely a Red Herring and nothing more.
3. If said text is Copyrighted, were I TJ, I'd delete it and provide instead a link. One that works. But then, not everything that claims to be copyrighted is in fact copyrighted.


The link works fine for me. The very top statement is that it is copywrited material.
I am not a college grad, just high school, but I do understand what plagerism is.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 45
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 7:00:54 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

(in reply to WLockard)
Post #: 46
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 7:04:47 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
Well, if you're going to harass Tristanjohn about posting copyrighted material, or material that isn't his own without him stating who the author is, then you need to harass just about everyone on this forum.

There is an absolute crap load of information on these posts that come from someone else's writing. From the mod guys who cut and paste data to the guys who post pictures and text about past events. at least half the guys on here have posted something written by someone else without actually giving credit to the author. (a lot of them do, though.)

I'm a bit ignorant on what you can and can't do with copyrighted material. I highly doubt that Tristanjohn has broken any laws, though.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to WLockard)
Post #: 47
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 7:06:13 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Where is the "two guys p1ssing on each others' boots" smilie when you need it?

Here is an interesting discussion of what "copyright" means and what it does not.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to WLockard)
Post #: 48
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 7:22:16 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

By the way, Kudos and beer to the OP, which brings me to why I posted. Can I shamelessly copy your post and throw it onto any forum I see with relentless logic failures and worthless flamewars? I'll give credit!


You'd better ask one of the principle authors first since it's copywrited.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index


Nice catch Nikademus. TristenJohn, trying to pass off this as your own?



That site was one of my sources. I believe I hit seven or eight sites in all. Why would you have a special problem with that? It's called r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h, and I wouldn't know how else to go about it. You don't suppose anyone carries all that up inside their heads all day, do you? Ask yourself this. Where do you suppose the Nizkor Project got its information? Do you suppose they invented this stuff?

As I clearly posted previously above in response to someone, there is nothing original about this work. I'm only the messenger. The information itself can be widely found in various forms, and it's all as old as the hills. I've given you my form of it here, and if you were smart you'd use it for the intended purpose.

But as always, follow your own heart.




And what I see is that you copied their work word for word and did not provide any credit to them. Is this the normal way to do research? Just copy what others write with no reference? Normally when copywrited works are quoted and/or copied, I would expect some kind of aknowledgement.


The only thing I remember copying verbatim from the Nizkor site was its reference to other names for Appeal to Authority: "Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam," and if you think that deserves a footnote you've got another think coming.

In the main I substantially rewrote everything I copied from various sites, with at least three-fourths of the gross copy in my article being wholly original expression. If there's still an expression or two left over from someone else's work, I can live with that. If you cannot live with that, I don't what to say. Maybe you should see a doctor about that.

I dare say it would be impossible to write any such article without the resort to "plagiarism" in one form or another, to one degree or another, of quite a bit of old thought, for you see this thought has been around for centuries and hasn't changed a whit, there are only so many ways of giving examples for all the various cases presented, and so on.

In fact, the Nizkor site does carry a copyright declaration at the bottom of its pages, but that is mainly worthless. Everything written is automatically copyrighted (in this country) immediately it is written, for whatever that's worth. In the case of what Nizkor has published, I find their copyright hardly sincere within the kind of framework you suggest, as all of the material there (from what I've read--I haven't read that much of it) is "public domain" of nature and undoubtedly "lifted" from one place or another by the person or people who constructed that site before they rewrote that. It isn't as if the Nizkor Project just finished writing something unique, say, "the great American novel."

In any event, as I clearly posted above in reply to another person, there is nothing in the article that is original of nature, just a rehash of same-same thinking on a subject that winds back to the Greeks. Me, I'm just the messenger. In a manner of speaking, I'm only doing your work for you. Not that you would or could appreciate that, but as long as we're pointing out "niceties" today. . . .




© Tristanjohn News Syndicate 2005



< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 12/28/2005 8:21:32 PM >


_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to WLockard)
Post #: 49
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 7:24:27 PM   
WLockard


Posts: 183
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
From the front page of the web site:

Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our copyright notice. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters (webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr. Labossiere (ontologist@aol.com).

Pretty plain to me.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 50
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 7:31:31 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
By the way, you wouldn't be yet another of the countless "phantom accounts" this board has become infamous for over the years, would you?


< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 12/28/2005 7:32:01 PM >


_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to WLockard)
Post #: 51
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 7:40:06 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
What Tristan said/pasted has been said since the greeks... so 2,300 years ago (Aristotle).

In fact, that paragraph sounds pretty familiar to me. I guess Aristotle wrote it, and someone else used it (with a little cosmetic change). That guy (from that web site) cannot plagiarize those ideas and say "this is copyrighted now". Aristotle -- and every author before XX century -- cannot be copyrighted

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 52
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 7:50:18 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redd


By the way, Tj, how are the "tempests of storms" over the bay today. It's pretty dark over here in my neck of the woods, but the air is calm and quiet.



Ahh Haa, finally something that I understand from this thread and can speak of with some authority. Tempest Storm, was a hot fine stripper from the dark fog of my muddled confused youth. It goes to prove the Bob Newhart routine. Take an infinite number of monkeys and put them at an infinite number of typewriters and you will eventually come up with a great works (To be or not to be).

(in reply to Redd)
Post #: 53
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 8:11:00 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

It goes to prove the Bob Newhart routine. Take an infinite number of monkeys and put them at an infinite number of typewriters and you will eventually come up with a great works (To be or not to be).


Now, that pre-dates Newhart. He stole copyrighted material and used it for his own nefarious purposes...

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 54
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 8:30:47 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I guess that shows that what you catch depends a great deal on what you're fishin' for....


By the way, has that kitten of yours ever hit anything?


_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 55
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 8:52:33 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

By the way, has that kitten of yours ever hit anything?



He ALMOST got this guy:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 56
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 9:05:18 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I guess that shows that what you catch depends a great deal on what you're fishin' for....


By the way, has that kitten of yours ever hit anything?



Only the pause button....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 57
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 9:12:37 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Only the pause button....


Shouldn't that be the paws button?

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 58
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 9:16:26 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

Only the pause button....


Shouldn't that be the paws button?




_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 59
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 12/28/2005 9:24:49 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
Then of course there's this:



_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719