|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 06/07/2007 : 18:57:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Moakley, I think you should read an entire thread and digest its contents before making these sorts of claims.
|
Alright lets see what you had to say from your first post to your most recent.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
1. Although, the loch is vast; it certainly could provide an environment for a large sea animal to reside.
2. Filthy, there are many animals that live a long time and the loch is large enough to support a population of large animals.
3. You were making a case for the lack of corpses. I assume of these large animals in your first two posts. paraphrased
4. Yes Hawks, I do not claim there are "monsters" in the loch; only it is possible. To discount it out of hand would not be skeptical.
5. Dave, I disputed with fact that not finding a corpse is not proof of no large animals in the loch. I disputed with fact that animals can be found alive after claimed extinction.
6. Suggested that the animals could be only 15 feet long. paraphrased
7. Moakley, correct because we find no corpse does not prove there are no corpses.
8. Plenty of species capable of eating a large carcass.
|
Doesn't look like I missed anything yet.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
9. The assertion was made that a corpse would have been found at some time; the fact that a corpse has yet to been found would mean that the animal does not exist.
|
Do I detect some backpeddling.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
10. It looks like the wake of something moving under the water. this video (we can not see scale) could be something as simple as an otter.
|
Possibly turning the corner.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
11. Dude, I have raised many different types of fish on the scale of thousands. Would you like to dispute my personal experience.
|
A little backsliding.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
12. Moakley, I think you should read an entire thread and digest its contents before making these sorts of claims.
|
Covering your tracks.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
13. Filthy, thanks for that response. I will reevaluate my thinking on the possibilty of carcass consumption in the loch.
|
During my first read of this thread I do not believe that I missed anything. But this last post does show that you are willing to change your mind. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 19:32:47 [Permalink]
|
Moakley, great job digesting half of a conversation. Now try again looking at point and counter point.
Nothing you have posted contradicts the validity of the argument I made against your assertion.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 21:42:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dude, I have raised many different types of fish on the scale of thousands. |
Huh. Idle boasting. Haven't seen that here in a while. Are you going to post your IQ next?| Would you like to dispute my personal experience. |
I think you'd be hard-pressed to actually document that you "have raised many different types of fish on the scale of thousands" in a way that would be convincing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 04:27:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Moakley, great job digesting half of a conversation. Now try again looking at point and counter point.
|
Now. I have taken the time to review this thread have highlighted the points that you have made perhaps you could explain to me why I am wrong. I have only been reading and writing English 44 years. I'm willing to change my mind.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Nothing you have posted contradicts the validity of the argument I made against your assertion.
|
Unfortunately for you nothing in your posts amount to a valid argument. Besides my assertion was that you were arguing in favor of the possibility of a population of large animals in the loch. I only pointed out that a lack of evidence should not be used to support this notion.
How am I wrong? Please, try to be thoughtful and clear. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 07:21:41 [Permalink]
|
Moakley stated and asked "Besides my assertion was that you were arguing in favor of the possibility of a population of large animals in the loch. I only pointed out that a lack of evidence should not be used to support this notion. How am I wrong? Please, try to be thoughtful and clear."
Filthy made the argument that not finding a corpse is proof of no animal.
You made the statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I agreed with you that not finding a corpse does not mean there is no corpse.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 07:30:17 [Permalink]
|
Moakley, I was snide in my post at 19:32:47, for this I am sorry. The reason for this was your implication that I held some strong assertion or belief in the "monster", which is not true. In fact talking with Filthy I have lessened the degree to which I think it is possible. Backpedaling, covering my tracks, and backsliding are phases that imply some deceit on my part which was not valid.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 09:26:08 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
In fact talking with Filthy I have lessened the degree to which I think it is possible. |
filthy was being patient and nice to you. That is to his credit as always. But originally, you condemned skeptics as being closed minded. When I tried to explain to you how, based on what is known about the lake, a reasonable conclusion could be deduced, you simply ignored it.
It's nice that you learned something. Too bad what you learned wasn't about critical thinking which is what this site is about…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 17:39:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You made the statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I agreed with you that not finding a corpse does not mean there is no corpse.
|
But a lack of evidence is no reason suggest that there may be corpses. And you did persist in your argument that these corpses, perhaps 15 feet long, could be consumed by species native to the loch.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Backpedaling, covering my tracks, and backsliding are phases that imply some deceit on my part which was not valid.
|
I don't consider your arguments deceit. I can only interpret your meaning from the words that you use. These were just opinions based on those words. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2007 : 17:59:32 [Permalink]
|
| Filthy made the argument that not finding a corpse is proof of no animal. |
Hold it right there, Jerome! I have never made such a statement. I asked the question of: "where are the corpses?" and I used it as evidence in support of the animal's non existance. Please do not put words in my mouth.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 18:59:59 [Permalink]
|
Whoa, there fellows. Am I to take on faith anything you write as gospel?
I find talking with you all enjoyable and challenging. But to claim I should already have knowledge about a certain question, and therefore imply I have some inability to reason from this.
Silly me.
Kil said "you condemned skeptics as being closed minded"
Really, with this quote: "To discount it out of hand would not be skeptical."
What is skeptical to you Kil, and what excacly is a comdenation in you eyes?
Why is it that quote of mine taken as an insult to you Kil? It absolutely was not meant or worded as an insult to anyone.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 23:20:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It absolutely was not meant or worded as an insult to anyone. |
Then why didn't you say so when I took you to task for making rash assumptions about the members here?
The conclusion I've reached is that it was both intended and worded as an insult to everyone here. A simple denial, after you defended your statement, is simply ridiculous. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 21:38:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It absolutely was not meant or worded as an insult to anyone. |
Then why didn't you say so when I took you to task for making rash assumptions about the members here?
The conclusion I've reached is that it was both intended and worded as an insult to everyone here. A simple denial, after you defended your statement, is simply ridiculous.
|
Another example of reality presented and denied.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
Best evidence ever for the Loch Ness Monster
