>
> > My thoughts, as an outsider:
> >
> > His command of the language is superlative. It is logically
> > self-sustained. There are no obvious grammatical errors. It is
> > impossible to believe that what he writes is being misunderstood
> > because he 'doesn't understand English very well'. It is clear that
> > he understands what he is writing, and what he reads.
>
> Naturally, *I* always understand what I am writing. The problem lies in
the
> finer nuances of a language; it is the understanding of those finer
nuances
> that seperates the people with a good understanding of the language
from the
> people with an excellent understanding of the language.
If I didn't know you were not a native speaker, I would not be able to
tell. There aren't that many nuances. It's about logic. Some
statements imply other things either explicitly, or implicitly. The
expression 'read between the lines' sums it up.
It seems clear that you understand what you read, at least what you reply
to.
>
> If you were to understand Dutch at the same level as I understand
English,
> you too would sometimes make a mistake that you would not notice, but
which
> would be obvious to a native speaker.
Probably.
>
> > When he states that he is being misunderstood that can only be taken
as
> > a cop-out.
>
> You just gave an example of where my knowledge of English falls short.
What
> exactly is a "cop-out"? (It is not listed in my dictionary.)
>
Slang. An excuse. A dubious reason for something, that is doubtful.
> > He can't support his words logically, so must resort to excuses.
>
> I do NOT resort to excuses. I only expect to be given some benefit of
the
> doubt, based on the fact that as a non-native English speaker, my
command of
> the language is less than it would be if I were a native speaker.
Noted.
>
> > Now it also seems to me that he consistently makes several logical
> > errors in his arguments, namely the 'post hoc ergo proptor hoc'
error.
> The WHAT error? Unlike my understanding of English, my understanding of
> Latin is non-existent. Please translate.
>
I am pretty sure 'post' means 'after'. I think 'proptor' means 'before'.
I think 'ergo' means 'therefore'. I guess 'hoc' means 'this'.
A link: http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html
A lot of people make this error, most likely several people on this list.
>
> > Furthermore there have been several instances that he has outright
> > refused to answer questions directed at him. The 'landmine' thread
> > for example has several of these.
>
> There are several possible reasons why a question was not aswered. It
could
> be that answering was postponed (and later forgotten) due to lack of
time.
> It could be that a question was so ridiculous that it would be a waste
of
> time to answer it. It could be that a question was not answered because
the
> question had been asked and answered earlier. There might be other
valid
> reasons as well. I have not, however, explicitly stated even once that
I
> outright refuse to answer a question.
So then why is south korea's elected government...?
>
> (Correction for the language nitpickers: I do not remember stating even
once
> that I outright refuse to answer a question.)
Correct.
> NOTE: At closer examination of that thread, you will notice that I have
> asked several questions (to several people) that have not been answered
> either.
True.
>
> > The only reason for this is that he could not answer those questions
> > and maintain his position. They were not in his 'paradigm' and he
> > could not address them.
>
> Other people have not answered my questions. Do you believe that they
too
> did not answer them because they would then no longer be able to
maintain
> their position? Do you believe that those questions were not in those
> posters' 'paradigm' and they could therefore not address them?
>
Yes.
> > It has been shown that some people do not see things that are outside
> > of their paradigm. In other words they ignore everything that
> > contradicts their world view. Another word for this is 'dogmatism'.
>
> Apparently you think I am one of those people. Do you believe the same
thing
> is true for those posters that did not answer my questions, or is this
> position reserved for only those people that do not share your
worldview?
I think it a truism that affects all people. Some people more than
others.
I am not implying that in all cases when someone ignores a question that
this is the case. If it is repeatedly asked and ignored...
Also there is:
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
http://skepdic.com/tilogic.html
