--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > As far as "proving you wrong" goes , from my POV it's your > > > > > > > discrimination and resonance that's likely the issue, > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it would be, from Vaj's POV. Could that be > > > > > > what Ann has in mind by "lack of self-knowledge"? > > > > > > > > > > > > And it isn't just Ann who would seem to have these > > > > > > "discrimination and resonance" issues concerning Vaj, > > > > > > some for far longer than Ann has been around-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > and nothing I say is going to change that in the time span > > > > > > > of an email thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > --quite consistently over many, many "email" threads > > > > > > on FFL. > > > > > > > > > > > > Strange that someone who styles himself as a "pleasant, > > > > > > loving person" would be so seriously misinterpreted by > > > > > > so many for so long, with Vaj helpless to change that > > > > > > impression. > > > > > > > > > > This is the typical 'appeal to popularity' fallacy. > > > > > > > > No, it's not. > > > > > > Of course it is! > > > > No, it's not. > > > > > > I made no truth claims concerning the > > > > impression people have of Vaj, merely an observation > > > > that they have this impression. > > > > > > No, it's an appeal to majority first of all. You can't deny > > > this. You do this a lot, if not all the time. Your claim may > > > not be spelled out in particular, but it is nevertheless there. > > > Inherent is the claim, that Vaj cannot be a 'pleasant and > > > Loving person', because a majority of people on the forum > > > disagrees. > > > > You can read into what I wrote whatever floats your boat, > > iranitea. You cannot, however, legitimately characterize > > your reading as fact. > > It is a fact Judy!
Read my lips: It's what you read into what I wrote, not a fact. > What you are implying is the opposite of what Vaj stated. As I said, you can infer anything you want from what I wrote. But you can't legitimately claim your inference is a fact. > If that wasn't what you had meant, If what wasn't what I had meant? then you had ample > opportunity now to clarify what you were trying to say. But > you are not coming up with an alternative meaning. You called it the fallacy of appeal to authority. I pointed out I was not making a claim about the truth of people's impression of Vaj (that's the only way it could have been such a fallacy) but rather an observation that many *had* that impression of Vaj. That's all the clarification you should have needed to recognize your mistake. Besides > that, we are talking about language here, so its in place to > say that most people would have understood it to mean just > that. And this is not an 'appeal to majority' fallacy, as > language is indeed a social interaction. I'm sorry, but you're just babbling. Plus which, you keep trying to mind-read. > So, you are cornered, no way to hide behind your semantic > quibbles. LOL. He tries to corner me with logic, fails miserably, then claims I'm trying to hide behind semantics because his logic has been refuted. And note that he hasn't been able to provide any comment on this: > > It would be much more interesting to see you attempt to > > *explain* my observation, which you don't seem to have > > challenged. As I went on to suggest, iranitea doesn't want to acknowledge the accuracy of my observation, because it *is* difficult to explain. He isn't up to the challenge, so he tries to play logic games instead but isn't any good at those either. > > > > That observation appears to have made you a bit > > > > nervous, though, such that you were driven to create > > > > a straw man to knock down. > > > > > > Nope. > > > > Yep. > > > > > > Back to the drawing board, iranitea. > > > > > > For you, yes. > > > > No, for you. > > >
