--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > wrote: > > > As they say, "You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own > facts." Furthermore, it's just plain sloppy to confuse the two. If > you're going to claim that the truth is far away from the position Judy > is taking, in other words, implying that she not telling the truth, then > you better back that up with facts and not your OPINION. > > > Okay Raunchy, there are facts that are not open to interpretation and > those that are. > There are physical facts which cannot be disputed or which don't leave > room for interpretation and facts that do. > So and so killed someone. Did he do it in self defense or did he do it > in a premeditated fashion out of anger or revenge? > So you are telling me that the conclusion for something like this is > clear cut. I think this the fault line we often see here. Some people > are satisfied offering an opinion on something like this, and others > will insist that their interpretation of this fact, is the correct > interpretation. > I think it may be you who are confusing the issues Raunchy. > If you are going to go into the pretzel mode, you might need to work on > it a little more. >
Pretzel mode happens to people who state an opinion as if it were fact. That's what you did by implying Judy doesn't tell the truth and exactly why she so easily kicks your butt in an argument.
