Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7017128" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Actually the other part is now relevant.&nbsp; You are the one who brought the whole it's too many errors idea into the conversation as proof/evidence of your point.&nbsp; Now, if you want anyone to take that as proof/evidence of your assertion then we will need to take some time being convinced that your proof/evidence is valid.Now you may not care to convince anyone and that is fine.&nbsp; That's your call. But one common invalid technique of making an argument is to make a true statement so general it could literally apply to anything and then use that statement for a specific situation and draw conclusions that this means something special about the specific situation.If this is true about your proof/evidence then it applying to everything would be a major flaw because that would mean one could use the same evidence to show that any potential published error was so unlikely to be an actual error that it shouldn't be considered.&nbsp; So it is important to know if such an issue applies to your proof/evidence.&nbsp; Please consider my words above.Please note I didn't assume anything.&nbsp; I asked which case was true.There you go again.&nbsp; It is my belief that your proof/evidence applies to basically everything and is thus useless since it's obviously wrong when applied to every situation.&nbsp; You refuse to engage in that discussion and instead just keep claiming I am misrepresenting you and that you are not saying that.&nbsp; So please put an end to any misrepresentation you feel I am doing and explain what makes your particular case different than the others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7017128, member: 6795602"] Actually the other part is now relevant. You are the one who brought the whole it's too many errors idea into the conversation as proof/evidence of your point. Now, if you want anyone to take that as proof/evidence of your assertion then we will need to take some time being convinced that your proof/evidence is valid. Now you may not care to convince anyone and that is fine. That's your call. But one common invalid technique of making an argument is to make a true statement so general it could literally apply to anything and then use that statement for a specific situation and draw conclusions that this means something special about the specific situation. If this is true about your proof/evidence then it applying to everything would be a major flaw because that would mean one could use the same evidence to show that any potential published error was so unlikely to be an actual error that it shouldn't be considered. So it is important to know if such an issue applies to your proof/evidence. Please consider my words above. Please note I didn't assume anything. I asked which case was true. There you go again. It is my belief that your proof/evidence applies to basically everything and is thus useless since it's obviously wrong when applied to every situation. You refuse to engage in that discussion and instead just keep claiming I am misrepresenting you and that you are not saying that. So please put an end to any misrepresentation you feel I am doing and explain what makes your particular case different than the others. [/QUOTE]

Verification