Halibut Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Yes, but it could be argued that the links and articles that someone presented to corroborate their claims are, in actuality, only serving to support their claims as opposed to proving right their claims or disproving the opposing argument. Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 You can't legitimately argue that it's illegal to wear a balaclava when it isn't.Not anymore, I stated so in the other thread. Posted by Cyclone How's that related to the balaclava? Why wouldn't it be?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 Not really. Would it come as any surprise to know this thread is dedicated to you Halibut. Would you care to explain why you think you're right again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDeville Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Hi At times the word of the poster is more than good enough as the posters may carry respect/trust/dignity/support, fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 Hi At times the word of the poster is more than good enough as the posters may carry respect/trust/dignity/support, fact Having listened to both sides of the story so to speak? Or would that be of secondary importance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Having listened to both sides of the story so to speak? Or would that be of secondary importance? If a poster has a long record of providing sound advice and accurate information, and said poster gives an answer to a question, it's reasonable to assume that answer will be correct, unless other evidence shows the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Not anymore, I stated so in the other thread. I don't understand, not what anymore? I must have missed the comment in the other thread. Why wouldn't it be?. You're saying it is, you explain why. Otherwise I'd have to explain why the colour of the sky isn't relevant as well if you choose to mention it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 If a poster has a long record of providing sound advice and accurate information, and said poster gives an answer to a question, it's reasonable to assume that answer will be correct, unless other evidence shows the contrary.Agreed. Although, It's not always reasonable to make such assumptions. For instance, if said poster was in disagreement with another poster, their reputation for giving sound advice wouldn't give you reasonable cause to assume the other poster was wrong would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Agreed. Although, It's not always reasonable to make such assumptions. For instance, if said poster was in disagreement with another poster, their reputation for giving sound advice wouldn't give you reasonable cause to assume the other poster was wrong would it? Reasonable cause, yes, I'd say it would. Definitive proof, no, but until I find out otherwise I'm sticking with the assumption that the guy who has a long history of being right, will turn out to be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 I don't understand, not what anymore? I must have missed the comment in the other thread.Early on in the other thread I posted- "OK. If I retract the word criminal (from my OP) and replaced it with suspect, would that make my point clearer to you? I was acknowledging that "suspect" was a more appropriate term. Posted by Cyclone You're saying it is, you explain why. Otherwise I'd have to explain why the colour of the sky isn't relevant as well if you choose to mention it... Because it poses no lesser risk to security than the balaclava or motorcycle helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.