Testing the TK Tar Baby

[WilbyInebriated]

I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt (maybe I read it in WIKI, even)  that if it is raining and I look outside, the sidewalk in front of my house will be wet and there will be droplets of water falling from the sky.

Right? I mean, this is the very definition of rainfall and its result on the environment. Isn't it?

So... I'm getting to go walk the wild beasts and I take a glance out my soiled, dirty tiny window, and I see that the tiny corner of my sidewalk is indeed wet, and there sure are droplets of water falling from the sky.

Therefore, I can reliably conclude that it is raining........... RIGHT?

So I proclaim to all the world on my blog that I have discovered that it is RAINING in South Texas for the first time in DAYS... and I run and get my umbrella and galoshes and put the canidae in a big plastic sack and go outside..... where I notice that the sun is shining brilliantly from a cloudless sky and the next door neighbor's kid is watering their lawn. And my sidewalk. And she is squirting water up to see how high she can get it.


Post hoc, non propter hoc. And the distinction between Modus ponens and Modus tollens.

If A, then B. Observe A.... then conclude B. Duh. If the premise is true the conclusion is true because this is a tautology.
Observe NOT A... maybe B, maybe not. Something else besides A might be able to do B. To conclude NOT B from NOT A is a fallacy.

If A, then B. Observe B.... maybe A, maybe not. Something else might be doing the B that you observe. To conclude A from observing B is a fallacy.
Observe NOT B..... then you can be CERTAIN... NOT A. Of course your observations have to be not only Precise... but also ACCURATE.

Note carefully: the only thing you can be sure of is either a NEGATIVE or a TAUTOLOGY.

Bingo.

Ainslie wrote that letter herself.
NOBODY that I have ever seen except for Ainslie uses the following construction:

"The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein. "

She's used this "refers" construction a lot.

Of course what a real lawyer would say is

"In re the above matter" or "Referring to the above matter".

What she has is backwards. The "matter" doesn't "refer".... it is REFERRED TO.

She wrote that letter herself.

compare, contrast... conclusion: tinselkoala/alsetalokin is a pretentious fool without integrity who uses logic when it suits his purpose and throws logic out when it suits his purpose.

[ReFried]

Well yes, quite the development. Let's not get our knickers in a twist I say. Wouldn't be cricket. Remember our colours lads. In any case, (I refer.) is not quite unknown. It is an old and deprecated  expression of British English. It was most commonly used as an affectation deployed by now dead British professors. (May they rest in peace) With a brief explanation the right hand with index finger extended bends back towards the board with a casual yet imperious air. Usually pointing to an equation or example and less often a quote. I refer. More modern yet still arcane is the English expression "to wit" more often used in writing ...  Yes I've been around and yes I'm actually old enough to have heard this shit.

Clawing back to our current situation ... Stefan must do what Stefan feels is best for the security of his forum. Having said that I do hope that his testicular fortitude goes into OverUnity mode. I had not considered as PicoWatt's mentioned, that the message  Stefan received might have been an email.  Emails are spoofed and sometimes friends borrow a paper with letterhead and envelope from an attorney and get up to mischief. I don't believe its unreasonable to request the attorney to send a registered letter with a notarized signature. Also, requesting identification of their registered number if they are a barrister or the jurisdiction they are registered in as an attorney. Stefan need not agree with their client. She has, after all, been a very naughty girl. Perhaps the attorney could explain more, in her own words, why the complaint of her client is credible or even important before considering giving up privileged information. There is also the burden of RA's numerous libelous statements towards credible correspondents here. Libelous statements without a hint of credible basis.

Cheers,

ReFried

[picowatt]

Well yes, quite the development. Let's not get our knickers in a twist I say. Wouldn't be cricket. Remember our colours lads. In any case, (I refer.) is not quite unknown. It is an old and deprecated  expression of British English. It was most commonly used as an affectation deployed by now dead British professors. (May they rest in peace) With a brief explanation the right hand with index finger extended bends back towards the board with a casual yet imperious air. Usually pointing to an equation or example and less often a quote. I refer. More modern yet still arcane is the English expression "to wit" more often used in writing ...  Yes I've been around and yes I'm actually old enough to have heard this shit.

Clawing back to our current situation ... Stefan must do what Stefan feels is best for the security of his forum. Having said that I do hope that his testicular fortitude goes into OverUnity mode. I had not considered as PicoWatt's mentioned, that the message  Stefan received might have been an email.  Emails are spoofed and sometimes friends borrow a paper with letterhead and envelope from an attorney and get up to mischief. I don't believe its unreasonable to request the attorney to send a registered letter with a notarized signature. Also, requesting identification of their registered number if they are a barrister or the jurisdiction they are registered in as an attorney. Stefan need not agree with their client. She has, after all, been a very naughty girl. Perhaps the attorney could explain more, in her own words, why the complaint of her client is credible or even important before considering giving up privileged information. There is also the burden of RA's numerous libelous statements towards credible correspondents here. Libelous statements without a hint of credible basis.

Cheers,

ReFried

ReFried,

That's funny, I hadn't considered that Harti might have received notice by post!  I guess I sometimes forget that snail mail still exists.  Either way, it would be wise to verify the source.

As to the rest, well said,

PW

[TinselKoala]

compare, contrast... conclusion: tinselkoala/alsetalokin is a pretentious fool without integrity who uses logic when it suits his purpose and throws logic out when it suits his purpose.

Actually, no.

You may seek to belittle me but I know you are just passing wind.

I've looked at your history of posting, Wontbesober. I don't think you've made a helpful or creative comment, at all, ever, in any thread you've ever posted in. Your posts, in fact, just like these recent ones, are textbook examples of trolling: they are off topic, picky snide little remarks designed to do nothing but distract from the main issues and cause a reaction. You are the resident troll of OU dot com and everybody knows it.

I am perfectly well aware, as you seem not to be, that my statement about the letter is conjecture. I support my conjecture with other instances taken from her writings where she uses the same construction, which is different from the examples you gave and indeed is even different from the examples of the Old Professors given above. Ainslie's "matters" REFER, they are not referred to.

And your poke at my logic is a very typical argumentum ad hominem , abusive (and stupid).  What I do or say has no bearing on what Ainslie has done or said, or the nature of the evidence that Ainslie herself has provided. I could be as logic-impaired as you or she, and the evidence would still support the presumption that she wrote that letter herself.

[WilbyInebriated]

Actually, no.

actually, yes. supported by your own words. you ignorant slut...

You may seek to belittle me but I know you are just passing wind.

as you sow, so shall you reap.

I've looked at your history of posting, Wontbesober. I don't think you've made a helpful or creative comment, at all, ever, in any thread you've ever posted in. Your posts, in fact, just like these recent ones, are textbook examples of trolling: they are off topic, picky snide little remarks designed to do nothing but distract from the main issues and cause a reaction. You are the resident troll of OU dot com and everybody knows it.

i don't care what you think... mint? why are you engaging in more logical fallacy? oh yeah... your hallmarks. my comments to you are always on topic... at least in the sense that they are refuting your various off-topic fallacies.

I am perfectly well aware, as you seem not to be, that my statement about the letter is conjecture. I support my conjecture with other instances taken from her writings where she uses the same construction, which is different from the examples you gave and indeed is even different from the examples of the Old Professors given above. Ainslie's "matters" REFER, they are not referred to.

idiot. i called it conjecture immediately after you posted that tripe. so , i am obviously well aware... again, tu stultus es!

And your poke at my logic is a very typical argumentum ad hominem , abusive (and stupid).  What I do or say has no bearing on what Ainslie has done or said, or the nature of the evidence that Ainslie herself has provided. I could be as logic-impaired as you or she, and the evidence would still support the presumption that she wrote that letter herself.

no it is not. you don't seem to understand what ad hominem is. not surprising really, you have a nasty habit of changing definitions to suit you.
# person a makes claim x.
# person b makes an attack on person a.
# therefore a's claim is false.

fill in the blanks and please demonstrate how my refutation of your (sarcasm)'logic'(/sarcasm) was ad hominem. let me start you out since you are so obviously confused... you are person a, your conjecture that rose sent the letter is claim x.  i'll wait...

furthermore, i have never claimed what you do or say has any bearing on what ainslie does or says. that's just another one of your pretentious red herrings... i have only ever used your own words against you, troll.
so you don't have any proof... and yet you argue on... idiot troll. how about you go amend your accusation to 'i think she wrote that letter herself.' instead of "She wrote that letter herself."

again, tu stultus es!