MESSAGE TO PHIL ALLISON - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: MESSAGE TO PHIL ALLISON


On another subject another thing puzzles me, Phil.

I choose to be anonymous (which you understandably criticised earlier) because,
having once used my true email address on newsgroups, I then got (and still do)
heaps of pesky junk mail and phishing.  So, assuming this eamil address is
genuine,
how do you cope with that?  It would just take too long and be tedious even for
you
to flame them all!


snipped-for-privacy@novirus.com.au wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it




Re: MESSAGE TO PHIL ALLISON



: Hi Phil
:
: You have exercised the right of reply, and have avoided
foul language and used
: plain language quite effectively.  It has convinced me
that you in the right
: this time!  But, the usual diatribes do not.
:
: > **  There is only one University of Sydney
:
: correct.  The other in Sydney is the Uni of NSW
:
: > **  There is no such thing as a " hobby business."
:
: Right, although the ATO can treat a person as having a
hobby rather than a
: business per se,  in which case none of the "expenses"
(including depreciation)
: are deductible from any income.  Not sure if the income
itself is taxed if
: deemed as a hobby...
:
: > **  I do not drive,  but then neither does the Premier
of NSW, Bob Carr.
:
: True
:
: >    I have had no access to any criminal records.
:
: Yes, I wondered about that too
:

As you see I was not making this up.  I really don't have
the time or inclination to document all the stuff about him
as I don't really care that much.  Except  I wish he would
just go away and leave the human race to get on with life.

The reason why I am responding is to demonstrate one point
here of how PA operates.  Note I said "does not have a
drivers licence" to which he responds  " do not drive,  but
then neither does the Premier of NSW, Bob Carr".  Now this
makes him sound very important and the point I made trivial
*BUT* the fact is Bob Carr probably does have a driver's
licence and his job makes it unnecessary where as PA does
not have the licence so therefore  *Cannot* drive.

I know this is being pedantic but this is his "Modus
Operandi"  in all discussions.  He will gloss over a *very*
important fact to disguise his own opinion as the correct
one.  Just so everyone is aware when arguing ( sorry when
being insulted) with this person.

As a note of interest ask him to post his "10 debating
cheats", a fine document on how to win arguments and of
course his speciality #10.  When he has done this I will
show you where he plagiarised it from.  At one stage in
aus.hi-fi we arguing by numbers, it was like a Chinese
take-away on a Friday night :-))

BTW he forgot to add he is also a "Latin Scholar".  So to
him "Fac ut vivas."

Regards TT  "Furnulum pani nolo"

PS for the rest of you see
http://www.geocities.com/krishna_kunchith/humor/greek-latin.html#codex



Re: MESSAGE TO PHIL ALLISON


Well, I thought Phil had made a good come-back and was winning on points, but
he threw it away with a return to his usual language.  Why can't you learn
Phil?  You could achieve so much with reasoned coolness.

Phil Allison wrote: (hardly able to contain himself)

Quoted text here. Click to load it




Re: MESSAGE TO PHIL ALLISON



Quoted text here. Click to load it
winning on points, but
Quoted text here. Click to load it
can't you learn
Quoted text here. Click to load it
LIAR !!
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Get the picture yet?  ;-)  If you really want to test my
factuality post your  full name and your town and you will
see in the coming weeks can happen.

BTW drop by aus.legal and aus.hi-fi to se how well PA goes.


Cheers TT

Here is the 10 debate cheats by Philip Martin Allison as
posted on the net.  Read the link at the end to see where it
was plagiarised from.
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of
cheating in a
discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite
normal until the
fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:


1. Argue from the particular to the general.

Reason that if a thing is true in a particular example then
it is true
in general. There may be little similarity between your
example and the
point in debate but your opponent will have to prove this
unless he spots
the fallacy. If he does then feign incomprehension.

2. Argue from the general to the particular.

Reason that if a thing is generally true then it must be
true in the
particular case in question. Refuse to agree that any
special circumstances
apply to the subject in debate. If your opponent points out
the fallacy of
generalisations then complain that he is making a
generalisation.


3. Beg the question.

Make a statement that can only be true if the debate has
already been
resolved in your favour, ie use your opinion to prove your
opinion. Totally
confounds the debate if the fallacy is not spotted by your
opponent. If it
is, state that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

4. Change the subject.

Done nonchalantly so your opponent doesn't notice this will
pull the rug
out from under him. If he realises and complains, pretend
your new subject
is the one under debate.

5. Quote the absent expert.

Declare an absent party to be an expert who supports your
case. He
possibly isn't an expert or wouldn't in fact support you but
your opponent
cannot debate this person or yourself on the point since he
is not
available.

6. Argue from a position of ignorance.

This is a powerful technique that operates on the principle
that
ignorance is knowledge. It works like this, because you
don't know a certain
proposition is false then you are entitled to presume it is
true. Almost
anything you like can be "proved" with this technique.

7. Produce a straw man.

Propose an example or analogy to the debate that has an
obvious outcome
in your favour, ie a "straw man" that can easily be knocked
down. The
analogy can be highly flawed but your opponent may be
trapped into proving
the straw man has no weight.

8. Make opinions into facts.

Claim anything you like is a fact, provide no supporting
evidence or
arguement and pretend that your opponent must disprove it
immediately or
else agree it is true. Also be sure to ignore his facts no
matter how well
supported. This will test his patience sorely and may cause
him to make
errors.


9. Produce a red herring.

Make a statement of known fact that appears to be relevant
and has the
potential to confuse the issue. An effective red herring
relies on your
opponent's failure to realise that it is not relevant to the
debate. If he
does, then accuse him of ignoring the facts.

10. Insult your opponent.

If all else fails, your opponent is calm and rational, spots
your traps
and exposes your fallacies and distractions every time then
resort to using
sneers, derision and personal jibes. Your opponent may lose
his temper and
that means you win!

---------------------------------------------------------


Postscript.


It is possible to combine two or more of the above
techniques for
increased power to prove anything. By combining #1 and #2
you can argue from
the particular to the particular, that is use one example to
prove something
about another unrelated one.

Better still, quote an example only you know about as this
makes you the
expert. If your opponent falls into the trap of asking
questions about the
example then you are in a position to say whatever you like.

A proficient cheat employs all the above techniques in every
debate. He
jumps easily from one fallacy to the next in order to keep
his opponent from
making any headway. He may not convince his opponent of
anything that he is
saying but will have the satisfaction of having done most of
the talking and
kept control over the discussion.

When the opponent becomes annoyed with this "barrage of
bullshit" the
cheat will call the debate off saying that: "we are just
going around in
circles" which is of course not only true but was his real
aim all along.
This is known as having the last word, a form of parting
blow or insult. A
cheat knows that you never lose a debate that YOU finish!


But most of you aready know all this.

Regards, Phil

____________________________________________________________
__________





see http://www.searchlores.org/schopeng.htm for the original
long version

By the way Phil 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10...... ad
nauseum..................



Re: MESSAGE TO PHIL ALLISON


On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:16:00 +1000, snipped-for-privacy@novirus.com.au put finger
to keyboard and composed:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Add about 30 years.

Here is Phil's life in Phil's own words:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.electronics/msg/ac88e8305970ee56?dmode=source&hl=en


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

Re: MESSAGE TO PHIL ALLISON



"Franc Zabkar"
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.electronics/msg/ac88e8305970ee56?dmode=source&hl=en


 **  There is very little about me in that.

  Most of it is about an old school mate of mine.

  Try to get your facts right   -  Frank.

  Or I might use the "w"  word again  !!!






..........     Phil









Site Timeline