What's your profile for Jack?

[lynn cates]

motive

Hello Michael. Thanks about the questions concerning motivation.

In my humble estimate, a discussion is legitimate ONLY when it concerns evidence or scenarios which may motivate a certain avenue of research.

When, however, one tries to be coy or bait me, I frequently weaken and respond in kind. Hopefully, that will emphasise the importance of staying with the point and not the personality.

I don't know what you mean by oversimplification. I have argued that evidence is lacking regarding Liz and her purported solicitation. I have subsequently suggested that it be suspended until we get a clearer picture. For some odd reason, this provokes an analogy that has NOTHING to do with my opinion. The analogy is fallacious to a thinking person--trolls excepted (not directed at you).

Hopefully, this will give you an understanding of what impels me. You will note further that I have given you a SERIOUS reply. A disagreement is a trivial thing and, all things being equal, I MUCH prefer that to uncritical acceptance. We disagree. But we have ALWAYS (so far as I know) been cordial.

But you are probably right. Those who try to be cute and clever should be ignored, not made recipients of the lex talionis.

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

It was my inference given what you had said.

If you like, I will permit you to set up a thread and I can give you a logic tutorial. Might benefit you.

A bit nasty. While you may present your arguments in a logical way, you often, sarcastically, reduce others' arguments to the absurd through a process of oversimplification. The use of simplification only benefits your arguments while frustrating others. Why do you do this? Is it a form of enjoyment? If so it is quite mean-spirited and something I wouldn't expect of a professor (which I believe you are). Is it simply the product of frustration over so many battles against what you (perhaps) see as a bastion of old school ignorance? If that is the case, regardless of your adherence to classical forms of argument, you are hardly doing your own causes any good. We absolutely all know you're a good guy. No doubt on my end for sure. I just scratch my head regarding what seems to have been coming off your fingertips as of late.

Cheers,

Mike

[lynn cates]

email

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Delighted. Maybe email?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo all!!!

This recent exchange has been hilarious. Not meaning to offend anyone here. Oh, and Lynn, I'm very interested in a logic tutorial. In all seriousness. Or you can send me lessons via PM???

[lynn cates]

thread

Hello Jon. Thanks.

It was my inference given what you had said.

If you like, I will permit you to set up a thread and I can give you a logic tutorial. Might benefit you.

Game?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

The inclusion of the question mark is irrelevant as I never said "possibilities are ruled out since they didn't happen". You did, with the added question mark for some reason

When did I say it ?

[lynn cates]

"?"

Hello Jon. Thanks for quoting--it preserved my question mark.

Query: in general, why would one wish to use a question mark rather than a full stop? (Need a hint?)

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

It was you who said "possibilities are ruled out since they didn't happen"
I`ve quoted you below (using the quote facility) just in case you`ve forgotten.

So possibilities are ruled out since they didn't happen? Very well, I have said Liz was possibly soliciting. So let's rule that out.

But, it`s good to know you haven`t ruled out Stride soliciting.

[lynn cates]

memory

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I wouldn't. I was merely trying to adopt your criterion about possibilities.

Have you changed it again or had you forgotten your own reply?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

On what grounds would you rule soliciting out ?

[lynn cates]

ruled out

Hello Jon. Thanks.

So possibilities are ruled out since they didn't happen? Very well, I have said Liz was possibly soliciting. So let's rule that out.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

If that was what you meant by your analogy then it was a poor analogy, and not really applicable to Stride.`s situation.

Whether or not she could have gone back to Kidney is iirrelevant, the fact is she didn`t, hence she was murdered.

[lynn cates]

De Analogia

Hello Tracy. Thanks.

"Aw come on Lynn, you may disagree with Jon but I wouldn't call it inept."

It has nothing to do with disagreement. It has to do with:

1. fittingness (aptness) of analogy

and

2. method of comparison

The dustbin example was acceptable; however, what was NOT analogically acceptable was going beyond a reversion to former occupation and suggesting someone else's take on the matter. That was a logical fallacy.

"Also I see that you could . . . change [your] occupation but can quite easily . . . go back to what you know when circumstances dictate."

Indeed. So Liz could have gone back to Kidney, given her circumstances? In fact, she had done that before.

Cheers.
LC

[tji]

Hi Jon

I hope Tracy forgives me for jumping in.

No worries at all, you seem to be so much better at portraying what I want to say anyway, so seems best for everyone involved

Inept? You are a card, Lynn.

Aw come on Lynn, you may disagree with Jon but I wouldn't call it inept.

Also I see that you could someone can change their occupation but can quite easily will go back to what you know when circumstances dictate.

Tracy

[GUT]

G'Day Lynn

I guess no TV or internet either, most could barely read and books were hellishly expensive.