On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:02:59 +0100, "Flower of romance"
 wrote:

>
>"Lady Nina"  wrote in message 
>news:1f2574pgodtc8gsf4sovnqv95m6g6eifek@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:04:22 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>This Continent is
>>>money driven with the exclusion of all else, plain ans simple.
>>
>> This Continent is not an entity free from influence. It contains
>> people. And many of us are far from 'money driven with the exclusion
>> of all else'. Many aren't.
>
>Such people are in the public sector. The rest suffer with the strongest 
>adiction I know of: Money..

All of them? Is what you intending to say summarise to 'that if you
are not in the public sector you're addicted to money?' Looks a bit
like a logical fallacy to me. I don't hold that view.

>> You might want to think a bit beyond the generalisations.
>
>Like you did just there you mean? You generalised by inferring I only make 
>generalisations.

What you or I or anyone infer and what meaning is in the words are
entirely separate things. But it is too late for precision with
language.
-- 
Lady Nina
"I'm sorry I can't join in anymore, I've been let down too many times
before"

"Lady Nina"  wrote in message 
news:ce85749jl66vkskssvr3ddp7k4feb8t6ad@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:02:59 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lady Nina"  wrote in message
>>news:1f2574pgodtc8gsf4sovnqv95m6g6eifek@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:04:22 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>This Continent is
>>>>money driven with the exclusion of all else, plain ans simple.
>>>
>>> This Continent is not an entity free from influence. It contains
>>> people. And many of us are far from 'money driven with the exclusion
>>> of all else'. Many aren't.
>>
>>Such people are in the public sector. The rest suffer with the strongest
>>adiction I know of: Money..
>
> All of them? Is what you intending to say summarise to 'that if you
> are not in the public sector you're addicted to money?' Looks a bit
> like a logical fallacy to me. I don't hold that view.

Just because you don't hold the view does not make it a fallacy.

>
>>> You might want to think a bit beyond the generalisations.
>>
>>Like you did just there you mean? You generalised by inferring I only make
>>generalisations.
>
> What you or I or anyone infer and what meaning is in the words are
> entirely separate things. But it is too late for precision with
> language.

Exactly

> -- 
> Lady Nina
> "I'm sorry I can't join in anymore, I've been let down too many times
> before"

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:32:45 +0100, "Flower of romance"
 wrote:

>
>"Lady Nina"  wrote in message 
>news:ce85749jl66vkskssvr3ddp7k4feb8t6ad@4ax.com...

snip repeating headers for neatness

>>>>>This Continent is
>>>>>money driven with the exclusion of all else, plain ans simple.
>>>>
>>>> This Continent is not an entity free from influence. It contains
>>>> people. And many of us are far from 'money driven with the exclusion
>>>> of all else'. Many aren't.
>>>
>>>Such people are in the public sector. The rest suffer with the strongest
>>>adiction I know of: Money..
>>
>> All of them? Is what you intending to say summarise to 'that if you
>> are not in the public sector you're addicted to money?' Looks a bit
>> like a logical fallacy to me. I don't hold that view.
>
>Just because you don't hold the view does not make it a fallacy.

Your evidence is lacking. There's an old joke

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading
north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.

    * The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish
sheep are black!"
    * The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."
    * The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one
field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is
black."

I don't know your prior level of knowledge so excuse me if I'm in a
grandmother/eggs situation here, but by my reading (which may of
course be wrong, feel free to debate) it is a fallacy.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
-- 
Lady Nina
"And no one discusses what they don't understand
And no one does anything to harm the brand"

"Lady Nina"  wrote in message 
news:7hd674h6mps10nhj5pd4ma3q1di5uehglt@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:32:45 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>  wrote:

>>Just because you don't hold the view does not make it a fallacy.
>
> Your evidence is lacking. There's an old joke

Are you suggesting that if no prove is provided for an argument it is 
therefore untrue? If so then your joke below is very apt.
>
> An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading
> north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.
>
>    * The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish
> sheep are black!"
>    * The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."
>    * The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one
> field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is
> black."
>
> I don't know your prior level of knowledge so excuse me if I'm in a
> grandmother/eggs situation here, but by my reading (which may of
> course be wrong, feel free to debate) it is a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy
>
> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Re-enforcing the falacy that if it's on  web page, it has to be true.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:25:11 +0100, "Flower of romance"
 wrote:

>
>"Lady Nina"  wrote in message 
>news:7hd674h6mps10nhj5pd4ma3q1di5uehglt@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:32:45 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>  wrote:
>
>>>Just because you don't hold the view does not make it a fallacy.
>>
>> Your evidence is lacking. There's an old joke
>
>Are you suggesting that if no prove is provided for an argument it is 
>therefore untrue? 

No, I was asking you to show your working, provide some facts rather
than opinion.
-- 
Lady Nina
"And no one discusses what they don't understand
And no one does anything to harm the brand"

"Lady Nina"  wrote in message 
news:iv0774t4kifgqvlkm1q5a9cghnem9ujekv@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:25:11 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lady Nina"  wrote in message
>>news:7hd674h6mps10nhj5pd4ma3q1di5uehglt@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:32:45 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>  wrote:
>>
>>>>Just because you don't hold the view does not make it a fallacy.
>>>
>>> Your evidence is lacking. There's an old joke
>>
>>Are you suggesting that if no prove is provided for an argument it is
>>therefore untrue?
>
> No, I was asking you to show your working, provide some facts rather
> than opinion.

They are facts but to show my working on here is pointless and impossible.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:11:06 +0100, "Flower of romance"
 wrote:

>"Lady Nina"  wrote in message 
>news:iv0774t4kifgqvlkm1q5a9cghnem9ujekv@4ax.com...

snip repeat headers

>>>>>Just because you don't hold the view does not make it a fallacy.
>>>>
>>>> Your evidence is lacking. There's an old joke
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that if no prove is provided for an argument it is
>>>therefore untrue?
>>
>> No, I was asking you to show your working, provide some facts rather
>> than opinion.
>
>They are facts but to show my working on here is pointless and impossible.

And at this point I'd ask if we were still talking about Continental
Europe.
-- 
Lady Nina
Lucky to have wise women in her life.

"Lady Nina"  wrote in message 
news:p6da74len22mttp5f9snqjiom12cotnqoh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:11:06 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Lady Nina"  wrote in message
>>news:iv0774t4kifgqvlkm1q5a9cghnem9ujekv@4ax.com...
>>> No, I was asking you to show your working, provide some facts rather
>>> than opinion.
>>
>>They are facts but to show my working on here is pointless and impossible.
>
> And at this point I'd ask if we were still talking about Continental
> Europe.

I'm buggered if I can remember.

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:eb5477e1-df6b-43e1-ba00-200064392cfc@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Flower of romance wrote:
> Lady Nina wrote

> >>Just because you don't hold the view does not make it a fallacy.
> > Your evidence is lacking.
...
> > I don't know your prior level of knowledge so excuse me if I'm in a
> > grandmother/eggs situation here, but by my reading (which may of
> > course be wrong, feel free to debate) it is a fallacy.
> It's not a fallacy

>Do you actually understand what's meant by a logical fallacy?

Yes. A good example is that assuming that anything on a web page has to be 
true, is a fallacy, or not not proving an argument disproves it, is also a 
fallacy.

> >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
> >Re-enforcing the falacy that if it's on web page, it has to be true.

>Not at all, you'll find the same, or similar lists, in many many text
>books.

Indeed but i've seen so many people post web pages to re-enforce arguments 
and anyone can publish a web page.I see countless knee jerk reactions. :)

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:472a2813-4ca0-46e6-b86d-73a122b1b8de@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>
>> I'm buggered if I can remember.
>
> Dear Pillock.

What, muppet?

>
> Pls STFU for a bit while you watch and learn, there's a good chap.

Freedom of speech, Trin and there's fuck all you can teach me. That much is 
certain..

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:5995beaf-4eae-4c4a-9693-b2c7cc6c6356@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> trin wrote
>
>> > Pls STFU for a bit while you watch and learn, there's a good chap.
>> Freedom of speech, Trin and there's fuck all you can teach me. That much 
>> is
>> certain..
>
> Yeah, sadly. Shame. If you'd bother to try learning, then you might've
> eventually (with lots and lots and lots of work) managed to 'fit in'
> here, but as I said in my reply to Daniel, you don't have the
> mentality for it.

Fit in? I have no intention of buying itno your fantasies. I don't to the 
obedient dog thing. People take me as I am or not at all. Thier choice.

>
> As for freedom of speech, do we actually =technically= have that over
> here?

Yeah in certain quiet places where it's dark and no'one can hear us.. like 
on our computers.

>I know we've got (or, at least, are supposed to have) freedom of
> the press (with some exceptions, though having exceptions hardly makes
> it 'free' in my book), but speech I've never quite been certain on.


Just remember how many people died for our right to that freedom of speech 
only to have it scattered by some pc politician.

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:9908cdc2-698e-4cd3-bbd4-e837561bc3ed@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:

>> Fit in? I have no intention of buying itno your fantasies. I don't to the
>> obedient dog thing. People take me as I am or not at all. Thier choice.
>
> Welcome to the killfile. Bye. :)

Welcome to mine. Oh wait, you won't see this but what the hell.

Flower of romance  wrote:


> 
> Fit in? I have no intention of buying itno your fantasies. I don't to the
> obedient dog thing. People take me as I am or not at all. Thier choice.

Fine. Not at all then. the only reason I haven't killfiled you is that
there have been some interesting replies to your posts.

-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

"Daniel Cohen"  wrote in message 
news:1ijxkhh.d8qj7c1hteadcN%danspam@f2s.com...
> Flower of romance  wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Fit in? I have no intention of buying itno your fantasies. I don't to the
>> obedient dog thing. People take me as I am or not at all. Thier choice.
>
> Fine. Not at all then. the only reason I haven't killfiled you is that
> there have been some interesting replies to your posts.

You don't support the concept of individuality either then?

Flower of romance  wrote:

> "Daniel Cohen"  wrote in message 
> news:1ijxkhh.d8qj7c1hteadcN%danspam@f2s.com...
bedient dog thing. People take me as I am or not at all. Thier choice.
> >
> > Fine. Not at all then. the only reason I haven't killfiled you is that
> > there have been some interesting replies to your posts.
> 
> You don't support the concept of individuality either then?

Another total lack of logic in your reply. Ondividuals are free to be
themselves (subject to certain legal restrictions). I am also free to
have nothing to do with certain individuals. That decision does not
affect and is not affected by the "concept" of individuality.
-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

"Daniel Cohen of borg "  wrote in message 
news:1ijz4ip.hvmxj2gpfwawN%danspam@f2s.com...
> Flower of romance  wrote:
>
>> "Daniel Cohen"  wrote in message
>> news:1ijxkhh.d8qj7c1hteadcN%danspam@f2s.com...
> bedient dog thing. People take me as I am or not at all. Thier choice.
>> >
>> > Fine. Not at all then. the only reason I haven't killfiled you is that
>> > there have been some interesting replies to your posts.
>>
>> You don't support the concept of individuality either then?
>
> Another total lack of logic in your reply.

Wrong! There is plenty of ligic in my reply but because you missed it, you 
assumed there was none.

>Ondividuals are free to be
> themselves (subject to certain legal restrictions).

Then why to you condemn people for doing so then?

>I am also free to
> have nothing to do with certain individuals. That decision does not
> affect and is not affected by the "concept" of individuality.

You chose to have nothing to do with a certain individual because other 
people have done the same. You failed to look into the logic of whther it as 
accurate to do so.  This group is incorrectly named. It should be called, 
"uk.hipocrites.pretentious". However one good thing has come out of all 
this. At least i know that even when i was drinking that I wasn't the 
problem with this newsgroups. It's "regs" were and still are.


And no doubt you'll killfile me but you should know somethings about 
killfiles

1. I have a killfile too
2. I don't know you. Other than this conversation I have never spoken to you 
so why should I care if you killfile me?
3.. Killfiles are easy to get past. I don't bother these days because I 
really see know point
4. Go for it. I really, really, really don't care.

In article <ercek.69625$7v1.19639@newsfe30.ams2>, Flower of romance 
generously decided to share with us..

Snippetry..

> And no doubt you'll killfile me but you should know somethings about 
> killfiles
> 
> 1. I have a killfile too
> 2. I don't know you. Other than this conversation I have never spoken to you 
> so why should I care if you killfile me?
> 3.. Killfiles are easy to get past. I don't bother these days because I 
> really see know point
> 4. Go for it. I really, really, really don't care.

But do you actually understand the sound of one hand clapping?..

By the way.. if you're using OE at least use the spellchecker to assist 
with your inadequacy in the spelling department.. the word is 
"hypocrite".. as you appear to be one you should at least try and learn 
how to spell it.. *your* Usenet client may be able to help you there, 
even if it can't adhere to other standards..

-- 
Gid

Current Project: Bragdy'r Ddraenen Wen 
(if it ever stops raining for long enough)

"Gid"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22e37f80afab29af9897ce@news.btinternet.com...
> In article <ercek.69625$7v1.19639@newsfe30.ams2>, Flower of romance
> generously decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> And no doubt you'll killfile me but you should know somethings about
>> killfiles
>>
>> 1. I have a killfile too
>> 2. I don't know you. Other than this conversation I have never spoken to 
>> you
>> so why should I care if you killfile me?
>> 3.. Killfiles are easy to get past. I don't bother these days because I
>> really see know point
>> 4. Go for it. I really, really, really don't care.
>
> But do you actually understand the sound of one hand clapping?..

Clapping against what? Have you tried slapping the top of you head and 
rubbing your belly at the same time?

>
> By the way.. if you're using OE at least use the spellchecker to assist
> with your inadequacy in the spelling department..


Yaddha, yaddha, yaddha. Always the way. If you can't pick faults with the 
argument, pick faults with the spelling and/or grammar. Sooooooooooooooooooo 
predictable
>the word is
> "hypocrite".. as you appear to be one you should at least try and learn
> how to spell it..

LOL. This group is full of them. and one spelling mistake does not make one 
an inadequate "speller" and for the record; my spell checker doesn't work, 
dumbarse. I mentioned that in a previous post if you actually bothered to 
read them.

*snip rest unread*

"Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
news:ercek.69625$7v1.19639@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> "Daniel Cohen"  wrote in message 
> news:1ijz4ip.hvmxj2gpfwawN%danspam@f2s.com...

>>I am also free to
>> have nothing to do with certain individuals. That decision does not
>> affect and is not affected by the "concept" of individuality.
>
> You chose to have nothing to do with a certain individual because other 
> people have done the same.

Oh, sure, you know better than Daniel why Daniel chooses to do something. 
Got sooper psychic powerz now, have we?

Jani

"Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
news:ercek.69625$7v1.19639@newsfe30.ams2...

[]

> You chose to have nothing to do with a certain individual because other 
> people have done the same. You failed to look into the logic of whther it 
> as accurate to do so.  This group is incorrectly named. It should be 
> called, "uk.hipocrites.pretentious". However one good thing has come out 
> of all this. At least i know that even when i was drinking that I wasn't 
> the problem with this newsgroups. It's "regs" were and still are.

I doubt that alcohol had much to do with it; you've followed exactly the 
same pattern every time you've been here. You start off slimily 
ingratiating; you then interject on several threads with irrational and 
tangential posts designed to waste the respondents' time; next you fillet 
out someone who's been rather more patient than everyone else and attempt an 
extremely clumsy divide-and-rule strategy; then you throw a tantrum because, 
strangely enough, you *still* haven't endeared yourself to anyone, including 
your currently-designated 'nice guy'.

All liberally spattered with accusations about how it's not *your* fault 
that everyone here is so mean to you, and assertions about how you're a 
'real individual' and the rest of us are just hypocrites and bullies. When, 
in fact, we are all very much individuals - but one of the things we just 
happen to have in common is disliking obnoxious little pillocks such as you.

Now, please do your regular Exit Flounce and take your 'poor little me' act 
to the magickers or the hackers or someone, as per normal.

Jani