you're probably right

maybe

Although, its hard to say

The bistiza school of debate:

Rule No. 1: When someone makes a point you can't refute, just say this is ridiculous and they're trying to attack you.

Rule No. 2: Take what is said at face value, imply nothing.

Rule No. 3: Get mad when other people take what is said at face value and don't imply the meaning that helps your argument.

Rule No. 4: Contradict yourself at every turn.  Keeps them guessing.

Rule No. 5: Always talk down to people and treat them like they know nothing and you know everything.  It works.  Trust me.

Rule No. 6: You should already know this rule.  Its implied meaning is hidden in rules 1-5.  Once figured out, take implied rule at face value.  This rule could have multiple definitions, use accordingly.

That about sums it up.

Posted by llamanunts on 9/5/2012 11:24:00 AM (view original):

I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I IMPLY NOTHING.

If at any time you're unsure of whether I mean something, all you have to do is ask and I'll be happy to clarify. But if you want to read things into it that aren't there instead of asking, that's on you. Don't act like I said it when you assumed it.

or...

Milk didn't take what I said for what it was. Milk took what I said for what he wanted it to be, as that would allow him to make a goofy statement he thought would poke fun at me. If milk was confused about what I meant, milk could have asked for clarification. milk chose not to do that, and that's not my fault.

When I said probability, it meant statistical probability. That should have been obvious given the context of what I was referencing.

Which is it?  Should we take you at face value or make assumptions?  You can't have it both ways.

This is too good.

Posted by ryrun on 9/5/2012 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 9/5/2012 11:24:00 AM (view original):

I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I IMPLY NOTHING.

If at any time you're unsure of whether I mean something, all you have to do is ask and I'll be happy to clarify. But if you want to read things into it that aren't there instead of asking, that's on you. Don't act like I said it when you assumed it.

or...

Milk didn't take what I said for what it was. Milk took what I said for what he wanted it to be, as that would allow him to make a goofy statement he thought would poke fun at me. If milk was confused about what I meant, milk could have asked for clarification. milk chose not to do that, and that's not my fault.

When I said probability, it meant statistical probability. That should have been obvious given the context of what I was referencing.

Which is it?  Should we take you at face value or make assumptions?  You can't have it both ways.

This is too good.

Bet he STILL won't acknowledge the fact that he slipped up.

The milk/ryrrun school of "debate":

1. When someone says something you can't refute, turn everything into a personal attack on them. Make sure to use lots of namecalling and insults.

2. If that doesn't work, say things meant to insult them, but disguise it so it looks like it's a legit complaint about their tactics. This will be sure to distract from the real debate where you are losing miserably. Suggestings include insisting  your opponent makes no sense, is contradictory, arrogant, and anything else that seems like it's a legit but is really just a thinly-veiled insult designed to distract from the fact you are losing the real debate.

3. If that doesn't work, make assumptions and base everything else in your argument on them. Make sure not to ask for clarification, because doing so might mean you'd be revealed as wrong. After all, if your assumptions help you argue, it doesn't matter if they're right or not - just keep plowing ahead and insisting you're right and the other person will likley give up.

4. If that doesn't work, sidetrack the discussion into a debate about things that don't matter. Good ideas include the meaning of random words the other person says and what is implied versus stated. If this works, people will forget the original debate and how bad you were losing in it and concentrate on who said what. If you're really good, this will be a vicious circle in which the real debate never comes back into play, and you can rest assured no one will remember you got destroyed in it.

5. If that doesn't work, make up anything you want and go with it. As long as it distracts from the fact you got thrashed before and will again if you ever return to the actual debate, it's worth a shot.

Yeah, that about sums that up.

emy,

I didn't slip up. Someone not being able to get the meaning of a word from context doens't constitute a mistake on my part, but on theirs.

No, that's not the point. By claiming we should use context, you contradict your "say what I mean, mean what I say... Imply nothing" argument. You have to choose.

i still wonder what could possess bistiza to claim he "thrashed" anyone, when all hes accomplished in his postings is to give a bunch of coaches a rather low opinion of him... still, i've been on the other side of the coin, arguing a point when nobody agreed with me, and in at least two cases, turned out to be correct anyway (evidenced by future agreement from others & coaches who originally disagreed, not because i am the Holy Master and proclaimed it to be so). other times, that was not the case, but still... its definitely frustrating when it happens and its easy to get out of hand, and to come off as a stubborn mule, even if you are in the right. and i definitely said some things in those threads, including the ones that i was in the right on, that did me no favors, and if i could go back, i would certainly do it differently.

however, the main difference in those cases where my claims were later accepted was, i was arguing for concrete stuff (pulldowns exist, and you can use 0 minutes when you cap something with negligible impact). none of this abstract off the wall stuff that doesn't even matter, when you step back and look at it. one time i went on for about 20 pages arguing about the importance of game planning, and that is abstract, and i never really won that one. it just made me look bad because in the end i said some not very nice things to some of the most respected coaches, even though i felt they were being equally negative towards me. theres just no win in it for anyone.

so really bistiza, i have to once again suggest that you cut your losses and spend your time in more productive ways. if you really are the master of logic and perception that you claim to be, hopefully you have perceived that you won't convince anyone of your point, whatever that may be. again, all you are doing is hurting your chances of respectful and reasonable debates in the future. do what i did, and give up the fight. i said, well screw it, im not going to waste my time trying to convince these idiots that they can use 0 minutes, let them waste their own damn minutes, no sweat off my back. and in time, people decided to actually try using 0 minutes instead of blindly assuming it didn't work, because seble said you needed 7, and now most people on the forums agree. you may or may not ever end up winning people over. but it WONT happen in this thread, just like it WOULDNT happen in my thread, and nothing you say can change that. i recognized that nothing could be gained from continuing, only the negative could be increased, so i gave it up. it really doesn't matter if you are right or wrong at this point. you lose either way... and i dont mean the argument

As much as you want it to be contradictory, it isn't.

I said enough - explicitly, not implied - to give you the context.

I don't "have to choose", because there isn't any opposition here. Nice try though.

and besides, people have already acknowledged, repeatedly, that it is unrealistic for EVERY player to lose a **** ton of work ethic. people just disagree with you on virtually everything else, and particularly, your approach and the way you present yourself and talk to other people. look at the last ten pages. where is the "actual point", whatever that is, even being debated? nowhere. this is so far from whatever you set out for it to be, there is just nothing to gain from continuing. can't you see that? you say it, or something like it, but actions speak louder than words.

gillespie,

I agree with you. No one is going to be won over here. They're too determined not to be won over even if I gave them the best evidence possible.

And you're right: I shouldn't have allowed some of these people to distract me from the real debate, as that was their aim since they couldn't take the heat and hang with me in a real debate.

You make a lot of sense here, gillespie. I've accomplished my goals in this thread. I'll check back to see if anyone says anything entertaining, but I think I might just be done posting here. 

From Wikipedia on logical fallacy....

A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.

also....

A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form without requiring an understanding of the argument's content.^[1] All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

• Appeal to probability – assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.^[2][3]

So who is using logical fallacy in their argument?

It it needs to be figured out via context, then the information was implied, not explicit.  You explicitly said enough for someone to infer what you meant.  Therefore, you implied it.

Posted by bistiza on 9/5/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):
gillespie,

I agree with you. No one is going to be won over here. They're too determined not to be won over even if I gave them the best evidence possible.

And you're right: I shouldn't have allowed some of these people to distract me from the real debate, as that was their aim since they couldn't take the heat and hang with me in a real debate.

You make a lot of sense here, gillespie. I've accomplished my goals in this thread. I'll check back to see if anyone says anything entertaining, but I think I might just be done posting here. 

sigh... you just don't get it. its that maddening air of superiority, coming from a guy who comes off very far from superior, that makes people dislike you so. why do you say things the way you say them? do you think it helps you in some way? or do you just take pleasure in turning people against you? maybe thats what you meant when you said, you accomplished your goals here. unless your goals were to waste a lot of time, or to make a lot of people dislike you, i can't see what goal you could have *possibly* accomplished

Posted by bistiza on 9/5/2012 1:23:00 PM (view original):
emy,

I didn't slip up. Someone not being able to get the meaning of a word from context doens't constitute a mistake on my part, but on theirs.

You ever notice that it's always someone else's fault, never yours?  Llama showed you specifically where you contradicted yourself, yet you STILL can't admit it.  It's actually okay to admit you're wrong every once in a while, just shows that you're human.  But you're so intent on trying to look infallible that you're coming off looking really, really bad.  So you made a mistake, big deal, we all do.  But by refusing to admit it, you're back to looking like that petulant child again.