Apparently the way to win an argument is to pick out one person "on the other side" (ahem!), make him (or her) the "dimwit" and ignore them (well sort of).

Then, when you want to win an argument claim that the person you are arguing with is an "alter ego" of the reference "dim wit".

That way you don't have to counter their statements in the future. Following this, all you need to do is post the opinions of various people (via huge copy-and-pastes) from other sites around the world as your own and hey presto! you win the argument.

If no-one responds to those huge copy-and-pastes you can then add something about being magnanimous in victory - or claim they don't have a leg to stand on.

I didn't realise this was so easy.

So I nominate "Stan" as "my" dimwit, then shortly after I will call "martin" his alter ego.

Once I make my way though the likes of Andy, Conrad, etc (making them 'alter egos' of the dimwit) I will post the views of the marketing director of Tesco when they decided to revert to imperial.

When only "dimwits" or "alter ego's of the dimwit" challenge my huge copy and paste of someone else's opinion I will ignore their posts and claim some sort of huge victory.


God, I *LOVE* this website!

re (SteveH): "Apparently the way to win an argument is to pick out one person "on the other side" (ahem!), make him (or her) the "dimwit" and ignore them (well sort of)"

REPLY: This, of course, is more or less how 'they' won the 1975 referendum on whether or not the United Kindgom should stay in the Common Market.

Two key opponents of integration were Tony Benn and Enoch Powell.

The 'other side' swiftly realised that they could make much of these two alleged 'swivel-eyed loonies' being anti-Common Market, compared with all the moderate and sensible people like themselves who were in favour (!).

It proved surprisingly effective.

So here goes the opening shot in the referendum on the European Constitution (remember, you heard it here first):

*PETER MANDELSON IS IN FAVOUR OF THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION*

....his boyfriend (***chum) is *EXTREMELY* happy with the arrangement.

Chi-Ching!

re (SteveH): "Chi-Ching!"

REPLY: Or: "Bling Bling" as I believe it is known in some communities

I think it might be "ring ring" in his case.

Countdown to deletion

8

7

6

5

4

Apparently, I am still Steve's American alter ego. I am also Leonard. But there is a problem with that last theory. Leonard hasn't posted in 2 years. Of course, maybe I am Leonard and I just decided to change the format and subject matter of my posts so no one would know it was me. But why would I do that? Maybe just for fun. Or maybe I've always been Niles and I invented Leonard for fun. Or maybe I'm Steve and I invented both Leonard and Niles. Leonard was a prototype, and I scrapped him because he was too specialized and technical -- Niles is slightly more flexible, and he is equally comfortable using meters and yards. And notice how I use American spellings to fool you all. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Steve can't tolerate anyone who discovers his tricks. Thus he will attack the person because he can't attack what the person states.

Two years since Leonard posted? My, time flies.

2 years was a conservative guess. I suspect it's actually closer to 3.

I have examined with great care steveH's posts and I would like to congratulate him on the impeccable logic of his arguments.

Unfortunately the factual premises on which he based his case are quite clearly false.

Now if you combine false premises and faultless logic you must come to a conclusion that is definitely incorrect.

I fully admit that the factual assumptions on which I have based my argument are just as likely to be wrong as those of steveH. But I have intentionally made mistakes in the logic of my argument and so I have at least a random chance of being right.

The probability of steveH being correct is zero, but I have a small chance of coming to the correct conclusion.

Steve doesn't really argue any points. Much of what he says has nothing to do with the topic. Too much wasted words are spent attacking the people who post instead of countering what they said. I believe somewhere in this forum someone else used the term "ad hominem" to describe the tactic of Steve.

I heard of this term but had to look it up. At first I wasn't sure of the spelling, but I eventually located it. Here is what Wikipedia had to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I think anyone can find countless examples of Steve resorting to this type of argumentation.



If he does post something of value, it is so incomplete it gives you the opposite impression it should be giving. Steve needs to take a course in being more concise in his statements and needs to gain a greater comprehension of the subject he is reading before he posts a response. Steve may think he has won a lot of arguments in this forum, but only if he is the judge and the awarder of the prizes. Which I don't think anyone would agree he is.

Danny,

I was on a beach when you posted those efforts, 240 miles from home. Where were you?

Have a think about that for a while.

(Clue: "Life", "Get" etc etc)

X-D