Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

"Steven M. Scharf" writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

The Big Lie techinique is practiced every day in the U.S., although we
usually call it "advertising." Frank in fact does use that technique
and has for years, and that is all his posts are.
Godwin was talking about something else. You are apparently too
dense
to understand.

This is true, but you should have left "Nazi" out of your post, since
everyone knows who Mengele was anyway, and what he wrote to his mother
did not really have anything to do with being a Nazi or not.

I guess I could have left it out, but Mengele's bigotry may have been
the result of their propaganda, in which case it might be relevant, as
an example of how someone ended up really believing something that was
completely absurd.

I believe that _any_ mention of "Nazi" invokes Godwin's law, even if
it isn't in the context that Godwin intended.

In Guy's case, Godwin was wrong. :-) My interpretation of Godwin's
law is that it is about someone calling the other side of the
discussion "nazis" instead of merely referring to the use of various
propaganda techniques, including ones the nazis developed and that
U.S. businesses picked up on for "advertising."

I'll skip Guy's reply to you - he obviously has nothing to contribute
given his past performance on this topic, so there is no point in
even reading it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Benjamin Lewis writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Benjamin Lewis writes:

Godwin was talking about any comparison to Nazi Germany in a usenet
thread. I thought we went over this before.

"We went over this before" really means we talked about it before and
disagreed---my opinion is that a discussion of the use of propaganda
techniques, with an attribution to the originators, and that are
widely used, is not such a comparison. It is simply a citation.

I would note, however, that it did not cause the thread to die. In
fact, in Guy's case, it seems to have gotten him to post more.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Steven M. Scharf Wrote:

The statistics clearly prove that helmets are effective at mitigating
the seriousness of an injury, in the event of an accident.

The statistics also clearly prove that helmet use in a population
reduces the overall injury rate.



With an air of supreme confidence, Steven Chaff, confabulates "The
statistics clearly prove that helmets are effective at mitigating
the seriousness of an injury, in the event of an accident."

No, dear naive Steven - "statistics" do not prove that.

Master Chaff also makes the wild claim "The statistics also clearly
prove that helmet use in a population reduces the overall injury
rate."

No, poor Steven - the "statistics" do most certainly not prove that.

Steven - you might do well to consider the criticism that you claimed
undermined other contrary viewpoints.

Steven - to remind you of your own admonition - don't confuse
correlation with causation.

Steven - you have just demonstrated your naivety by walking right into
that one!

You see Steven - you naive little prat - "statistics" don't prove or
disprove anything. Statistics can provide support for hypotheses and
inferences - but that is -support -, it may be weak or strong support
but -proof - it is not.

Steven - here we see you egaging in you deceptive practise yet again.
Steven asserts what he wants others to accept as true what he
confidently asserts is true - but is in fact yet another of his
falsehoods.

Steven's modus operandi is the typical trick of propaganda - assert
falsehoods - and keep repeating them - cloud the airwaves with
falsehoods.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

Bill Z. wrote:

I'll skip Guy's reply to you -

Well I don't see Guy's replies, so I don't know what words of wisdom he
wrote. He's earned an honored place in my blocked-sender list.

he obviously has nothing to contribute given his past performance on
this topic, so there is no point in even reading it.

It's not just that he's obtuse, he's obtuse and uncivil. No point in
reading it, and no point in responding to it. This thread has run its
course.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:09:24 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

Well I don't see Guy's replies, so I don't know what words of wisdom he
wrote. He's earned an honored place in my blocked-sender list.

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening."

So now we know what you get for asking awkward questions like "cite
evidence for that assertion" and demanding answers: a place on
Scharf's "blocked-sender" list.

It is very sad to be so unsure of your own opinion that you cannot
tolerate its being challenged.

In the mean time my challenges to Scharf to provide evidence for his
assertions, and to do so in a public forum rather than on his private
website where he controls both medium and message, go unanswered. Can
you say "weasel?"

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

Well I don't see Guy's replies, so I don't know what words of wisdom he
wrote. He's earned an honored place in my blocked-sender list.

Well! Apparently, Guy asked too many questions Scharf couldn't answer!

Steven's behaved this way before. If someone proves him wrong too often,
that person ends up on his "blocked-sender list."

It's odd behavior, to say the least. Why enter a discussion in a public
forum if you're going to read only the opinions that exactly match your
own? Is stroking one's ego really more important than learning anything?


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Bill Z. wrote:

In Guy's case, Godwin was wrong. :-) My interpretation of Godwin's
law is that it is about someone calling the other side of the
discussion "nazis" instead of merely referring to the use of various
propaganda techniques, including ones the nazis developed and that
U.S. businesses picked up on for "advertising."

Any comparison of one's debating opponent to historical figures from Nazi
Germany is in bad taste, IMO.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:48:26 -0800, Benjamin Lewis
wrote:

Zaumie said:

My interpretation of Godwin's
law is that it is about someone calling the other side of the
discussion "nazis"

Yes, we already know that Zaumen thinks such things apply only to
other people. ZaumenWorld[tm] divides neatly into two: people who
agree with Zaumen (a group which has recently doubled in size with the
addition of Scharf) and liars. Has anyone ever seen Zaumen and
Vandemann in the same room, I wonder?

Any comparison of one's debating opponent to historical figures from Nazi
Germany is in bad taste, IMO.

Quite. And it was Lenin anyway :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Benjamin Lewis writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

In Guy's case, Godwin was wrong. :-) My interpretation of Godwin's
law is that it is about someone calling the other side of the
discussion "nazis" instead of merely referring to the use of various
propaganda techniques, including ones the nazis developed and that
U.S. businesses picked up on for "advertising."

Any comparison of one's debating opponent to historical figures from Nazi
Germany is in bad taste, IMO.

We were talking about letters to said nazi's mother as an indication
that he actually believed the propaganda, outrageous as it was. As
to "bad taste" I take it you haven't noticed Guy's non-stop infantile
ranting and two months of non-stop personal insults.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski writes:

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

Well I don't see Guy's replies, so I don't know what words of wisdom
he wrote. He's earned an honored place in my blocked-sender list.

Well! Apparently, Guy asked too many questions Scharf couldn't answer!

Steven's behaved this way before. If someone proves him wrong too
often, that person ends up on his "blocked-sender list."

Steven is perfectly justified in putting both you and Guy in a killfile.


It's odd behavior, to say the least. Why enter a discussion in a
public forum if you're going to read only the opinions that exactly
match your own? Is stroking one's ego really more important than
learning anything?

What's odd about it given the volumn of posts? There isn't time to
read everything, after all.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB