Mitch Modeleski aka Paul Andrew Mitchell

[Famspear]

This, from the very source cited by Diaperboy:

[ . . . ]be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council [sic] of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities.

(emphasis added).

Your source agrees with my college textbook.

Even if these weird things called "books" are too hard for you, you should at least try harder to read and understand your own internet source, Diaperboy.

[norrha]

Poor Fammy-the soil-boy doesn't seem to comprehend the logical error of his finding support in a passage on 'appeal to authority' (ATA) discussing the difference between ATA and 'defer to authority', to his own source's definition of ATA discussing something entirely different but closely related.

[AndyK]

Every time I read one of his posts, the Beatles words ring in my ears:

He's a real norrah man, sitting in his norrah land, wasting time for those who have a brain

[NYGman]

Poor Fammy-the soil-boy doesn't seem to comprehend the logical error of his finding support in a passage on 'appeal to authority' (ATA) discussing the difference between ATA and 'defer to authority', to his own source's definition of ATA discussing something entirely different but closely related.

I really do love it when they think that they have the argument well and truly won. As if Norrha is actually waiting for Fam to realize his genius with the above logic, and must now admit everything is not as Fam has learned and "Preached" all this time. It is as if the above is victory, and we can all do bow to our great teacher, Norrha and see what else they have been lying to us about.

[Famspear]

Poor Fammy-the soil-boy doesn't seem to comprehend the logical error of his finding support in a passage on 'appeal to authority' (ATA) discussing the difference between ATA and 'defer to authority', to his own source's definition of ATA discussing something entirely different but closely related.

No, Diaperboy, all the passages deal with explaining what is the fallacy of appeal to authority and what is not the fallacy of appeal to authority.

[norrha]

No, Diaperboy, all the passages deal with explaining what is the fallacy of appeal to authority and what is not the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Wrong again!

The purpose of your quoted text was

"But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of that authority's special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam."

whereas my link clearly said

"['Appeal to authority' is] Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."

and discussed the closely related "deferring to authority" - which IS NOT THE SAME point your text made.

[..] realize [norrha's] genius [...] and we can all do bow to our great teacher, Norrha [...]

See! Even a confused man like NYGman has glimpses of clarity.

[Famspear]

No, Diaperboy, all the passages deal with explaining what is the fallacy of appeal to authority and what is not the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Wrong again!

The purpose of your quoted text was

"But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of that authority's special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam."

whereas my link clearly said

"['Appeal to authority' is] Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."

and discussed the closely related "deferring to authority" - which IS NOT THE SAME point your text made.

[..] realize [norrha's] genius [...] and we can all do bow to our great teacher, Norrha [...]

See! Even a confused man like NYGman has glimpses of clarity.

No.

Moving the goalpost doesn't work, Diaperboy.

And, trying to impute NYGman's comments as being supportive of your position doesn't work, either.

Ever since I corrected you earlier in this thread, you have been on a desperate journey to redeem yourself in the eyes of the readers here. It's not working.

[norrha]

Saying "It's not working" 3 times like a charm isn't magically going to make it come true!

No.

This is incorrect usage of a period or full stop.

You really are making things way too easy, Soilyboy!

[Famspear]

Saying "It's not working" 3 times like a charm isn't magically going to make it come true!

No.

This is incorrect usage of a period or full stop.

You really are making things way too easy, Soilyboy!

No. This is not incorrect usage of a period or full stop. You're no better on the rules of punctuation than you are on the rules of logic, Diaperboy.

And, I don't need to say "it's not working" one time, or two times, or three times. That conclusion has already been reached -- by the regular posters here.

When you make a mistake, as you did in your use of terms such as "jurisdiction", you are subject to being corrected. When you are corrected in a polite way (which is how I corrected you), the proper behavior is not to engage in personal attacks on me or others in an attempt to save face. That's what you did. It didn't work.

The next time someone corrects you, take it like an adult.

Now, if you have something meaningful and relevant to contribute about the proper subject of this thread -- which is Mitch Modeleski aka Paul Andrew Mitchell -- then let's see it.

[norrha]

A period is used at the end of a COMPLETE STATEMENT which is not an exclamation or a question, with exception to answers to questions, in which the statement is implied from the question. Your "No." clearly was exclamatory.

the proper behavior is not to engage in personal attacks on me or others in an attempt to save face. That's what you did. It didn't work.

Here's what he and Wserra wrote; I hadn't engaged in ANY personal attacks before that whatsoever.

Why, a chimp banging on a typewriter would produce something more cogent than you.

You're an ignorant, arrogant know-nothing.

So Fammyboy obviously is a liar and/or a hypocrite.

Now, if you have something meaningful and relevant to contribute about the proper subject of this thread -- which is Mitch Modeleski aka Paul Andrew Mitchell -- then let's see it.

That's not the question! The question is why you are trying to deceive this board with your lies, and continuously is having your ass handed to you.

[Famspear]

No.

And, I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite.

You've already destroyed your own persona here.

Again, if you want to contribute to the proper purpose of this thread -- discussing the subject of Mitch Modeleski -- then do so.

[AndyK]

I suggest that the content of any future posts irrelevant to the topic of the thread be immediately relegated to the circular and replaced with "The original contents of this post have been deleted due to their lack of relevance to the topic."

If the troll wishes, he can open open a new thread related to his delusions.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, has definitely lost whatever naïve charm it might once have had.

[norrha]

Deleted as off topic. (WS)

[norrha]

Deleted as off topic. (WS)

[HardyW]

I suggest that the content of any future posts irrelevant to the topic of the thread be immediately relegated to the circular and replaced with "The original contents of this post have been deleted due to their lack of relevance to the topic."

If the troll wishes, he can open open a new thread related to his delusions.

Why not move the irrelevant posts to a pigpen similar to http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 51&t=11852

[Famspear]

I suggest that the content of any future posts irrelevant to the topic of the thread be immediately relegated to the circular and replaced with "The original contents of this post have been deleted due to their lack of relevance to the topic."

If the troll wishes, he can open open a new thread related to his delusions.

Why not move the irrelevant posts to a pigpen similar to http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 51&t=11852

I concur with ws: Where the troll insists on posting off topic -- even after having been warned repeatedly to get back on topic, as is the case here -- just delete it.

[norrha]

Deleted as off topic. (WS)

[Lambkin]

http://supremelaw.org/cc/flynn/interven ... -05-19.htm

May 19, 2020

TO:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Attention: 3-Judge Panel

IN RE: MICHAEL T. FLYNN, Petition for Writ of Mandamus
https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/upl ... -filed.pdf

Greetings Honorable Circuit Court:

The United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General,
respectfully requests leave of this honorable Circuit Court to intervene
for the purpose of posing a question of great constitutional significance,
to wit:

After Gen. Flynn "filed motions to withdraw his guilty plea",
was this case referred to a Federal Grand Jury,
to satisfy the Fifth Amendment?

Also found at http://www.rasmusen.org/temp/5.26motion ... tchell.pdf (Edit: contains scan of envelope with return address in Roseburg)

And the dead sydneypowell.com link mentioned in the message is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200602155 ... -filed.pdf

[Gregg]

Another one who lists a BA in his signature. I'm going to start signing my text messages

Greggory Evans, BSci, MBA, MSci, PhD

Maybe then the people at Burger King will take me seriously!