HAL9000

At the old Woolworths premises on Rye Lane a lot of nice-ish looking sofas were being offered in a closing down sale. But the shop closed down yesterday.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is not Huguenots position to prove the lack of > ubiquity or existence of systemic corruption, Do go back and read the first post in this thread, note the neat little premise posited therein and who posted it. Usually, when someone starts a new thread by stating a premise then they are expected to prove their argument. > it's up to you to prove. And what if I hadn't bothered to participate in this thread? Come on; don't start digging your own hole. If it was up to me then why did your champion invoke QED a few posts back? This morning's incident where he claimed victory by negating his own argument has convinced me that a line should be drawn under this thread - he seems far too obsessive to quit under his own counsel. Let's just call a Stalemate and move on. By the way, we now know that Huguenot had misunderstood the original context anyway (I think that applies to you, too), so it could be argued that this thread was invalid ab initio.

What is really going on in this thread? In another thread, some weeks ago, I called Huguenot anal-retentive. I think he took exception to that. Frankly, I don?t blame him. In retaliation, he may have sought an opportunity to deflate me by taking a comment I made in another more recent thread out of context and posting it as the title of a new thread. Unfortunately, as anyone who has followed this thread will know by now, he has a very weak grasp of logic, so he inadvertently formulated an argument that depends on proving a negative ? a classic logical fallacy. In order to make his case he has to ?prove? that something doesn?t exist ? an impossible task. Even more bizarre, the activity in question is always carried out in secret. All I have to do is post enough evidence of corruption and my case is made ? in other words I could refute his argument. It is possible. But he can never win his side of the argument let alone embellish it with QED. I haven?t bothered to post masses of evidence because I?ve become more interested in Huguenot, or rather, why he can?t see that he is digging himself into the mother of all holes? I?ve pointed this out to him on several occasions. His response? He has somehow twisted the argument to give the impression that I am trying to prove a negative. This is how he has framed his enantio-logic: > Quite clearly any position that... > a) insists that something exists simply because there's no evidence for it not to exist is bonkers > b) insists that something exists because a vote will prove it is bonkers > c) insists that something exists because we're all anxious about demons in the closet is bonkers > d) insists that something exists because we don't have enough laws to prevent it existing is bonkers In the case of item b, it?s based on his inability to recognise sarcasm. Well, one doesn?t often see four Straw Men in a row ? behold! Sadly, it is all nonsense. Superficially, one might get the impression that Huguenot is very intelligent. He writes with a certain confidence that borders on arrogance using flamboyant phraseology augmented with lots of bluster. But when one filters out the chaff, one is left with a very muddled argument mired in the sort of logical fallacies that most schoolchildren are able to avoid. That is why this thread is going nowhere in a hand basket. I can?t lose. He can?t win. I'm just waiting for the penny to drop.

It's 6:30pm (SGT) on Friday evening for Hugeunot. He's posting from Singapore. I'm in London but I've been up all night trading the Far Eastern markets.

You appear to be losing touch with reality. That if in my response implies a test of your own explanation - not without incredulity on my part, I might add. And, no, you can't claim quod erat demonstrandum. All you've done is back peddle against yet another example of miscomprehension. You are literally arguing with yourself. That?s quite an achievement. Well done.

What exactly does that button do? I hate clicking on anything that can't be undone.

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, I LOVE looking at all those pussy fotos... Are you trying to set up BBW for another ban or what?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... It clearly doesn't happen to the same degree in > the UK as it happens elsewhere According to my understanding, under ECHELON all UK citizens' electronic communications are intercepted by the government. If you classify that as corruption then it is ubiquitous in the UK.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't see a catastrophic collapse in western Europe. In some scenarios Europe is particularly vulnerable given its reliance on imported energy and the paucity of its indigenous oil and gas reserves. If foreign oil and gas stopped flowing before sufficient alternative power capacities were in place the result would be seriously destabilising, if not catastrophic. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bring alternative power sources on stream in a timely manner after the event. The seriousness would depend, of course, on many other factors: the season, the weather, the immediately available food supplies, the duration of the blockade, etc. If the deficiency were permanent, some of us might get through a couple of winters by transforming forests into firewood. But it would be a good few years before a fully functional coal, steam and horse-powered economy were re-established.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm irrationally happy that Sean has let slip that > his phone was tapped. Having lived in China for 18 > months with my phone tapped 'live', I had calls > terminated and interfered with on a constant > basis. What relevance do you think these revelations have to this thread?

LegalEagle-ish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought it was quite funny - but I'm an uncouth > northerner, so what do I know? What do you get when you cross an Eagle with a Dog? -------------------- Don't make me lick your arse!

This thread has been the subject of much misrepresentation and miscomprehension by one participant in particular. For the record, I copy here a post from the original thread for context lest new readers are misled by the many spurious Strawman Arguments appearing herein.

Just found some archive footage of BBW and DM from their salad days in Hollywood - they were a terrific double act (both performed their own stunts, too): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhga8c42sw4

That's how you remember it. My spycam tells it like it was...

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sometimes, I have to bite back. I think it would help to ask (yourself) what this forum would be like if you were allowed free reign? Why don't you post here a brief description of what such a scenario would imply?

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... when will it happen ...? I don't think we can forecast the future that accurately. However, one scenario I can imagine is that the first wave will kick off when one or more resource-rich countries realise that their future survival capability is being sold off in return for potentially worthless fiat currencies. That is likely to happen long before any real shortages start to bite. And it'll probably trigger a domino effect followed by fierce retaliation from the have-nots - it might even escalate into World War III.

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... the character of Dulwichmum ... You do realise that you are criticising the behaviour of a satirical construct, a parody of real life, a social commentary? I think it's time you admitted that BBW too, is a cleverly crafted satire: the antithesis of everything DM represents. And that you are really a retired neurosurgeon who even sent his gardener to a couple of drinks to lull us into a false sense of security? Now, that would have been a response worthy of a truly vivid imagination ? a Bond of the canine world. Never mind - take it out on that rubber bone of yours and bounce back in moderation. Moderation in all things - Aristotle Some of your posts are genuinely funny ? but some aren?t.

I've been working on a missing pet cat and dog detector in response to recent posts on the forum. It's based on pet ID chips. However, I've discovered that those chips have an audio backdoor - which I've now hacked! My detector picked up this from somewhere around Forest Hill. If anyone can identify this sad little moggy, please let me know. Sounds like he needs a little TLC: Doink ... Hmmm ... I'm pretty sure it's made of rubber ... Doink ... It bounces like rubber ... eeeeeyuk ... It tastes like rubber ... My bone is made of rubber... Dum dee dum .... it's rubber ... dum dee dum ... it's only rubber ... dum dee dum ... They've given me a RUBBER bone! I'll show 'em ... I will ... Doink ... Dum dee dum ... dum dee dum ... dum dee dum ... OK. OK! I know is only rubber ... ... but it's all MINE and I love it - slurp slurp, lick lick ... wha'chew looking at dawg?

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Monbiot and Kingnorth discuss our lack of future: Most of my friends and acquaintances are either optimistic techno-utopians or in complete denial about the problems we face. Over the last few years I have formed the opinion that a global societal collapse is the most likely outcome - sometime during this century. My most recent research into the various carbon cap and trade schemes has left me disillusioned with the prospect of any effective solutions being implemented on the necessary scale and within time to make any difference. Yes, the established global order is probably doomed. One or two billion of us may survive the transition. The transition is likely to manifest itself as a series of short, sharp shocks, probably the result of a confluence of events such as famine, plague, natural disasters, war, political instability, financial collapse, etc. I suspect that most western governments have already figured out the potential risks and have been busy passing draconian legislation under the guise of the War Against Terror to better manage instances of localised societal collapse: The US Patriot Act and the UK Civil Contingencies Act (2004) come to mind. The latter looks as if it has been designed to lock down major cities and allow nature to take its course. Without food, water, fuel, power, sanitation or law enforcement, a localised over-population problem caused by, say, a sudden famine or fuel shortage, would resolve itself within two or three weeks at most, for example. Leaving the surviving population unscathed. The worst-case scenario: some of us could find ourselves being sacrificed by our own governments for the greater good.

I'm sure you'll sniff her out. Now shush little puppy, The Wire is on.

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll set Louisiana on you. I see your Louisiana and raise you a famous local Flatulist!

You might attract more volunteers by offering a tenner and a lollipop.

Wazup BBW? Yesterday I cudn't spell philosopha, today I are one?

The most famous Flatulist (judged by volume rather than aroma) was probably the Frenchman known as Le P?tomane.

Man walks into a pharmacy: I would like a deodorant please. Yes sir, aerosol? No, it's for my armpits.