On Friday, 25 March 2016 20:28:16 UTC, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
joyce.whitchurch wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 12:53:07 UTC, wrote:

Sorry, its too late to add caveats. You said cowards don't post their real
names. Ergo you're a coward.

That is not actually a logical conclusion but hey, ho....

Hey ho, you're ****ing useless at logic.

OK, I'll bite. Prove that my statement was wrong.
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

On 2016\03\25 20:28, d wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 12:53:07 UTC, wrote:

Sorry, its too late to add caveats. You said cowards don't post their real
names. Ergo you're a coward.

That is not actually a logical conclusion but hey, ho....

Hey ho, you're ****ing useless at logic.

Dead people don't post their real names either. Ergo Joyce Whitchurch is
a dead person, but he's still better at logic than spud!

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 20:28:16 UTC, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
joyce.whitchurch wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 12:53:07 UTC, wrote:

Sorry, its too late to add caveats. You said cowards don't post their real
names. Ergo you're a coward.

That is not actually a logical conclusion but hey, ho....

Hey ho, you're ****ing useless at logic.

OK, I'll bite. Prove that my statement was wrong.

Prove a negative? Nice try. How about you prove it was right.

--
Spud

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:38:24 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\03\25 20:28, d wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 12:53:07 UTC, wrote:

Sorry, its too late to add caveats. You said cowards don't post their real
names. Ergo you're a coward.

That is not actually a logical conclusion but hey, ho....

Hey ho, you're ****ing useless at logic.

Dead people don't post their real names either. Ergo Joyce Whitchurch is
a dead person, but he's still better at logic than spud!

So thats 2 of you that can't follow simple logic in a thread. But with
you it comes as no surprise frankly.

--
Spud

On Saturday, 26 March 2016 21:01:58 UTC, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
joyce.whitchurch wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 20:28:16 UTC, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
joyce.whitchurch wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 12:53:07 UTC, wrote:

Sorry, its too late to add caveats. You said cowards don't post their real
names. Ergo you're a coward.

That is not actually a logical conclusion but hey, ho....

Hey ho, you're ****ing useless at logic.

OK, I'll bite. Prove that my statement was wrong.

Prove a negative? Nice try. How about you prove it was right.

Well, it's Easter Day, so in the spirit of Christian charity, I'll summarise the discussion so far and analyse the argument:

eastender to Spud: "How about you post your real name in your posts. But cowards never do."

Spud to eastender: "You said cowards don't post their real names. Ergo you're a coward."

Me to Spud: "That is not actually a logical conclusion but hey, ho...."

Let us assume that Spud's initial assertion is correct, and that "cowards don't post their real names". Let us further assume that "eastender" is not the real name of the entity posting as "eastender". Does it therefore follow that eastender is a coward?

To answer that question we must consider whether the group of posters who don't use their real names is solely composed of cowards, or whether it could include both cowards and heroic, fearless, laugh-in-the-face-of-danger types. There is no evidence in the thread so far to justify exclusion of the heroic types. The only valid conclusion is that eastender /might/ be a coward or /might/ be a hero. It cannot follow that eastender /must/ be a coward..

But do please have a go at proving me wrong. Bear in mind that you may thereafter need to prove that your own name really is Spud....
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

On 2016-03-27 14:43:50 +0000, said:

On Saturday, 26 March 2016 21:01:58 UTC, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
joyce.whitchurch wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 20:28:16 UTC, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
joyce.whitchurch wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 12:53:07 UTC, wrote:

Sorry, its too late to add caveats. You said cowards don't post their real
names. Ergo you're a coward.

That is not actually a logical conclusion but hey, ho....

Hey ho, you're ****ing useless at logic.

OK, I'll bite. Prove that my statement was wrong.

Prove a negative? Nice try. How about you prove it was right.

Well, it's Easter Day, so in the spirit of Christian charity, I'll
summarise the discussion so far and analyse the argument:

eastender to Spud: "How about you post your real name in your posts.
But cowards never do."

Spud to eastender: "You said cowards don't post their real names. Ergo
you're a coward."

Me to Spud: "That is not actually a logical conclusion but hey, ho...."

Let us assume that Spud's initial assertion is correct, and that
"cowards don't post their real names". Let us further assume that
"eastender" is not the real name of the entity posting as "eastender".
Does it therefore follow that eastender is a coward?

To answer that question we must consider whether the group of posters
who don't use their real names is solely composed of cowards, or
whether it could include both cowards and heroic, fearless,
laugh-in-the-face-of-danger types. There is no evidence in the thread
so far to justify exclusion of the heroic types. The only valid
conclusion is that eastender /might/ be a coward or /might/ be a hero.
It cannot follow that eastender /must/ be a coward.

But do please have a go at proving me wrong. Bear in mind that you may
thereafter need to prove that your own name really is Spud....

Nice one!

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:58:43 +0100
eastender wrote:
Nice one!

Oh look, Boo Boo's turned up. Bless.

Couldn't think of a riposte yourself?

--
Spud