IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.

He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the test....which
shows the shallowness of your argument.

Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.

He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the test....which
shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.

He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.



No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.

And then arguing the absurdity.

He's not actually addressed the point. Only the absurdity of his
extrapolation, which by definition is not based in any reality.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.

He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.

He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're arguing
non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.

He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.




Which, by definition, are not my points.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.

He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.




Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.



Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.


So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.



Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.



Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.



Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.


Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.
So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity,
declare victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been
presented.

Nice spider hole you live in.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.

Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

But notice that you've now spent a number of days insisting that the
absurd extrapolition is more valid than the argument, while not
addressing any of the points I've actually made about protection,
interference and international boundaries.

Underscoring, again, you're more interested in the absurdity than you
are the actual points on the table.

Interesting.

A great Pancho clone!



There are a LOT of them out there.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.



Which, by definition, are not my points.+

When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.


So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.


Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.



Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.

IBiquity - Where's the "HD" in "HD" radio?
 

Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Rrrado Rn wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A Brown wrote:
Again, if you take an argument to its absurdity, you're not
discussing what's actually on the table. By definition, you're
arguing non-Real issues.
He's taking the point you are making and putting it to the
test....which shows the shallowness of your argument.
Actually, he's ignoring the argument in favor of the absurdity.
He's pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
No, he's not. He's extrapolating the argument beyond it's context to
absurdity.
He's taking your points to their illogical conclusion.


Which, by definition, are not my points.+
When someone says something definitive...."All knives are bad"...it takes
someone to point out the good uses of knives to show that the statement
isn't 100% true.

So, you distort the points to absurdity, refute the absurdity, declare
victory, without ever having addressed what's actually been presented.

Your over-the-top emotional exaggerated comments have been proven flawed.


Your evaluation of my comments is flawed in itself.

...but you are not the one to judge how your words sound to others.






Only if I'm concerned how it sounds to others.