Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Screw HD Radio iBiquity Digital | Shortwave | |||
Listen up iBiquity. I know how to get HD Radio sales up. | Shortwave | |||
iBiquity HD Radio Status | Shortwave | |||
AM is dead thanks to iBiquity and the HD Radio Alliance! | Shortwave | |||
Ibiquity/HD Radio going down the toilet? | Shortwave |