Eegore,
I don't need links or threads, my interactions with you are few and not complicated but I will tell you and I'm sure you will remember the exact moment that this (whatever this is) began.
For no reason at all, I didn't know of you at all, other than I had you marked as someone who was going to play everything with a straight bat. I thought at time you were a little too cute, but so I was wary. And with good reason because, you answered one of my threads by not commenting on the thread, but pointing out that I'm posting a lot of threads.
I thought that was pretty strange coming from you, because how am I different from the great batches of other threads. When I queried you about this you then tried to justify it by saying that 'oh it's too many too read'.
You should go back and brush up on that because you're just upset and you've been upset ever since that I called you out on it. You're still polite, so I called you sly.
And if you are upset by being outed as a sly little troll, then, and I mean this sincerely, prove me wrong. If I am indeed wrong and misjudged you then I would not want to hold a false idea.
So check out the image below, it's just off todays front page but it could be any page since the time I first posted, everyone has a little flurry of posts, no one minds.
So my question to you is this, why did you answer a thread, and made no thread comment at all, other than to take issue with the number of threads I post.
Explain that to my satisfaction and I'll admit I got you wrong. Or you can just say,
'yeah, you're right it was pointlessly snarky and did look a bit ridiculous and I got caught up then in trying to defend it', and then we can be golden again.
But if anyone want to get the maximum amount of respect from me then if they pose me a question and i then refute it, they need to then refute my refutation with actual logic. At the bottom of this post are the rules of engagement that have to be respected for me to take anyone completely seriously. Anything less is known as Jalpa in Sanskrit.
The Nyaya school identified various types of arguments that hindered or obstructed the path of genuine scientific pursuit, suggesting perhaps, that there may have been considerable practical resistance to their unstinting devotion to truth-seeking and scientific accuracy.
They list the term jalpa - an argument not for the sake of arriving at the truth but for the sake of seeking victory (this term was coined perhaps to distinguish exaggerated and rhetorical arguments, or hyperbole from genuine arguments);
vitanda (or cavil) to identify arguments that were specious or frivolous, or intended to divert attention from the substance of the debate, that were put-downs intended to lower the dignity or credibility of the opponent; and
chal - equivocation or ruse to confuse the argument.
Three types of chal are listed: vakchala - or verbal equivocation where the words of the opponent are deliberately misused to mean or suggest something different than what was intended;
samanyachala or false generalization, where the opponents arguments are deliberately and incorrectly generalized in a way to suggest that the original arguments were ridiculous or absurd;
uparachala - misinterpreting a word which is used figuratively by taking it literally. Also mentioned is jati, a type of fallacious argument where an inapplicable similiarity is cited to reject an argument, or conversely an irrelevant dissimiliarity is cited to reject an argument.
Pages: 
