Mr. Richarson's Argumentation Technique

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
CED

Mr. Richarson's Argumentation Technique

Legg inn av CED » 15 jul 2005 14:51:37

Peter Stewart:

Not inclined to get into meaningless contests with skunks or answering
the blitherings of incompetents, I had intended to lurk, watching
another your fruitless exchanges with Mr. Richardson, as many in the
group have done so often. However, having searched the archives on
several subjects in recent weeks, I have discerned a familiar pattern
in Mr. Richardson's argumentation techniques. He uses a technique
familiar to debate squads in American high schools and not considered
honorable by judges college debates. I point this out because so many
in the group have not been debaters in American high schools.

He attempts to hide his own error by creating a difference of opinion a
minor matter, so that nobody will remember his that original error.
Then, he attempts to force upon the opponent a view or position which
that opponent has not taken and tries to make the opponent defend that
position.

In this case, Mr. Richarson posted material from a website, apparently
about the Orsini family, in which Niccolo Orsini's wife was named
"Gorizia Sabrano." Why, I do not know, since even to a novice such as
I, the material had no genealogical value, it had errors, and it made
no claim to authority by citing sources. These errors and deficiencies
were noted in a posting by Mark Bridge. No competent genealogist would
place any confidence in such a website; but since, as was stated by Mr.
Richardson, it was in the "Italian language," and since the records of
the archives are replete with evidence of his incompetence in
languages, we may assume that his inability to read the "Italian
language" led him into error. Mr. Richardson did not respond to Mark
Bridge's post. Instead, he began a controversy regarding whether
Gorizia and Giovanna were two separate individuals.
The two names have been used as alternative names for the same person
many times in the group. Never before has Mr. Richardson suggested
that they were not. Now he does so and, then to get out of an
untenable position, he foists upon you the burden of proving the
unprovable, that they were not. Mark Bridge asked a simple question:
what was the source for the name Gorizia. You responded with a source.
That gave Mr. Richardson the opportunity to try to put you on the
defence. He wants you to defend the source.
CED

Peter Stewart

Re: Mr. Richarson's Argumentation Technique

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jul 2005 15:11:32

Thanks CED - I realise what Richardson is up to, and I don't respond with
any thought of persuading him to behave sensibly or honourably: these are
impossibilities for the charlatan. The only reason for setting out the facts
so repeatedly, and for pointing out his imbecilities so persistently, is to
help ensure that he doesn't sucker more helplessly foolish admirers like
Brandon, Bulkely and Hines, every time he makes an exhibition of his
ignorance and hypocrisy.

It may seem unbelievable that newsgroup members should wilfully cast their
own pride into the dirt to support this transparent fraud, but of course
several do.

Peter Stewart




"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121435497.816923.216270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart:

Not inclined to get into meaningless contests with skunks or answering
the blitherings of incompetents, I had intended to lurk, watching
another your fruitless exchanges with Mr. Richardson, as many in the
group have done so often. However, having searched the archives on
several subjects in recent weeks, I have discerned a familiar pattern
in Mr. Richardson's argumentation techniques. He uses a technique
familiar to debate squads in American high schools and not considered
honorable by judges college debates. I point this out because so many
in the group have not been debaters in American high schools.

He attempts to hide his own error by creating a difference of opinion a
minor matter, so that nobody will remember his that original error.
Then, he attempts to force upon the opponent a view or position which
that opponent has not taken and tries to make the opponent defend that
position.

In this case, Mr. Richarson posted material from a website, apparently
about the Orsini family, in which Niccolo Orsini's wife was named
"Gorizia Sabrano." Why, I do not know, since even to a novice such as
I, the material had no genealogical value, it had errors, and it made
no claim to authority by citing sources. These errors and deficiencies
were noted in a posting by Mark Bridge. No competent genealogist would
place any confidence in such a website; but since, as was stated by Mr.
Richardson, it was in the "Italian language," and since the records of
the archives are replete with evidence of his incompetence in
languages, we may assume that his inability to read the "Italian
language" led him into error. Mr. Richardson did not respond to Mark
Bridge's post. Instead, he began a controversy regarding whether
Gorizia and Giovanna were two separate individuals.
The two names have been used as alternative names for the same person
many times in the group. Never before has Mr. Richardson suggested
that they were not. Now he does so and, then to get out of an
untenable position, he foists upon you the burden of proving the
unprovable, that they were not. Mark Bridge asked a simple question:
what was the source for the name Gorizia. You responded with a source.
That gave Mr. Richardson the opportunity to try to put you on the
defence. He wants you to defend the source.
CED

John Brandon

Re: Mr. Richarson's Argumentation Technique

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 jul 2005 15:37:43

It may seem unbelievable that newsgroup members should wilfully cast their
own pride into the dirt to support this transparent fraud, but of

course
several do.

If you had a little less pride (misplaced), you might get along better.
But its the old "my grandmother was a countess so I must give myself
airs" thing with you, isn't it?

I don't think it would be accurate to say that you truly despise Doug,
as you respond to every little post he makes. Literally.

Peter Stewart

Re: Mr. Richarson's Argumentation Technique

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jul 2005 15:55:38

Your fantasies about me are quite insane, unrelated to anything you could
have observed.

It becomes clearer how you fall for Richardson when you demonstate that you
don't have even a passing acquaintance with reality.

Peter Stewart



"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121438263.851711.174190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It may seem unbelievable that newsgroup members should wilfully cast
their
own pride into the dirt to support this transparent fraud, but of
course
several do.

If you had a little less pride (misplaced), you might get along better.
But its the old "my grandmother was a countess so I must give myself
airs" thing with you, isn't it?

I don't think it would be accurate to say that you truly despise Doug,
as you respond to every little post he makes. Literally.

John Brandon

Re: Mr. Richarson's Argumentation Technique

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 jul 2005 16:05:52

[NON-RESPONSE TO POST]

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»