Tech Support?

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Yes you do. I use Sandman now, and "now" is part of "always". If I
answer "same as always" and is in reference to something other than what
I am currently using, then I'm lying. I don't lie, which you are well
aware of.

it's a bit like going in to the pub and the barmen saying "same as usual",
and hopefully you'get get served the same drink served as you've previously
ordered or have been ordering.

Not the same thing at all, really. That requires the barkeeper to have
knowledge about me beyond what is apparent from the statement alone. He
may or may not know what "same as usual" is.

Also, "usual" is not the same as "always". "usual" leaves room for the
patron to sometimes order another drink.

The case we're discussing here is akin to the barkeeper to ask what beer
the patron drank when he was younger, and him answering "same as
alwaya", while at the same time having a large lager in his hand which
he is drinking from.

From a logical standpoint - the barkeeper now knows that this particular
customer has always (i.e. including "now" and "when younger") drunk
lager beer.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:16:37 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:58:05 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

Amazing, and not "amazing" in a good way.

"Yes" is both direct and specific to the question as asked.

Tony comes in to help Eric dig.

For God's sake, stop being defensively difficult. We are both trying
to explain a subtle point to you.

No you aren't. You and Peter mistakenly claim an unambiguous answer is
ambiguous. I am the one explaining that it isn't.

You have yet to counter the *fact* that "same as always" includes the
present. So whatever state something is in "now", "same as always"
includes it.

I have repeated this many times, you have dodged it. You need to come up
with a scenario where "same as always" can mean "same as always, apart
from currently".

Don't you get it? You are in one right now.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:14:34 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

If it was a direct answer it would have pointed us to something
specific e.g. "Sandman".

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

This is why we keep on arguing.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

The question is specific and so too is the answer.

Much like the question and answer that started this.

But it doesn't do that. It points to "same as always". I don't think
any of us in this news group knows which alias you have "always" used
or for how long you have been using "sandman".

Yes you do. I use Sandman now, and "now" is part of "always". If I
answer "same as always" and is in reference to something other than what
I am currently using, then I'm lying. I don't lie, which you are well
aware of.

I'm not at all sure of that. I'm not saying that I know you do lie. I
just don't know that you don't lie.

But whether or not you trust me or not has no bearing on whether or not
the answer was direct or not.

It has a bearing on whether or not you have adequately answered the
question.

The person answering a question need not take into account the level of
trust the receiver has for the him or her to formulate a direct answer.

But you didn't give a direct answer. You said "same as always".
Knowing the value to ascribe to "same as always" requires that I
already know the answer to the question you have just purported to
answer. You say that "always" includes the recent past. However you
might also argue that 'Sandman' is your usage at present but that in
the 'recent' past (for a particular value of recent) you were using
XYZ. You would have eliminated this possible wiggle room by saying
"Sandman, as always".

"Same as now" would have been quite specific

"now" and "always" are both specific time frames, one concerns the
present, the other concerns all time, including the present.

This is not and never has been a matter of logic.

Of course it has. Peter said:

"It means you could use another nym"

No, it doesn't. That is an incorrect statement. "Same as always" does
not leave room for me using another alias than the one I used when I
made the statement. There is NO wiggle room. That's a logical fallacy.

It's been a question of getting to the truth of the matter.

Which is only a matter of whether or not you guys trust me or not, which
I don't care at all about whether or not you do. I never lie. You have
never seen me lie, nor have you ever even claimed I lie. Nor have you
ever provided substantiation for me lying. There is NOTHING in the past
that could ever suggest to you that "same as always" wasn't a 100%
truthful statement.

But again - you trusting me or not is totally irrelevant to whether or
not it was a direct answer. One can answer directly and be mistrusted,
or answer directly and be trusted. The level of trust does not affect
whether or not the answer is direct or not. This is your claim:

"It's not a direct answer and could be evasive."

That is incorrect. Had you said "The answer isn't specific and I don't
trust you", then you'd have another angle which doesn't deal (as much)
with factual logic.

Your failure to give a direct and unambiguous answer

I gave a direct and unambiguous answer.

("Sandman") has left open the possibility that
you may have used another name.

No, it did not. "Same as always" means I could not have ever used an
alias other than the one I currently use.

and we would have had no uncertainty about
what you were saying.

One would have no uncertainty about what I meant when I answered "same
as always" either.

I'm sorry, but I an others do have uncertainty what that answer to the
question may actually mean.

That is of no concern to me. The answer was perfectly direct and
unambiguous regardless of your following uncertainty that under no
circumstances stems from lack of information in the answer - but
probably due to some other factors.

The doubt is not directed specifically to
you but to common English usage in this type of situation.

That doesn't even make sense.

It does to English speakers. I have spent many hours in court
listening to people trying to avoid giving a direct answer and it's
amazing how it is possible to twist both language and logic.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:31:16 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 17 October 2013 23:35:22 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:08:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:



You guys can argue about *ANYTHING*.



Try arguing about 1 = 1.

it ain't period as americans say.


Eric Stevens.





There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into

two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class

is that like saying there are only 10 groups of people, those that know binary and those that don't .

No.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens


Chaos is found in the greatest abundance wherever order is being
sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organised.
-: Ly Tin Wheedle

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:16:37 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:58:05 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

Amazing, and not "amazing" in a good way.

"Yes" is both direct and specific to the question as asked.

Tony comes in to help Eric dig.

For God's sake, stop being defensively difficult. We are both trying
to explain a subtle point to you.

No you aren't. You and Peter mistakenly claim an unambiguous answer is
ambiguous. I am the one explaining that it isn't.

You have yet to counter the *fact* that "same as always" includes the
present. So whatever state something is in "now", "same as always"
includes it.

I have repeated this many times, you have dodged it. You need to come up
with a scenario where "same as always" can mean "same as always, apart
from currently".

Don't you get it? You are in one right now.

Keep dodging, troll.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I'm not at all sure of that. I'm not saying that I know you do lie. I
just don't know that you don't lie.

But whether or not you trust me or not has no bearing on whether or not
the answer was direct or not.

It has a bearing on whether or not you have adequately answered the
question.

Incorrect.

The person answering a question need not take into account the level of
trust the receiver has for the him or her to formulate a direct answer.

But you didn't give a direct answer.

Yes, I did.

You said "same as always".

Which is a direct answer.

Knowing the value to ascribe to "same as always" requires that I
already know the answer to the question you have just purported to
answer.

No it doesn't.

You say that "always" includes the recent past.

No, I say that "always" includes all time.

However you might also argue that 'Sandman' is your usage at present
but that in the 'recent' past (for a particular value of recent) you
were using XYZ.

No. Same as always includes "now" and "then" and "any time". "Same as
always" leaves *no* room for me using any other alias than the one I am
using when answering the question.

You would have eliminated this possible wiggle room by saying
"Sandman, as always".

There is no wiggle room. You failed to support your incorrect position
yet again, Eric.

This is not and never has been a matter of logic.

Of course it has. Peter said:

"It means you could use another nym"

No, it doesn't. That is an incorrect statement. "Same as always" does
not leave room for me using another alias than the one I used when I
made the statement. There is NO wiggle room. That's a logical fallacy.

Eric ignored this...

It's been a question of getting to the truth of the matter.

Which is only a matter of whether or not you guys trust me or not, which
I don't care at all about whether or not you do. I never lie. You have
never seen me lie, nor have you ever even claimed I lie. Nor have you
ever provided substantiation for me lying. There is NOTHING in the past
that could ever suggest to you that "same as always" wasn't a 100%
truthful statement.

But again - you trusting me or not is totally irrelevant to whether or
not it was a direct answer. One can answer directly and be mistrusted,
or answer directly and be trusted. The level of trust does not affect
whether or not the answer is direct or not. This is your claim:

"It's not a direct answer and could be evasive."

That is incorrect. Had you said "The answer isn't specific and I don't
trust you", then you'd have another angle which doesn't deal (as much)
with factual logic.

And this...

Your failure to give a direct and unambiguous answer

I gave a direct and unambiguous answer.

And this...

("Sandman") has left open the possibility that
you may have used another name.

No, it did not. "Same as always" means I could not have ever used an
alias other than the one I currently use.

And this... He sure ignores lots of parts of my posts.

and we would have had no uncertainty about
what you were saying.

One would have no uncertainty about what I meant when I answered "same
as always" either.

I'm sorry, but I an others do have uncertainty what that answer to the
question may actually mean.

That is of no concern to me. The answer was perfectly direct and
unambiguous regardless of your following uncertainty that under no
circumstances stems from lack of information in the answer - but
probably due to some other factors.

He also ignored this.

The doubt is not directed specifically to
you but to common English usage in this type of situation.

That doesn't even make sense.

It does to English speakers.

No.

I have spent many hours in court
listening to people trying to avoid giving a direct answer and it's
amazing how it is possible to twist both language and logic.

Why did you ignore my entire post just to add this non-related comment
on the bottom?

Trolls...


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

it's a bit like going in to the pub and the barmen saying "same
as usual", and hopefully you'get get served the same drink served
as you've previously ordered or have been ordering.

Not the same thing at all, really.

I nthink it is.

Then you think wrong.

That requires the barkeeper to have knowledge about me beyond what
is apparent from the statement alone.

No it doesn;t

Yes, for it to be an analogy, he does.

if I regually go in there and ask for a pink of spitefire and I know
he knows that as he's served it top me for the last 10 years then if
I saw the usual I wouldn;lt expect him to serve me a cup of tea.

You just described the need for the barkeeper to have knowledge about
your beyond what is apparent from the statement alone.

He may or may not know what "same as usual" is.

if I said that to a person I would expect them to know, otherwise I wouldn't
have said it.

That's the entire point I just made. Do you just skim posts and then
type haphazardly on the keyboard?

I wouldn;t go into a pub I've never been in or to a barperson
I've never seen and say "same as usual".

That's irrelevant. You made a (faulty) analogy and I outlined the
parameters that need to fit in your scenario that doesn't translate to
the events that occured in this thread.

You saying "same as usual" requires that you talk to someone that knows
what your "usual" is.

Me saying that I posted with the "same as always" nickname in the past
doesn't require that someone reading that need to have ever read a
single post from me, since "always" includes "now", and since they can
see what nickname I am currently using, they then know 100% what
nickname I used in 1996.

snip tons of anecdotes and irrelevant ramblings

From a logical standpoint - the barkeeper now knows that this particular
customer has always (i.e. including "now" and "when younger") drunk
lager beer.

so are you saying if that person went up to the barkeeper the barkeeper would
have no idea what sort of request the customer might have.

Of course he wouldn't.

Most peolple can pretty much predict to some extend what someone else might
do or say, when they act the same way rtime and time again is become normal
for that person and that gets noticed.

This has *NOTHING* to do with the topic at hand, your faulty analogy or
anything related to anything I've written.

Can't you type this stuff in an email and send it to yourself?



--
Sandman[.net]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:58:44 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:16:37 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:58:05 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Incorrect. Direct answers need not be specific.

Question: Do you like ice cream
Direct answer: Yes.
Specific answer: Yes, I like ice cream.

Amazing, and not "amazing" in a good way.

"Yes" is both direct and specific to the question as asked.

Tony comes in to help Eric dig.

For God's sake, stop being defensively difficult. We are both trying
to explain a subtle point to you.

No you aren't. You and Peter mistakenly claim an unambiguous answer is
ambiguous. I am the one explaining that it isn't.

You have yet to counter the *fact* that "same as always" includes the
present. So whatever state something is in "now", "same as always"
includes it.

I have repeated this many times, you have dodged it. You need to come up
with a scenario where "same as always" can mean "same as always, apart
from currently".

Don't you get it? You are in one right now.

Keep dodging, troll.

What can I say ... ?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 10:03:19 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I'm not at all sure of that. I'm not saying that I know you do lie. I
just don't know that you don't lie.

But whether or not you trust me or not has no bearing on whether or not
the answer was direct or not.

It has a bearing on whether or not you have adequately answered the
question.

Incorrect.

The person answering a question need not take into account the level of
trust the receiver has for the him or her to formulate a direct answer.

But you didn't give a direct answer.

Yes, I did.

You said "same as always".

Which is a direct answer.

If that is a direct answer, what do you call "Sandman"?

Knowing the value to ascribe to "same as always" requires that I
already know the answer to the question you have just purported to
answer.

No it doesn't.

How do I already know what alias you have used always? I only know for
the last few months.

You say that "always" includes the recent past.

No, I say that "always" includes all time.

However you might also argue that 'Sandman' is your usage at present
but that in the 'recent' past (for a particular value of recent) you
were using XYZ.

No. Same as always includes "now" and "then" and "any time". "Same as
always" leaves *no* room for me using any other alias than the one I am
using when answering the question.

You would have eliminated this possible wiggle room by saying
"Sandman, as always".

There is no wiggle room. You failed to support your incorrect position
yet again, Eric.

You failed to give a direct answer.

This is not and never has been a matter of logic.

Of course it has. Peter said:

"It means you could use another nym"

No, it doesn't. That is an incorrect statement. "Same as always" does
not leave room for me using another alias than the one I used when I
made the statement. There is NO wiggle room. That's a logical fallacy.

Eric ignored this...

It's been a question of getting to the truth of the matter.

Which is only a matter of whether or not you guys trust me or not, which
I don't care at all about whether or not you do. I never lie. You have
never seen me lie, nor have you ever even claimed I lie. Nor have you
ever provided substantiation for me lying. There is NOTHING in the past
that could ever suggest to you that "same as always" wasn't a 100%
truthful statement.

But again - you trusting me or not is totally irrelevant to whether or
not it was a direct answer. One can answer directly and be mistrusted,
or answer directly and be trusted. The level of trust does not affect
whether or not the answer is direct or not. This is your claim:

"It's not a direct answer and could be evasive."

That is incorrect. Had you said "The answer isn't specific and I don't
trust you", then you'd have another angle which doesn't deal (as much)
with factual logic.

And this...

Your failure to give a direct and unambiguous answer

I gave a direct and unambiguous answer.

And this...

("Sandman") has left open the possibility that
you may have used another name.

No, it did not. "Same as always" means I could not have ever used an
alias other than the one I currently use.

And this... He sure ignores lots of parts of my posts.

and we would have had no uncertainty about
what you were saying.

One would have no uncertainty about what I meant when I answered "same
as always" either.

I'm sorry, but I an others do have uncertainty what that answer to the
question may actually mean.

That is of no concern to me. The answer was perfectly direct and
unambiguous regardless of your following uncertainty that under no
circumstances stems from lack of information in the answer - but
probably due to some other factors.

He also ignored this.

The doubt is not directed specifically to
you but to common English usage in this type of situation.

That doesn't even make sense.

It does to English speakers.

No.

I have spent many hours in court
listening to people trying to avoid giving a direct answer and it's
amazing how it is possible to twist both language and logic.

Why did you ignore my entire post just to add this non-related comment
on the bottom?

Trolls...

Because I have no intention to contribute to an ever-growing argument
over trivia. Either you are going to give a direct answer to what was
a simple question or you are not. The evidence is that you are not
going to. I will abandon this futile discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Don't you get it? You are in one right now.

Keep dodging, troll.

What can I say ... ?

As little as possible, is my advice.

But that doesn't seem to be an option - you seem bent on arguing stuff
that needn't be argued about.

--
Sandman[.net]