Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 06:05:23 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: ARE Search For Atlantis 2007 Results
http://mysterious-america.net/bermudatriangle0.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Worst theories & books on Atlantis

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Worst theories & books on Atlantis  (Read 5441 times)
0 Members and 128 Guests are viewing this topic.
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #105 on: March 13, 2008, 10:42:41 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 05:23 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
Constructive argumentation (i.e., debate) can be a fun and useful tool when approached in a responsible manner and with the suitable demeanor. Your demeanor, however, has been neither responsible nor suitable.

To date, you have referred to me as:

1. a boor; boorish
2. a dullard
3. a puppet
4. a most poor presentation of a man
5. petty
6. little
7. sarcastic
8. snide
9. condescending
10. a most rude man
11. a poor scientist
12. a crude debater
13. a most sloppy researcher
14. poorly educated
15. derisive
16. long-winded
17. vain (with little reason to be so)
18. foolish
19. mindless
20. impolite
21. desperate
22. shrill
23. defensive
24. childlike
25. flawed
26. disingenuous
27. someone who exhibits bad behavior
28. someone with an especially slow or stubborn mind
29. someone with a monstrous ego
30. someone who over-generalizes
31. someone who grasps at straws
32. someone who lacks social graces
33. someone who “reaches” to make his points
34. someone who is only interested in being right
35. someone who drones on in incomprehensible paragraphs
36. someone who is intending to confuse others
37. someone who only gives opinions to support his theories
38. someone who is struggling to convince himself he is correct
39. someone that responds as a child might
40. someone with a lazy mind
41. someone who is fast in danger of being categorized as an “inquisitive idiot”
42. someone whom you can imagine ranting red-faced, like Howard Dean
43. someone who uses ill-timed humor to cover up their inadequacies
44. someone who is like a lazy policeman, eager for his donuts, accepting what is most apparent rather than dig for evidence
45. someone who is skilled at confusing others, like a politician
46. someone with an agenda
47. someone who takes what he needs to support his viewpoints and discards the rest
48. someone whose understanding of Plato is Neanderthal-like
49. a pseudo scholar
50. someone who takes genuine debate lightly
51. someone incapable of intelligent debate
52. someone who uses Plato like “fast food”

So, is that your idea of disseminating Plato’s words in an unbiased fashion, without agenda, insults, or emotion?

In my last posting, I asked you to do the following:

1. Please illustrate for us all, by quoting any one of my postings, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias.

You chose to not quote any of my postings and to not illustrate in any way, shape, or form, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias. Instead, you chose to try and blame me for bringing the topic up in the first place and suggested that I owed you another apology.

2. So, please demonstrate for us all, Helios, where, in passage 106a of the Critias, Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story?

You chose to demonstrate that Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story in Critias 106a by quoting the phrases “spoken truly and acceptably by him” and “just retribution if he errs” from Critias 106a. You have failed, however, to demonstrate that Plato’s use of these phrases was for the purpose of attesting to the truth of the Atlantis story, because you did not demonstrate that these phrases were said in regards to the Atlantis story. Again, please demonstrate that the aforementioned phrases were written in regards to the Atlantis story.

3. Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?

You chose to not illustrate where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed and you chose to not quote from the Critias. Instead, you chose to call me a “dullard.”

4. To inform us all as to just what material of Mr. Gill’s have you ever read and what about it caused to have such a low opinion of him?

You chose to not answer the question directly. Instead, you chose to inform us all as to just what material of Mr. Gill’s you have read by stating “The material I have read of Mr. Gill's is in association with his opinion on Atlantis.” Perhaps I should have been more specific and asked you to inform us all as to what article(s) you have read and in what journal it/they appeared?

5. Demonstrate your familiarity with Christopher Gill by telling us all what university Mr. Gill is associated with?

You chose to not respond to this question in any way, shape, or form.

6. Provide evidence that supports your contention that my interpretation, that Plato wishes us to observe Critias’ disbelief due to his use of the word “incredible,” is “reaching” in order to prove my point.

You chose to not provide evidence to support your contention that my interpretation “reaches” in order to prove my point. Instead, you chose to respond by asking “Why should I have to?” Furthermore, you asked “What evidence did you supply to support such (a)…conclusion?” The evidence for such a conclusion was provided in the form of:

A. A list of words synonymous with “incredible” (i.e., not credible) that illustrate the negative aspects of the word “incredible” in relation to that topic (e.g., unbelievable (i.e., not believable), implausible (i.e., not plausible), improbable (i.e., not probable), doubtful (i.e., full of doubt), questionable(i.e., causing one to question), nonsensical (i.e., not making any sense), not to mention absurd and far-fetched)
B. Plato’s own statement that “a work of such extent (in addition to others) could never have been artificial.” The logical inference to be drawn from this is that either the writer - Plato, the speaker - Critias, or both, believed that particular detail in the description of Atlantis to be either naturally occurring (i.e., not man-made) or fictional (i.e., not occurring at all).
C. Two different ways that the passage could be approached based on the available evidence, both of which necessitate the observance of Critias’ own incredulity regarding that particular detail in the description of Atlantis.
D. A list of words & phrases synonymous with the word “nevertheless” that illustrate that Critias’ use of the word “nevertheless” indicates that he felt obliged to say what he was told regardless of its incredulous nature.

I provided three pieces of evidence for my argument from just that one sentence and you have failed to argue a single one of them. Instead, you perceived it as condescension and asked “I suppose that if Plato used the word "wonderful" as opposed to "incredible" we would then have a list now of all the many meanings of the word, "wonderful," correct..?” Well, Helios, Plato didn’t use the word “wonderful” to describe that particular detail in the description of Atlantis, therefore, your question is irrelevant. You have clearly demonstrated that either you do not understand the point/counterpoint argumentative process, or you do not have any arguments sufficient to overcome my arguments.

7. Illustrate for us all where, in either the Timaeus or Critias, Plato ever uses the word “manuscript”?

You chose to not illustrate this for us all. I asked you to please find the word “manuscript,” in either the Timaeus or Critias, and highlight it in bold for us in your posting. Your failure to do so can therefore be construed as evidence of your inability to locate any appearance of the word “manuscript” in either book.

8. Please explain to us all how my agenda, which you have stated is “to use both dialogues to support my point(s)”, is any less your agenda, or the agenda of any person posting in this Forum?

You chose to not respond to this in any way, shape, or form.

9. Please “put up” by providing evidence of the insults, or “shut up” and quit stating that I have insulted you.

You chose to not “put up” or “shut up,” and you chose to not provide any evidence of insults. Instead, your response was to try and blame me for the tone of your messages and to ask ”…please don't tell me that you wish for me to now cut and paste all the many derisions, insults, and snide comments you have made during the course of this discussion, not merely to myself but to others?” Yes, Helios, that’s exactly what I want you to do.

10. Please illustrate how my responses were non-contextual, contained erroneous comparisons, were based in false logic, or contained any insults. Please illustrate this by providing evidence that supports that contention.

You chose to not illustrate your point by providing evidence to support your contention.

11. Either “put up or shut up” regarding being able to refute my research at its core.

You chose to not respond to this in any way, shape, or form.

From your responses, or lack thereof, it can be reasonably deduced that you are either unable or unwilling to support your accusations, suppositions, and contentions with any sort of evidence. This is, therefore, evidence to further support my contention(s) that:

1. You have a low comprehension level of the material at hand
2. You do not understand the point/counterpoint argumentative process
3. You do not understand, nor employ, Scientific Methodology
4. Your responses were non-contextual
5. Your arguments were based on false logic and hearsay
6. Your arguments contained erroneous comparisons

Although you might be insulted by them, my aforementioned contentions cannot be construed as “insults” when they are supported by strong arguments and substantive evidence; until such time as you can overcome the arguments and evidence, my contentions will stand.

By the way, anyone who knows me can tell you that it is just in my nature to be sarcastic; it is just part of the joy that is me.  Wink

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 200
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy