How you say, What you say

[Sabre]

Continued from elsewhere.

Don't worry Dermot, I wasn't actually angry. Just keep in mind that certain expressions mean other things for other people. Almost every time I heard "No comment," it was used in the context of, "I rest my case. I have nothing further than I need to add, because you just dug your own grave and proved my point for me." You didn't mean it like that, alright, fair enough. That is pretty much the first time I have seen "No comment" meaning just that.

And also, Dermot, these things are less about what you are saying, and more about how you are saying it. If you were to say things like "I believe" or "to me," then it would just be your opinion, and would likely not become such a large debate (and you could tell the people that try to make it one to -F-Bomb- off). However, when you say things like, "They are, he is, she is, it is, etc etc," then it goes beyond being just your opinion, and by stating it as though it was an undeniable fact, you are essentially challenging other people's opinions and beliefs now, or so it seems to me. Try to be mindful of how you word things, as I doubt most people will automatically interpret the words different under the assumption you meant something else, and will likely accept them at face value as what you said means what you said.

I disagree. He can say things however he likes, but saying as truth means it's subject to challenge. eg. "I like retro games." Fine, can't touch you. "Retro games are better then modern games." is a statement to be challenged. Both can be proped up with evidence and logic.

As a sceptic, I believe that I am wrong in all things, all you have to do is prove it. If you say "That car is green." and I saw it was blue yesterday, you need to prove to me it is green. A recent photo, or showing me car itself.

Also, I believe you start with a premise, then connect it to the conclusion with evidence and logic, and extrodinary claims require extrodinary exvidence. The issue I'm seeing in this debate is that he's starting with the conclusion, and trying to retro fit logic and evidence after the fact. Also the claim is pretty outragous, and so requires a higher standard of evidence and logic then the outdated testamonials of a discredited dr with mother issues and what his friend said.

[Vy'drach]

I never said he couldn't say it like that, but by doing so he was drawing in more drama, something he doesn't like, last I heard. You have to agree that by stating something as though it were a bona-fide fact is essentially challenging other's beliefs and opinions, but by stating it as an opinion of yours, it does not.