• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

It's Sir Beefy now

BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Richard said:
I quite patently was not comparing SW\BLE to a mass-murderer. It's called exaggeration, use of similies, etc. You, however, wanted to think I was taking him too seriously so presumed I was talking literally.
Click to expand...
Right this is clearly a hard concept for you to grasp, so I'll go slowly. Craig said:

Craig said:
How can you not respect somebody as a person when you don't even know them?
Click to expand...
From which one can infer that it is impossible not to respect someone if one doesn't know them.

I replied thusly:

BoyBrumby said:
I gonna go on record & say I don't respect this fella despite not knowing him. Sorry if that's controversial.

Click to expand...
Using a obvious example of someone that no-one has personal experince of on CW (I would hope...) & that no right-thinking person could possibly respect, thereby showing Craig's original argument is easy to disprove.

However....

In the BLE/SW thread you said (& here I quote):

"You're suggesting that every time he opens a new account we should give him a fresh chance? 8-) Would you advocate such a tactic for a murderer on a triple-life sentence who repeatedly escaped jail yet never looked like reoffending? I doubt it."

Which either means you are comparing the situations or your second sentence is a complete non-sequiter. Which is it? Unless it supports your argument it makes no sense. Moreover (& this is really more of a grammatical point) it isn't a simile; a simile would be something like "That would be like advocating such a tactic for a murderer on a triple-life sentence who repeatedly escaped jail yet never looked like reoffending?"

So are you talking literally or talking rot?
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
You two are very much two of my favourite posters. Should bang your heads together though, it seems you will argue over anything. :p
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
BoyBrumby said:
In the BLE/SW thread you said (& here I quote):

"You're suggesting that every time he opens a new account we should give him a fresh chance? 8-) Would you advocate such a tactic for a murderer on a triple-life sentence who repeatedly escaped jail yet never looked like reoffending? I doubt it."

Which either means you are comparing the situations or your second sentence is a complete non-sequiter. Which is it? Unless it supports your argument it makes no sense.

So are you talking literally or talking rot?
Click to expand...
Quite how you can concoct the notion that I'm comparing situations from that I really don't know. It's quite clearly nothing but exaggeration. If you massively exaggerate all points of the SW\BLE case you'd come-up with something along the lines of what I came-up with.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Richard said:
Quite how you can concoct the notion that I'm comparing situations from that I really don't know. It's quite clearly nothing but exaggeration. If you massively exaggerate all points of the SW\BLE case you'd come-up with something along the lines of what I came-up with.
Click to expand...
Again, please try to understand before one of us dies, I'm not concocting anything. However, unless your second sentence supports your first it's a non-sequitur. Do you understand what one of those is? You struggle with similes so I have to ask.

Now unless you want to address my actual points I'll assume you merely are gainsaying for the sake of the last word.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Don't talk down to me in that fashion, please. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a non-sequitur, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. Care to explain why it is?
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Richard said:
Don't talk down to me in that fashion, please. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a non-sequitur, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. Care to explain why it is?
Click to expand...
I already have done at painful length:

BoyBrumby said:
In the BLE/SW thread you said (& here I quote):

"You're suggesting that every time he opens a new account we should give him a fresh chance? 8-) Would you advocate such a tactic for a murderer on a triple-life sentence who repeatedly escaped jail yet never looked like reoffending? I doubt it."

Which either means you are comparing the situations or your second sentence is a complete non-sequitur. Which is it? Unless it supports your argument it makes no sense. Moreover (& this is really more of a grammatical point) it isn't a simile; a simile would be something like "That would be like advocating such a tactic for a murderer on a triple-life sentence who repeatedly escaped jail yet never looked like reoffending?"

So are you talking literally or talking rot?
Click to expand...
Highlighted for your ease of reference.

Still awaiting your argument with interest.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Richard said:
No, you haven't. You've said "it is", and that's it. You've not explained why.
Click to expand...
This is why I've been talking down to you, because you're acting like you're an idiot.

Ok:

I assumed your second sentence was supporting your first, if so it's easy to refute because there is no comparison between someone who re-registers on a website and a mass-murderer. You ask "Would you advocate such a tactic for a murderer on a triple-life sentence who repeatedly escaped jail yet never looked like reoffending? I doubt it.", well quite but it doesn't strength your argument one iota because the situations aren't remotely analogous.

So, as you don't accept that your argument relates to BLE/SW it must logically be a complete non-sequitur thrown in out of an over-developed sense of the absurd.

Which is it?
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
As far as I'm concerned, it makes perfect sense. I was quite clearly not comparing SW\BLE to a mass-murderer, nor suggesting his case bore any similarity to it; I quite clearly was showing that, if you exaggerate grossly, his case and such a said case would be analogous. My comment made perfect sense unless you were deliberately trying to pick holes in everything I said - which, to date, I've always hoped I'd not see you involved in.

I was not being hyperbolic - and more than you were in the case earlier in this thread - because I was not actually saying "SW\BLE is a mass-murderer". I was, if you will, pretending to exaggerate - pointing-out what comparisons could be made if you did.

FFS, this is unutterably ridiculous.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Richard said:
As far as I'm concerned, it makes perfect sense. I was quite clearly not comparing SW\BLE to a mass-murderer, nor suggesting his case bore any similarity to it; I quite clearly was showing that, if you exaggerate grossly, his case and such a said case would be analogous. My comment made perfect sense unless you were deliberately trying to pick holes in everything I said - which, to date, I've always hoped I'd not see you involved in.

I was not being hyperbolic - and more than you were in the case earlier in this thread - because I was not actually saying "SW\BLE is a mass-murderer". I was, if you will, pretending to exaggerate - pointing-out what comparisons could be made if you did.

FFS, this is unutterably ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Look Richard, you started this. You attacked my original post (almost libelled it actually) by comparing it to an inappropriate analogy you once made, or "pretended to make". I'll state this now: there is no comparison between BLE/SW and a murderer, "grossly exaggerated" or not. It's a straw-man; it's worthless.

Now I can kick your backside up & down this thread all day because your position isn't defendable nor is it the same as what I did with Craigos & Hitler, but it serves no purpose except to annoy other posters.

I'll step aside because that's what the bigger man is supposed to do, isn't it?
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I was about to say the exact same thing. I'll say one last thing, however - it was certainly not my intention to "attack" your initial post in this thread, I was actually intending to be fairly light-hearted. Sadly, things (as they often do when you and me are involved - wonder why that might be now) escalated.

There is no comparison to SW\BLE and a criminal (doesn't really need to be a murderer). There is, however, comparison between the cases of trying to get around the law. And I maintain that, I don't care how many kicks you aim at my rear end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top