Quoting Paul Murphy <
[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>In that case you wont mind if I disassociate myself (note this doesn't
>>>mean disagree) from other groups. Its not up to me to explain other peoples
>>>behaviour.
>>Yes, it is. If you assert that all experts have their biases and therefore
>>can be dismissed, it _is_ incumbent on you to explain how people with a
>>pro-helmet bias reached an anti-helmet conclusion!
>Yet again... we disagree. So what now?
Well, now you are left with an inconsistent position. Obviously the
assertion about all experts having their biases is unsupportable and if
you were able to follow the logic you would be compelled to withdraw it.
>Well the way you transcribed it into the post I responded to, there weren't
>the same indentations as here. I followed what appeared to be your words in
>your post.
Completely missing the fact that it was a recap and that who wrote each
portion was clearly marked. No surprise there.
>Just to clear this up now are you now saying you're not accusing
>me of having an agenda after all?
All the uses of the word "agenda" in this subthread have been to describe
the various experts, not you. How do you expect to discuss something if
you don't even understand the articles?
>>>>Would that be like how that law expert fellow reached his findings with
>>>>regards to the Govt and Dr David Kelly and remained completely impartial
>>>>throughout?
>>>Why is it nonsense given that I was asking a question?
>>Because the implication is a ridiculous and insulting one.
>Only if you believe there's anything wrong with what I said.
The only way I can parse that is that you _are_ suggesting that all the
experts started secretly opposed to helmets.
>>>If you believe all experts are right, all the time, that then we disagree.
>>Who says I do?
>Hence the "If".
Why bring it up? There's never been any reason to suppose I believe that!
>>The point is - again, and do try to understand this time -
>>that to explain the people who started pro-biased and finished anti- with
>>this question, you have to suggest they _all_ had a hidden agenda.
>Please understand this in return, about the only things I have to do is die
>(eventually) and pay taxes (unless I move to some far off place), I dont
>have to suggest or explain anything.
God, can anyone be so stupid? _If_ you wish to advance the explanation you
did for the behaviour of all experts, it has to _apply_ to all experts. I
cannot make this any simpler.
>>>See all my other previous post details - I questioned whether this can be
>>>totally ruled out and so far no-one is willing to do this (including
>>>yourself).
>>Because it's completely irrelevant to explaining the bulk of such people
>>unless you are willing to apply this insulting implication to all of them.
>Black and white thinking.
Another kneejerk piece of rhetoric. You can't avoid the point; you haven't
explained the bulk of the experts.
>>Personally it seems an utterly demented suggestion but even if it were
>>correct it would not get us closer to explaining away the bulk of people
>>who reached a conclusion opposite their bias.
>But the point is nobody can explain why everyone has come to their
>individual conclusions without knowing all those people.
We could, quite reasonably, conclude that the people who say that they
read the literature and realised helmets were useless... actually, in
general, read the literature and realised helmets were useless.
>I cant see why
>"utterly demented" comes into it unless you just want to be aggressive again
>for the sake of it.
It's a ridiculous conspiracy theory! You might as well suggest Tony Raven
concluded helmets were useless because the little goblins in his shoes
told him so.
--
David Damerell <
[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Sunday, June - a weekend.
