 | | | | | |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> James posed a famous trick question that cannot be answered yes or no
> without admitting fault (in this case the *really sweet* assertion that I
> beat women).
Hmm. I didn't intend it to be a statement of your character - I've seen
enough of your posts to know you're intelligent enough to see it for exactly
what it was - "a famous trick question". I was highlighting, admittedly in
an oblique way, that your question "Why is it smart to discontinue an
accessory pack that has sold out?" is forcing the person asked into a
particular type of answer.
If you found it insulting, please accept my apologies - it was not my
intent. The opposite, rather; from your fairly solid grasp of debate
techniques, I expected you to recognize my intent without spelling it out.
I'll try and remeber the kid gloves in the future.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> Hmm. I didn't intend it to be a statement of your character - I've seen
> enough of your posts to know you're intelligent enough to see it for exactly
> what it was - "a famous trick question". I was highlighting, admittedly in
> an oblique way, that your question "Why is it smart to discontinue an
> accessory pack that has sold out?" is forcing the person asked into a
> particular type of answer.
That's pretty sketchy.
My question was essentially rhetorical. I didn't expect to get any kind of
reply at all -- the fact that I got replies from some of the usual persons
makes those replying apologists (the negative connotation this word may have
is not my fault -- it quickly and easily describes the routine defense of
TLC's actions that some of you like to engage in). The form my question took
was off the top of my head -- I could just as easily have asked: "Why are
you discontinuing a brisk selling accessory item even if it means creating a
replacement mold?" or some such thing. The question rhetorically asks for
an explanation and is not a trick question that I can see. If undue emphasis
is to be given the word "smart" and that is the key word that makes the
question somehow unfair, I guess you are suggesting that TLC doesn't have
"smart" reasons for the things it does -- with which I might tend to agree.
BTW, the fact that I know it's a famous trick question doesn't mean that
everyone knows this, and this IS a public forum. That's why I called
attention to this fact immediately. Many may also not realize that I am not
married and hence have no wife -- again, something people do not necessarily
know. You claim it was used innocently, and I guess that's possible -- but
I am suspicious of this claim. I wouldn't be annoyed if you canceled that
post and replaced it with one without the offending trick question.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | |
