What is the difference between art and advertising?

[Piscivore]

I am telling you right now, Athon, so there is no way you can misunderstand:

Stay the hell out of my private life.

Is that clear?

Sounds like "significant" might be the right word.

That shows how little you know of me. I am no different in real life than here.

I would love to discuss this further at TAM.

Well, you're not presenting much of an attractive invitation.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Bump, to provide Claus with another opportunity to answer Tricky's question about his definition of the word "sell".

 

[athon]

Bump, to provide Claus with another opportunity to answer Tricky's question about his definition of the word "sell".

Claus is too busy off bullying and hassling others to be bothered weasling his way out of his own fumbled claims. He seems satisfied with the fact that if he says it, it's just an opinion, while if a woo says it, it demands evidence.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus is too busy off bullying and hassling others to be bothered weasling his way out of his own fumbled claims. He seems satisfied with the fact that if he says it, it's just an opinion, while if a woo says it, it demands evidence.

Athon

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence?

 

[athon]

Ever get the feeling that Claus' brain is permanently playing the 'answer a question with a question' game?

It's not difficult, Claus - not all opinions are equal. You can claim 'it's just an opinion' until the cows come home, but when you state something, to have merit it must have evidence backing it up. The fact you seem to believe that all opinions have equal weight is a rather sad admission for such an uber-skeptic.

So, care to define 'sell', or want to ask another irrelevant question? Either way, I think your feet are so riddled with bullet holes you could probably use them both to strain vegetables.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Ever get the feeling that Claus' brain is permanently playing the 'answer a question with a question' game?

It's not difficult, Claus - not all opinions are equal.

Ah, but that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing evidential claims vs. opinions.

You can claim 'it's just an opinion' until the cows come home, but when you state something, to have merit it must have evidence backing it up. The fact you seem to believe that all opinions have equal weight is a rather sad admission for such an uber-skeptic.

So, care to define 'sell', or want to ask another irrelevant question? Either way, I think your feet are so riddled with bullet holes you could probably use them both to strain vegetables.

Athon

Speaking of which: I like broccoli.

What evidence can there possibly be of that opinion?

 

[athon]

Ah, but that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing evidential claims vs. opinions.

Sorry Claus. We're discussing whether in order for opinions to have weight, they should be justified with evidence. See post 198. Oh, and...stick to the scenario.

Once again, goalposts shift, Claus weasles and he turns the way of the woo.

I don't think anybody really expects you to substantiate your view on this, Claus. I'm not sure you can. But then why let you weasel out of it when you constantly bully others for not supporting their own views?

Speaking of which: I like broccoli.

What evidence can there possibly be of that opinion?

That you've eaten broccoli. If the context you stated this in meant the statement seemed to contradict certain observations, then you'd be asked for such evidence.

If the statement reflected that you didn't seem to know what broccoli is, or you misused the word 'like' in contrast to how others use the word, you'd be asked to provide evidence supporting what you meant by 'broccoli' and the word 'like'.

I'd assume in such a situation you'd again move the goal posts, insinuate broccoli is really some small Asian mammal and how by 'like' you really imply 'has seen one on television in the company of Sir Richard Attenborough'.

Now; what do you mean by the word 'sell'?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry Claus. We're discussing whether in order for opinions to have weight, they should be justified with evidence. See post 198. Oh, and...stick to the scenario.

Once again, goalposts shift, Claus weasles and he turns the way of the woo.

I don't think anybody really expects you to substantiate your view on this, Claus. I'm not sure you can. But then why let you weasel out of it when you constantly bully others for not supporting their own views?

Again, we see that mere disagreement about something inevitably means that someone is a "woo" - comparable to people David Icke, Sylvia Browne and Kenneth Trudeau.

It's a dangerous path you are travelling down, Athon. You're by far not the only one, but I'm sad to see you do it.

That you've eaten broccoli. If the context you stated this in meant the statement seemed to contradict certain observations, then you'd be asked for such evidence.

I have also eaten things that I didn't like. I've also looked at art I didn't like. I've also looked at something that I didn't think was art. Heck, I've even eaten things that isn't food.

How can that be evidence that I liked them?

If the statement reflected that you didn't seem to know what broccoli is, or you misused the word 'like' in contrast to how others use the word, you'd be asked to provide evidence supporting what you meant by 'broccoli' and the word 'like'.

I know what broccoli is, and I know what I like. So no need to imagine all vile things about me.

Do you think it is possible that "I like broccoli" is a mere opinion? That "evidence" has no meaning? It's just...an opinion?

I like Broccoli. I find grunge music akin to sounds that make frogs sterile from 200 meters away. I think art sells.

No? Your world is entirely made up of verifiable claims, and you insist that this goes for everyone else, too?

I disagree with your opinion.

 

[athon]

Again, we see that mere disagreement about something inevitably means that someone is a "woo" - comparable to people David Icke, Sylvia Browne and Kenneth Trudeau.

It's a dangerous path you are travelling down, Athon. You're by far not the only one, but I'm sad to see you do it.

That is always your personal out, Claus. Helps you sleep at night I assume. 'They're calling me a woo because they disagree'. Mind you, I might venture that most other people here fully understand that I describe your arguments as 'woo' as they reflect the same tactics as Icke, Browne and Trudeau. Avoidance of the harder questions, changing definitions to suit their statements, claims 'they are just opinions' thereby avoiding the demands for evidence etc.

I have also eaten things that I didn't like. I've also looked at art I didn't like. I've also looked at something that I didn't think was art. Heck, I've even eaten things that isn't food.

Christ, not the 'evidence' disagreement again. You've just got a whole other dictionary on your side of the fence, Claus, where language is malleable.

Do you think it is possible that "I like broccoli" is a mere opinion? That "evidence" has no meaning? It's just...an opinion?

Do you equate your statement that all art sells something with your taste for broccoli now?

Yes, it is an opinion. I never claimed otherwise. You keep inserting words like 'just' and 'mere' as if it will absolve the need for evidence. Proving you like broccoli would only be of necessity if the context demanded it. I couldn't care less of your tastes. But the claim could still be a lie, or a mistake, or just plain wrong. It's based on you knowing what broccoli is, that you've actually eaten it before and you're not lying.

Yes, it is an opinion. Now, answer this; are all opinions equal?

I know answering it destroys your argument, but having the question there unanswered is just pure poetry against your rambling, so I'll keep asking it.

No? Your world is entirely made up of verifiable claims, and you insist that this goes for everyone else, too?

Yes. The world is made of verifiable claims. It's just that most claims I couldn't give two hoots about whether they are true or not, especially if they are subjective. Opinions are still claims, even if they are claims of personal taste.

Yet in this situation, your opinion can't even claim to be about personal taste - it is a statement that says all art sells something.

So - are all opinions equal? And what do you mean by sell? Funny how you responded to everything else but that question (well, no...not funny. Sad that a man your age and with such pride in being a skeptic, who mercilessly badgers 'woos' when they refuse to answer questions feels he can avoid answering when it suits him).

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

That is always your personal out, Claus. Helps you sleep at night I assume. 'They're calling me a woo because they disagree'. Mind you, I might venture that most other people here fully understand that I describe your arguments as 'woo' as they reflect the same tactics as Icke, Browne and Trudeau. Avoidance of the harder questions, changing definitions to suit their statements, claims 'they are just opinions' thereby avoiding the demands for evidence etc.

But I'm not claiming evidence. You say I am, but I'm not.

What is it we always say about woos? "Go with their claims - not what we think they claim".

But not in this case. Here, you insist that I have claimed something, even though I haven't.

Christ, not the 'evidence' disagreement again. You've just got a whole other dictionary on your side of the fence, Claus, where language is malleable.

Hey, I'm going with your criterion: It is evidence that I like broccoli because I have eaten it.

But I have also eaten something I didn't like. Is that also evidence that I really liked it - I just don't want to admit it?

Do you equate your statement that all art sells something with your taste for broccoli now?

I equate my opinion that all art sells something with my opinion that broccoli tastes good.

Yes, it is an opinion. I never claimed otherwise. You keep inserting words like 'just' and 'mere' as if it will absolve the need for evidence.

Please allow me to decide how I word things.

Proving you like broccoli would only be of necessity if the context demanded it. I couldn't care less of your tastes. But the claim could still be a lie, or a mistake, or just plain wrong. It's based on you knowing what broccoli is, that you've actually eaten it before and you're not lying.

But I know what broccoli is, I have eaten it before, and I'm not lying. It is still my opinion that broccoli tastes good.

How the heck can it be anything else? Are you arguing that there is an objective way to verify which foods taste better than others?

Yes, it is an opinion. Now, answer this; are all opinions equal?

Already answered, in post #195.

I know answering it destroys your argument, but having the question there unanswered is just pure poetry against your rambling, so I'll keep asking it.

Don't run around, crying "Claus didn't answer it! Claus didn't answer it!", when in fact I have.

Yes. The world is made of verifiable claims. It's just that most claims I couldn't give two hoots about whether they are true or not, especially if they are subjective. Opinions are still claims, even if they are claims of personal taste.

You are saying that there is an way to verify which foods taste better than others, then.

Let's see how far you want to go:

Is there an objective way to verify what is good art?

If yes, which is better, expressionism or impressionism?​

Is there an objective way to verify what is good music?

If yes, which is better, Bach or Beethoven?​

Is there an objective way to verify what is good literature?

If yes, which is better, Voltaire or Tolstoy?​

Is there an objective way to verify what is good architecture?

If yes, which is better, Utzon or Pei?​

Is there an objective way to verify what is good theatre?

If yes, which is better, Shakespeare or Moliere?​

Is there an objective way to verify what is a good color?

If yes, which is better, blue or red?​

Is there an objective way to verify what is a good shape?

If yes, which is better, a square or a circle?​

Is there an objective way to verify what is a good scent?

If yes, which is better, a rose scent or a curry scent?​

Yet in this situation, your opinion can't even claim to be about personal taste - it is a statement that says all art sells something.

Not in your opinion, maybe. I disagree.

 

[athon]

But I'm not claiming evidence. You say I am, but I'm not.

No.. That's the point. You provide no evidence to support your opinion.

What is it we always say about woos? "Go with their claims - not what we think they claim".

But not in this case. Here, you insist that I have claimed something, even though I haven't.

You claim all art sells something. It might be an opinion, but you're still claiming it.

Hey, I'm going with your criterion: It is evidence that I like broccoli because I have eaten it.

But I have also eaten something I didn't like. Is that also evidence that I really liked it - I just don't want to admit it?

We've had the discussion on what evidence means before. You failed then. You're failing again. Why derail another thread with it?

But I know what broccoli is, I have eaten it before, and I'm not lying. It is still my opinion that broccoli tastes good.

How the heck can it be anything else? Are you arguing that there is an objective way to verify which foods taste better than others?

First of all 'tastes better' is a subjective, contextual statement. 'All art sells something' isn't.

Second of all, the statement could still be correct or incorrect. Sure, you would know one way or another, but your stating the opinion is still a claim. Evidence still supports whether the statement is true or not.

Already answered, in post #195.

I assume you mean:

Of course premises and opinions can be incorrect. I haven't said otherwise. They can be incorrect if they are based on falsehoods.

What if a person doesn't understand what a word means and uses it incorrectly? For instance, you state you like broccoli but really mean beetroot? Or 'all art sells something', and you don't use the word 'sell' properly?

Don't run around, crying "Claus didn't answer it! Claus didn't answer it!", when in fact I have.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

You are saying that there is an way to verify which foods taste better than others, then.

Irrelevant to the discussion. 'I like broccoli' is not the same as 'Broccoli tastes better than all other foods'. The former has a context, the latter does not. If you said 'I think to me broccoli tastes better than all other foods', I have no choice but to rely on your statement. It could still be a lie, or based on a misunderstanding, but there is currently no easy way (short of PET scanning you with some basic psychological assays) to check to see if that statement is true. However, the statement could still be a lie or based on a misunderstanding.

Let's see how far you want to go:

Is there an objective way to verify what is good art?

*snip rest as it's more weasling, irrelevant rambling*

'Better' and 'good' demand context. If you said 'X is good', I'd ask you to clarify what you meant by 'good'. If you say 'Y is better', I'd ask 'better than what, and in what context'. Then you'd be asked to provide evidence that that is the case.

If you say 'I like X', I'd have to take your word for it.

However, this is not an 'I like X', but rather 'all X does Y', which can be supported by evidence.

So...what do you mean by 'sell'?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

No.. That's the point. You provide no evidence to support your opinion.

That is simply not correct.

I pointed out in a quote in the OP that patrons have, since time began, demanded that they be portrayed favorably. That's selling: E.g., their power, influence and wealth. I pointed to David's portrait of Napoleon and graffiti in post #19.

Now, you disagree that tagging is advertising, but that's fine with me. I don't think you'll want to argue that when facing the taggers. They can be pretty touchy about it.

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence?

You claim all art sells something. It might be an opinion, but you're still claiming it.

It is an opinion.

We've had the discussion on what evidence means before. You failed then. You're failing again. Why derail another thread with it?

Don't talk around the issue, please. You say it is evidence that I like broccoli, if I have eaten it.

Since I have also eaten something I didn't like, is that also evidence that I really liked it - I just don't want to admit it?

First of all 'tastes better' is a subjective, contextual statement. 'All art sells something' isn't.

Come again? "Tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not? How do you figure that?

Second of all, the statement could still be correct or incorrect. Sure, you would know one way or another, but your stating the opinion is still a claim. Evidence still supports whether the statement is true or not.

Well, the onus is on you to provide evidence that I like broccoli. It is my opinion that I do.

I assume you mean:

What if a person doesn't understand what a word means and uses it incorrectly? For instance, you state you like broccoli but really mean beetroot? Or 'all art sells something', and you don't use the word 'sell' properly?

Again, don't talk around the issue: I answered the question earlier in this thread. Yes or no?

Irrelevant to the discussion. 'I like broccoli' is not the same as 'Broccoli tastes better than all other foods'. The former has a context, the latter does not.

The context of the latter is: To whom? To me, in this case. Did I say that everyone likes broccoli? No. That would have been a verifiable claim.

If you said 'I think to me broccoli tastes better than all other foods', I have no choice but to rely on your statement. It could still be a lie, or based on a misunderstanding, but there is currently no easy way (short of PET scanning you with some basic psychological assays) to check to see if that statement is true. However, the statement could still be a lie or based on a misunderstanding.

Where did I speak for all people when I said that all art sells something? I can't speak for everyone when it comes to art. I certainly haven't.

*snip rest as it's more weasling, irrelevant rambling*

'Better' and 'good' demand context. If you said 'X is good', I'd ask you to clarify what you meant by 'good'. If you say 'Y is better', I'd ask 'better than what, and in what context'. Then you'd be asked to provide evidence that that is the case.

It isn't up to me, but you. You are the one saying that the world is made of verifiable claims.

Start with this one:

Is there an objective way to verify what is good art?

If yes, which is better, expressionism or impressionism?​

If you say 'I like X', I'd have to take your word for it.

But you didn't. You claimed that "I like broccoli" is a verifiable claim.

However, this is not an 'I like X', but rather 'all X does Y', which can be supported by evidence.

Really?

If you said "All vegetables taste horribly", can that be supported by evidence?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence?

Maybe he's waiting for you to provide your definition of the word "sell", as in "All art is selling something".

Just a possibility.

 

[Tricky]

No, no. You cannot point to my "usage" and then claim I haven't provided the definitions.

Either I haven't provided the definitions, or I have (by my "usage"), only they are non-standard. Which is it?

Okay Claus, I asked you for your definitions, but you have directly said that your usage IS your definition. Very good. I shall use the definitions you have provided.

• By your definition, "practice" is a synonym for "selling". I believe you are demonstrably wrong in this.
• By your definition, "personal satisfaction" is a synonym for "selling". I believe you are demonstrably wrong in this.
• By your definition, "increasing value" is a synonym for "selling". I believe you are demonstrably wrong in this.

It is not just an opinion that you are wrong, it is supported by legitimate dictionaries, i.e. evidence.

Now don't complain that I am making strawmen or choosing your arguments for you, because this is precisely what you told me to do. I asked you (politely) for a definition of "selling" and you said (as indicated in the above quoted post) that your answer was your usage. This is what your usage indicates.

If you disagree that these are your own definitions that are indicated by your usage, then feel free to provide your own, as I have asked you to do numerous times.

So either you are demonstrably incorrect in your definitions, or you lied when you said that you provided a definition.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I pointed out in a quote in the OP that patrons have, since time began, demanded that they be portrayed favorably. That's selling: E.g., their power, influence and wealth. I pointed to David's portrait of Napoleon and graffiti in post #19.

Not all art has patrons. Do you really not know that? Or are you moving the goalposts again? Just curious.

 

[athon]

That is simply not correct.

I pointed out in a quote in the OP that patrons have, since time began, demanded that they be portrayed favorably. That's selling: E.g., their power, influence and wealth. I pointed to David's portrait of Napoleon and graffiti in post #19.

Now, you disagree that tagging is advertising, but that's fine with me. I don't think you'll want to argue that when facing the taggers. They can be pretty touchy about it.

The closest we can get to your definition of 'advertising' is that it 'sells something', though. So, we're still chasing round this old stump. You keep using a term you refuse to define.

What do you mean by the word 'sell'?

Don't talk around the issue, please. You say it is evidence that I like broccoli, if I have eaten it.

Since I have also eaten something I didn't like, is that also evidence that I really liked it - I just don't want to admit it?

No. It is evidence that you like it. Obviously the conclusion is wrong, but it is still evidence for the case you like it. If you liked it, you'd eat it.

Now, let's abandon this line of the thread before you derail it further with your silliness. I've started a thread in science on the nature of evidence. Take it up there. I don't think you know what evidence means.

Come again? "Tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not? How do you figure that?

How do you get 'like' from the statement 'all art sells something'? You're not even being subtle in your weasling now - your bluntly bringing a backhoe onto the field, wrapping a chain around the goalposts mid-game and driving away with them.

Well, the onus is on you to provide evidence that I like broccoli. It is my opinion that I do.

Great. I couldn't care less. We're not supporting your taste in broccoli here, but asking what you mean by the word sell.

Stick to the scenario.

Again, don't talk around the issue: I answered the question earlier in this thread. Yes or no?

You answered that opinions can be incorrect. You didn't answer:

What if a person doesn't understand what a word means and uses it incorrectly? For instance, you state you like broccoli but really mean beetroot? Or 'all art sells something', and you don't use the word 'sell' properly?

Care to?

Where did I speak for all people when I said that all art sells something? I can't speak for everyone when it comes to art. I certainly haven't.

WTF? This isn't a statement of personal taste, Claus. It is an objective statement that says 'all art sells something'. All of X does Y. That's a claim that all objects of one nature perform an action.

The really bizarre thing is that by avoiding providing your definition of 'sell', we know this is just more of your ducking and weaving. I take back what I said before - the game is over, the lights are out, the people have gone home, and here you are with your forklift moving goalposts.

Is there an objective way to verify what is good art?

If yes, which is better, expressionism or impressionism?

What do you mean by 'good'? What do you mean by 'better'?

If you said "All vegetables taste horribly", can that be supported by evidence?

Yes. We could probably present you with a range of vegetables, hook you up to a PET scanner, watch how your brain reacts to eating each, and induce from that evidence contributing to your claim that to your tastes, all vegetables taste horrible.

What that has to do with the statement that 'all art sells', I have no idea.

So, Claus, stick to the scenario and tell us (for the nth time) 'what do you mean by sell'?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay Claus, I asked you for your definitions, but you have directly said that your usage IS your definition. Very good. I shall use the definitions you have provided.

You were wrong, then, when you said I hadn't provided definitions.

Thanks.

Not all art has patrons.

I didn't say it had.

The closest we can get to your definition of 'advertising' is that it 'sells something', though. So, we're still chasing round this old stump. You keep using a term you refuse to define.

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence?

Just yes or no, please.

No. It is evidence that you like it. Obviously the conclusion is wrong, but it is still evidence for the case you like it. If you liked it, you'd eat it.

It is not possible for me to eat something and not like it? I have to like everything I eat, simply because I eat it?

How idiotic an argument can you present??

Now, let's abandon this line of the thread before you derail it further with your silliness. I've started a thread in science on the nature of evidence. Take it up there. I don't think you know what evidence means.

Yes, I saw the thread. You have claimed I haven't shown evidence, and then you open a thread where you offer your own opinion of what evidence is - and ask for the opinion of others?

Do you see the irony here?

How do you get 'like' from the statement 'all art sells something'? You're not even being subtle in your weasling now - your bluntly bringing a backhoe onto the field, wrapping a chain around the goalposts mid-game and driving away with them.

You didn't answer the question: How do you figure that "tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not?

Great. I couldn't care less. We're not supporting your taste in broccoli here, but asking what you mean by the word sell.

Stick to the scenario.

You do not decide how I choose to present my argument.

You answered that opinions can be incorrect.

So, you were wrong, then. Thank you.

You didn't answer:

What if a person doesn't understand what a word means and uses it incorrectly? For instance, you state you like broccoli but really mean beetroot? Or 'all art sells something', and you don't use the word 'sell' properly?

Care to?

That is not the case here. I have explained what I mean.

WTF? This isn't a statement of personal taste, Claus.

Yes, it is. Art, what it is, and what it does, is inherently down to opinion. Taste. Emotions. Sentiments.

You may think that a picture is art, you may think it is not. You may think it sells something - a product, an idea, whatever, you may think it doesn't.

It is an objective statement that says 'all art sells something'. All of X does Y. That's a claim that all objects of one nature perform an action.

The really bizarre thing is that by avoiding providing your definition of 'sell', we know this is just more of your ducking and weaving. I take back what I said before - the game is over, the lights are out, the people have gone home, and here you are with your forklift moving goalposts.

You don't think all art sells something. I'm fine with that.

What do you mean by 'good'? What do you mean by 'better'?

Precisely! Thank you for proving my point: It isn't objective - it's a matter of opinion. What you find good art, I may hate.

Hence, you were wrong when you said that the world is made of verifiable claims. You can't decide objectively if an opinion is a matter of personal taste.

Yes. We could probably present you with a range of vegetables, hook you up to a PET scanner, watch how your brain reacts to eating each, and induce from that evidence contributing to your claim that to your tastes, all vegetables taste horrible.

What that has to do with the statement that 'all art sells', I have no idea.

That would only be for one person. If you want to use the argument that "all art sells something" is the argument "all X does Y" that applies to all people, then you have to show that all people think that all vegetables taste horribly.

You can't do that, because people's tastes change. You may have hated tomatoes a year ago, but are now gobbling them up by the pound - or the other way around.

You simply can't use "all X does Y" here. It's not an objective statement.

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence? Or is that why you opened the other thread?

 

[athon]

So much babbling, and nothing that makes a single bit of sense. The most amazing thing about this is that the slow stepping away from the point only further shows how dishonest, weasley and lost you are on the matter.

So, I ask again, making it really simple so you can't make more detours and create more obfuscation; what do you mean by 'sell'? I know you won't answer it, but highlighting it shows all who read this thread you've painted yourself into a corner.

Athon

 

[Tricky]

You were wrong, then, when you said I hadn't provided definitions.

Thanks.

You're welcome. You know, I did ask you earlier about those definitions you now accept, and you didn't reply. However, I will admit now that you didn't lie. You were simply being evasive.

But those definitions you now accept are demonstrably wrong. Your contention that "all art is advertising" is thus shown to be incorrect. It has been shown that your opinion is incorrect. You have now admitted to us that you do not know the meanings of the words you use.

Thank you.

I think that settles this question.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're welcome. You know, I did ask you earlier about those definitions you now accept, and you didn't reply. However, I will admit now that you didn't lie. You were simply being evasive.

But those definitions you now accept are demonstrably wrong. Your contention that "all art is advertising" is thus shown to be incorrect. It has been shown that your opinion is incorrect. You have now admitted to us that you do not know the meanings of the words you use.

Thank you.

I think that settles this question.

I disagree.

So much babbling, and nothing that makes a single bit of sense. The most amazing thing about this is that the slow stepping away from the point only further shows how dishonest, weasley and lost you are on the matter.

So, I ask again, making it really simple so you can't make more detours and create more obfuscation; what do you mean by 'sell'? I know you won't answer it, but highlighting it shows all who read this thread you've painted yourself into a corner.

Athon

In the case of David's Napoleon, did I not provide evidence? Just yes or no, please.

Do you see the irony in you claiming I haven't shown evidence, after which you open a thread where you offer your own opinion of what evidence is - and ask for the opinion of others?

How do you figure that "tastes better" is subjective and contextual, but "like" is not?

Can you tell me what the difference is between an opinion and a claim that requires evidence? Or is that why you opened the other thread?