Occam's Razor, and the memo

[Suddenly]

I noticed the rather squirmy way you prefaced your remark with the word "perhaps". Are you that unable to come to a decision on whether there is strong evidence or not?

As to "strong" being completely subjective. It boggles the mind that you would think so. You seem to be implying that strong can mean the same as "weak" or even less than that.

No. It is subjective in that "strong" can only have meaning when "not strong" is known. I can say I am strong, but without context this gives you no information as to exactly what weight I could lift.

Even Bob Wise can figure this out. Strong does not mean weak, but someone considered physically "strong" in one context can be considered "weak" in others.

It is a subjective measurement. Part of the language.

What kind of rational communication would be possible if people arbitrarily redefined words as you seem so ready and willing to do?

Um... The word has to be defined before it is redefined. What sort of rational communication is possible when people just assume that other people give the same meaning to a subjective concept like "strong?"

Any rational person would say the word strong is defined as having having a bounding definition that ranges from above average in strength to infinite strength. Only within that range can the word be considered subjective.

Average of what? I can say there is significant evidence of the claim I was making, I can say it is strong in that it can not be immediately dismissed as not true. Of course, this requires that you view the claim made carefully...

This is my problem with you. You accused me of having "admitted bias". When called to prove it, you provide nothing of substance to back up your assertion and still fail to retract your statement.

I explained my point.You either ignore it or do not accept it. This is your problem. There will be no retraction.

Evidently you realized that "admitted" could not be construed loosely enough to back you position. So you decided to stonewall rather than retract. You work for CBS?

I explained it above, that I see someone that ignores evidence contained in a source because they find the apparent political beliefs of the source displeasing, that person is admitting bias. Especially where that source's political beliefs are in themselves drawn from the evidence linked to.

Get it yet? Want a picture?

Well, at least I've gained some insight into the quality of your character.

Bob

So? You have proven yourself to be both paranoid and stupid with your self-rightous reaction to my naming "Bob Wise" as my leader. You made a rather direct implication about my character based on that, an implication that, even though it has been proven false beyond dispute you have failed to expressly apologize or retract.

Yet, even after I explain my reasoning behind my conclusion that you have admitted bias by your actions, making that claim at worst arguable, you continue to whine about it.

If you want to consider character, take a long look in the mirror...

 

[rockoon]

Ahhh, so we can narrow it down to you being a troll or being just really stupid.

I quote:

"There is evidence."

That was you.

I will quote it again:

"There is evidence."

That was you.

Also, please notice how you reply to multiple people in the same message. Clearly if anybody is trolling its you since you neglect to indicate that you are replying to multiple people.

Am I to assume that your intent is to mislead? I have evidence of that... my back deck was power-washed yesterday... clearly that is evidence that you intend to mislead.

 

[Suddenly]

I quote:

"There is evidence."

That was you.

I will quote it again:

"There is evidence."

That was you.

This was you:

"you NOW claim (3rd unique claim of evidence from you) by stating the Bush had permission."

I made no such claim.

I explained what "evidence" is and how "not being present" is evidence of AWOL. There is evidence I would consider strong that for long periods of time Bush was not with his unit. However, as I explained this is not sufficent to prove someone is AWOL. That proof requires evidence that Bush had permission to not be present. I make no claim whatsoever about the permission claim.

This shouldn't be so hard to understand...

Thanks.

Also, please notice how you reply to multiple people in the same message. Clearly if anybody is trolling its you since you neglect to indicate that you are replying to multiple people.

Care to specify, or are empty claims more your speed?

Am I to assume that your intent is to mislead? I have evidence of that... my back deck was power-washed yesterday... clearly that is evidence that you intend to mislead.

I don't recall engaging in that behaviour, and I after a brief review of my posts I do not see where I have. If I have, my intent would be more to avoid wasting my time arguing with people who prove themselves unable to follow an argument. Two birds with one stone. I have no need to attempt to mislead.

Since you can't follow the above, or even avoid total fabrication contrary to my explicit statements, there is no need on my part to intentionally mislead you. You seem to be confused by everything just fine on your own.

 

[crimresearch]

"I explained what "evidence" is and how "not being present" is evidence of AWOL."

A logical fallacy.

Not being present is also evidence of being ill, having permission to not be present, missing movement, being UA, and other possibilities.

To ignore those possibilities and focus on only AWOL or desertion is irrational.

 

[Suddenly]

"I explained what "evidence" is and how "not being present" is evidence of AWOL."

A logical fallacy.


Not being present is also evidence of being ill, having permission to not be present, missing movement, being UA, and other possibilities.

To ignore those possibilities and focus on only AWOL or desertion is irrational.

It is hardly a fallacy. Being absent without leave requires two things. They are "absent" and "without leave."

That it is evidence of other things is of no consequence whatsoever. I have never claimed conclusive proof, just the existence of evidence.

When a body of evidence can lead to more than one conclusion, that body of evidence proves none of the conclusions. At best, it only disproves contrary claims. Consider a dead body. This is not proof of murder, but it would disprove a claim that the person was not dead. It is evidence of murder, or illness, or any other claim that is consistent with death. It is not proof of murder, but it eliminates some contrary hypotheses, and thus is useful evidence.

Likewise, evidence that Bush was absent for long periods does not prove he was AWOL* as it can also lead to several other conclusions. However, it would rule out claims that Bush was present the entire time. Thus, it is helpful evidence as it eliminates some possible conclusions.

If I were claiming proof, then your criticism would be quite valid. I have made no such claim.


*Considering that it is also accepted that Bush was never charged with being AWOL, it should also be noted that the claim suppoerted by the memos is more along the lines that Bush "would have been charged for AWOL but for his connections" than it claims a technical complete case.

This makes the second question a little more hazy, all the more reason I have made no such claims as to that particular issue.

 

[crimresearch]

" Being absent without leave requires two things. They are "absent" and "without leave."

AWOL is a specific charge under the UCMJ, not a make-it-up-as-you-go figure of speech.

You made a specific accusation of AWOL, and offered up two elements which are not exclusive to the criminal charge you claimed they supported. Your above statement is also duplicitous...AWOL requires MORE than 'absent' and 'without leave'.

Bush could easily have been guilty of the comparatively minor infraction of UA for example, based on exactly the same evidence you claim as sufficient for the more serious charge of AWOL.
Bush could have also been guilty of no crime at all, merely by signing in at sick call, or by having already made his minimum drill points for the year (no 'leave' required).
With out all of the required elements, there can be no AWOL, so your logical leap from 'absent' and 'without leave' to commited the criminal offense of AWOL is specious.

 

[Suddenly]

" Being absent without leave requires two things. They are "absent" and "without leave."

AWOL is a specific charge under the UCMJ, not a make-it-up-as-you-go figure of speech.

So it does not mean "absent without leave?" Actually it depends on the user. I can make it a figure of speech if that is what I use it to mean. People use "murder" as a figure of speech all the time.

I don't know how much more clear I can be (given the last post) that I am not suggesting a technical AWOL case. Given that I say those exact words in the last post would (I would hope) clue you in as to that fact...

You made a specific accusation of AWOL,

Nope. I've been quite explicit that I'm not so sure what the heck the precise claim is. I have used the "AWOL" as an example. I guess I should have known that it would be twisted beyond recognition. Read the last part of my last post where I clarify this somewhat.

and offered up two elements which are not exclusive to the criminal charge you claimed they supported. Your above statement is also duplicitous...AWOL requires MORE than 'absent' and 'without leave'.

That would make it "incomplete" more than anything else. Or mislabeled. That is if we assume I was making a technical claim (I have already pointed out I am not).

That you assume I am being duplicitous is curious, in that you have no evidence of that beyond what you see as a mistake being made. You are in effect engaging behaviour worse than what you are accusing me. You are making a claim based on evidence that is not conclusive in itself. I have at least refrained from making a claim, and said only that evidence exists for such a claim. If we further apply your reasoning, we would have no choice but to label your conduct duplicitous.

Bush could easily have been guilty of the comparatively minor infraction of UA for example, based on exactly the same evidence you claim as sufficient for the more serious charge of AWOL.

Fine then. It is evidence of UA as well. The claims were purposefully vague, and AWOL was adoped as a general sense. UA works too. Whatever.

None of this contradicts my point. At best there are other elements to AWOL or higher standards of proof (none of which you mention), so all this goes to it the "proof" issue. The whole point of my last post is that I am fully aware the evidence does not add up to proof and that it doesn't matter.

Now you provide additional argument that my evidence does not add up to proof.

Did you read past the first sentence of that post?

Bush could have also been guilty of no crime at all, merely by signing in at sick call, or by having already made his minimum drill points for the year (no 'leave' required).

Did you read the last post or just assume it disagreed with all you said? I pointed out why this has no bearing on anything. That was the whole point of the thing. Yet you do not dispute my reasoning or even mention it. You just go back and make the same claim over again despite my pointing out that the above is neither contested nor does it matter to my claim that evidence exists.

With out all of the required elements, there can be no AWOL, so your logical leap from 'absent' and 'without leave' to commited the criminal offense of AWOL is specious.

In my last post, I actually agreed with virtually all of what you say in this last sentence, and only point out that absence of other elements, (whether I mentioned them or not), goes to proof and not evidence. Claiming that there are even more elements changes this not a bit.

 

[crimresearch]

"Fine then. It is evidence of UA as well. The claims were purposefully vague, and AWOL was adoped as a general sense. UA works too. Whatever...
<SNIP>
...In my last post, I actually agreed with virtually all of what you say in this last sentence, and only point out that absence of other elements, (whether I mentioned them or not), goes to proof and not evidence. Claiming that there are even more elements changes this not a bit.


Using your superpowers to ignore the restrictions of the space-time continuum and the dictionary?

You waited until well *after* inconsistencies were pointed out to start this 'I was saying something different all along' tactic...sheer backpedaling.

You said AWOL, and you used it without any indication that you didn't actually mean AWOL at all, you really meant something else suggested by the component words the acronym represents.

And referencing your latest post as a rebuttal for points I made earlier is beyond deceptive.
(Plus, it didn't work).

 

[Suddenly]

Using your superpowers to ignore the restrictions of the space-time continuum and the dictionary?

You waited until well *after* inconsistencies were pointed out to start this 'I was saying something different all along' tactic...sheer backpedaling.

Scroll up and find where I say this to a different poster, in the discussion that you then jumped into, leading to the exchange we are currently having:

Actually, even if we use the silly claims that you are apparently saying arise from the substance of the memo, then what I supply is evidence. You apparently have a problem with the concept of "not being there" being evidence of being AWOL. Of course, there needs to be an additional element, that the absence was not allowed in order to prove he was AWOL, and I make no claim that I have presented evidence of that.

I can't wait to see if anyone is dumb enough to now take the above and say I am making claims that Bush was actually AWOL in a technical sense. I somehow expect no less seeing the intellectual level of this discussion.

If you bother to find this post you will see that I only started with the AWOL language to make the point that even if I were to agree that was what is at issue that there is still evidence. I specifically remarked in that post that I did not think that was the claim flowing from the memos.

You said AWOL, and you used it without any indication that you didn't actually mean AWOL at all, you really meant something else suggested by the component words the acronym represents.

Read the above. My powers of prediction are scary. They aren't supernatural, it is just that some posters here are predictible.

And referencing your latest post as a rebuttal for points I made earlier is beyond deceptive.
(Plus, it didn't work).

You mean when you made a claim, I rebutted it, and you just ignored it and repeated that claim?

The fact is that well before you started in on this point I made it very clear that I was not claiming that Bush was technically AWOL. This may have been part of the confusion in the last post as I gave you the credit of not being stupid enough to claim that I was saying he was AWOL in a technical sense.

So that was a mistake on my part.

I have never claimed he was AWOL. At best I have claimed that the evidence of his absence is evidence (but not proof) of AWOL as I was using the term.

 

[crimresearch]

All of which would be delightfully clever on your part, except for one thing...you don't get to define AWOL, it already has a precise definition.

Your continued use of that specific acronym to mean the opposite of the accepted connotation negates all of your claims that you didn't mean 'Bush was AWOL', every time you use it.

If someone came by your house and spray painted 'YOU ARE A RAPIST' on every surface, and then repeatedly stated that they didn't 'technically' mean you were a rapist, they just meant you might be a rapist, even though there is evidence that you are a rapist, and by the way, you can't prove that you have never read a pornographic magazine, which is what rapists do....etc. you might begin to get a sense of the problem here.

Its just borrowng another page from the Dworkinists, and I'm agin' it.

 

[Suddenly]

All of which would be delightfully clever on your part, except for one thing...you don't get to define AWOL, it already has a precise definition.

So you say. Yet you have yet to identify a significant difference between my definition and this precise definition you claim exists that makey argument invalid. If in fact "not being there" is any part of you definition, then you objection is meaningless as it looks towards some imagined claim of proof rather than the claim of there being evidence.

Furthermore, seeing that I, at the outset, explicitly noted that I was not making a technical AWOL claim, your whole assumption is just wrong.

There is nothing clever here, just an example of someone jumping into the middle of a discussion and making a fool of himself by assuming true something that was explicitly noted otherwise earlier in the discussion. The only added dimension is that I predicted it would happen.

Your continued use of that specific acronym to mean the opposite of the accepted connotation negates all of your claims that you didn't mean 'Bush was AWOL', every time you use it.

Again, at best I am misusing a word. Care to point out why, assuming you are right, that this matters?

I mean, if AWOL were to actually mean that Bush killed a bus full of nuns, then you would have a point. However, AWOL is generally being absent without some level of permission. You seem to be saying there is more to it than that.

However, since my claims of evidence center around the "not being there component", the fact that I may not have defined the charge clearly and listed to your satisfaction the other elements matters not a bit. All that would matter is if, somehow, the more technical version that you declare as The One True Meaning did not require proof of absence. Then you would have a point. Absent that, you are just nitpicking regarding details not essential to the point at issue.

If someone came by your house and spray painted 'YOU ARE A RAPIST' on every surface, and then repeatedly stated that they didn't 'technically' mean you were a rapist, they just meant you might be a rapist, even though there is evidence that you are a rapist, and by the way, you can't prove that you have never read a pornographic magazine, which is what rapists do....etc. you might begin to get a sense of the problem here.

The problem is that you repeatedly exhibit ignorance as to my claim.

Your "rapist" analogy fails on three specific levels. First, in many jurisdictions, this term is no longer in use, replaced by the more specific "sexual assault" or the like. So, applying your assumed hypertextualism this painted message has no precise legal meaning.

Second, your evidence does not help you. In no sense is reading a pornographic magazine evidence of any element of a sexual assault. It is not even an issue.

Third, you toss in a burden shifting aspect that you create out of thin air.

Fourth, I never claimed Bush was AWOL. Not once. Not at all. I objected to a statement that there was no evidence of any allegations suggested by the memo, whatever the heck that meant, by pointing out that evidence of his absence exists. Then some other poster insisted that I was claiming evidence of AWOL exists. At that point I said that even taking that claim, which I characterized as "silly," that my point still stands seeing that evidence of absence is in fact part of an AWOL charge.

Yet, you again claim from this that I am saying that Bush was AWOL. Just unreal, doubly so considering that I predicted this would happen, and you came in right on cue.

Here I am thinking the "Bob Wise" thing could not be topped. Yet more foolishness on my part...