Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RobGMN" data-source="post: 8913638" data-attributes="member: 683408">Because YOU brought up &quot;common sense&quot; and then refuse to apply it to the situation.That&#039;s a statement, not an example.The simplest solution is not the most likely one when there is a status quo? That makes no sense at all.Those phrases have no relevance to the natural order of things, nor Occam&#039;s Razor.They describe situations where there are hidden, underlying factors that are unknown. If there are hidden, underlying factors, then the simplest solution was not met.Why would you claim it was a Democrat threatening her, then claim that all Democrats love her because she flipped? Makes no sense, and it&#039;s a really weird assumption.Couldn&#039;t hold off on the name-calling for even a few days, huh? Good work.When you contradict your own argument, it&#039;s self-defeating.And example would be a good thing for you to share here.Maybe something like &quot;the shortest distance between two points is a curved line&quot;, and then prove it?So, you think it makes sense to investigate the least likely suspects, and then go from there.OK. We should probably start with the Pope, then every non-citizen, starting with kids who have just learned to speak, and moving on by age. Once we have done that, invesatigate Trump, then every child in every Democrat household, and continue by age.After that, investigate every child in every Republican household in every state but Maryland. Continue by age.Once you gotten theorugh those multiple biullions of people, start on the Republican households in Maryland.SUPER-efficient way to look at the situation.Kind of like checking your name on the title of your car as a first step in figuring out why it won&#039;t start.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RobGMN, post: 8913638, member: 683408"] Because YOU brought up "common sense" and then refuse to apply it to the situation. That's a statement, not an example. The simplest solution is not the most likely one when there is a status quo? That makes no sense at all. Those phrases have no relevance to the natural order of things, nor Occam's Razor. They describe situations where there are hidden, underlying factors that are unknown. If there are hidden, underlying factors, then the simplest solution was not met. Why would you claim it was a Democrat threatening her, then claim that all Democrats love her because she flipped? Makes no sense, and it's a really weird assumption. Couldn't hold off on the name-calling for even a few days, huh? Good work. When you contradict your own argument, it's self-defeating. And example would be a good thing for you to share here. Maybe something like "the shortest distance between two points is a curved line", and then prove it? So, you think it makes sense to investigate the least likely suspects, and then go from there. OK. We should probably start with the Pope, then every non-citizen, starting with kids who have just learned to speak, and moving on by age. Once we have done that, invesatigate Trump, then every child in every Democrat household, and continue by age. After that, investigate every child in every Republican household in every state but Maryland. Continue by age. Once you gotten theorugh those multiple biullions of people, start on the Republican households in Maryland. SUPER-efficient way to look at the situation. Kind of like checking your name on the title of your car as a first step in figuring out why it won't start. [/QUOTE]

Verification