|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 21, 2008 14:10:08 GMT
The points he [Conor] makes are either valid or invalid. If you cannot refute them but rather carp about his spelling and grammar, I (and I imagine most other readers) will assume that his points are valid and your original post has little to stand on. Have fun, Alaisdir. Ala-ist-dir!! Thanks for the invitation to fun. Let's hope we can rise to the occasion. 1. "The points he [Conor] makes are either valid or invalid. If you cannot refute them but rather carp about his spelling and grammar, I (and I imagine most other readers) will assume that his points are valid and your original post has little to stand on". This may represent a welcome return to logic - the sister and, dare one say, handmaiden of rhetoric, to which we have previously adverted. Hence, why even bother to carp about "points"? However, it pains one to have to point out that "arguments" are either valid or invalid - not "points". Presumably, it should not be necessary to point out this distinction to one who actually knows how to spell "grammar" (unlike Conor who could do with polishing up his script a good deal). 2. Then we have a case of "multiple assumption": " I (and I imagine most other readers) will assume that his points are valid and your original post has little to stand on". Shall we untangle this? Firstly, one is glad that Ala-ist-dir admits that he make an assumption that "most other readers" are like him. Strong stuff that and a pretty wide assumption. Can we, reasonably, assume that "most other readers" are so unreasonable? One thinks not. And, one is perfectly entitled to hold that position until contrary evidence is produced from the readers themselves. Put another way, why should we assume that "most other readers" are cranks? One has no reason to assume that! 3. One notes the following: "I (and I imagine most other readers) will assume that his points are valid and your original post has little to stand on". One has already pointed out that "arguments" are valid or invalid. Why one should want to attribute validity or invalidity to "points" is beyond one - and, dare one say, quite silly. 4. The validity or invalidity of a rhetorical argument is determined in reference to objective rules - and not, as in this case, to subjective predilections. Should you wish logically to argue, then please play by the rules of logical discourse. Thank you, Molagga, for your semantical explanations. Now perhaps you will return to Conor's - arguments - and address them. I am willing to accept there are objective rules, but I do not see you playing by them. If you want to plug the work of the St Colman's Society for Catholic Liturgy, no one disputes your right to do so. If some one makes a criticism of this work, you have the choice of either rebutting or ignoring the criticism. The world will go on its merry way in either case. However, you seem rather to have a marked tendency to indulge in circumlocution or to snipe either at your critic or the manner in which your critic chooses to express himself. As I have said, this seems to me to be the ad hominem argument, in which case it may be fairly concluded that you have run out of arguments. You are entitled to your personal opinion about me, but you are not serving your purpose very well by trumpeting it quite as loudly as you do. A second issue is that other members, necessary to ensure any discussion of this list has some balance (traditionalists talking to traditionalists will not further the traditionalist cause; anymore than 'No to Lisbon' voters will achieve their objective on 12 June by talking to other 'no' voters), may not feel so free to join discussions if they are conducted like this. This is not a class in logic or rhetoric in some mediaeval university. Anyway, to return to the point of the discussion, are Conor's arguments against your original assertions valid or not? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 21, 2008 15:56:53 GMT
Ala-ist-dir!! Thanks for the invitation to fun. Let's hope we can rise to the occasion. 1. "The points he [Conor] makes are either valid or invalid. If you cannot refute them but rather carp about his spelling and grammar, I (and I imagine most other readers) will assume that his points are valid and your original post has little to stand on". This may represent a welcome return to logic - the sister and, dare one say, handmaiden of rhetoric, to which we have previously adverted. Hence, why even bother to carp about "points"? However, it pains one to have to point out that "arguments" are either valid or invalid - not "points". Presumably, it should not be necessary to point out this distinction to one who actually knows how to spell "grammar" (unlike Conor who could do with polishing up his script a good deal). 2. Then we have a case of "multiple assumption": " I (and I imagine most other readers) will assume that his points are valid and your original post has little to stand on". Shall we untangle this? Firstly, one is glad that Ala-ist-dir admits that he make an assumption that "most other readers" are like him. Strong stuff that and a pretty wide assumption. Can we, reasonably, assume that "most other readers" are so unreasonable? One thinks not. And, one is perfectly entitled to hold that position until contrary evidence is produced from the readers themselves. Put another way, why should we assume that "most other readers" are cranks? One has no reason to assume that! 3. One notes the following: "I (and I imagine most other readers) will assume that his points are valid and your original post has little to stand on". One has already pointed out that "arguments" are valid or invalid. Why one should want to attribute validity or invalidity to "points" is beyond one - and, dare one say, quite silly. 4. The validity or invalidity of a rhetorical argument is determined in reference to objective rules - and not, as in this case, to subjective predilections. Should you wish logically to argue, then please play by the rules of logical discourse. As I have said, this seems to me to be the ad hominem argument, in which case it may be fairly concluded that you have run out of arguments. On a small point, "ad hominem", in this context, refers to a type of fallacy - not to an argument. Again, "may be fairly concluded" (without agreeing with the assertion) should be "may be fairly inferred" since, by your own earlier admission, you were assuming something, and consequently lacked verified premisses leading to a syllogistic conclusion. Discourse cannot really take place if those engaging in it decide to make up a private language for their own convenience.
|
|
|
Post by conor on May 21, 2008 22:28:01 GMT
This illiterate has come to the conclusion that Molagga is a master in Grammer and Logic but when it comes to TLM in Cork he is a master in waffle.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 22, 2008 7:48:40 GMT
This illiterate has come to the conclusion that Molagga is a master in Grammer and Logic but when it comes to TLM in Cork he is a master in waffle. This crank has a similar opinion
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 22, 2008 13:13:03 GMT
Conor, please stop that. While more articulate than usual, it's very naughty!
|
|
|
Post by guest on May 22, 2008 15:27:40 GMT
Dear Moderator What is this all about.This is just a slagging match.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 22, 2008 16:01:10 GMT
This illiterate has come to the conclusion that Molagga is a master in Grammer and Logic but when it comes to TLM in Cork he is a master in waffle. Self-accusation is always the most secure evidence on which to convict: in this case for illiteracy! That said, this contribution is showing signs of rapid improvement in our scholar. We seem to have discovered the difference between subject, object and predicate. However, that "Logic" is problematic. That "Grammer" needs further improvement before we are ready for road. As for "waffle": have a nice breakfast!!
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 22, 2008 16:04:39 GMT
This illiterate has come to the conclusion that Molagga is a master in Grammer and Logic but when it comes to TLM in Cork he is a master in waffle. This crank has a similar opinion Another case of self-accusation. Thanks for confirming my very worst suspicions - and perhaps those of may of our readers. Undoubtedly, this forma mentis casts a shadow over what our friend has to say. Terrible pity, that!!
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 22, 2008 16:08:21 GMT
This illiterate has come to the conclusion that Molagga is a master in Grammer and Logic but when it comes to TLM in Cork he is a master in waffle. "Inference" is the word, Conor, not "conclusion". How many times must I repeat myself before it sinks in?
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 22, 2008 16:16:00 GMT
And now to return to the substance of Conor's "points" one by one:
"6) You make the claim that there is more than one Priest who celebrates the TLM. Again ,where are they? Where do they celebrate? Why does nobody know about them? Why have they not been seen at traditional events? "
I think a look at the LMSI webpage will substantiate the claim that more than one priest celebrates the TLM.
The locations in which some of these priests celebrate are advertised on the same webpage.
Probably because the LMSI (at least in Cork) has not done much to tell many about them.
Possibly because there are so few events to be seen at. Just look at the LMSI's record in the Cork area.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on May 22, 2008 17:59:16 GMT
Conor, please stop that. While more articulate than usual, it's very naughty! Molagga and others: please be careful. This post from "eakee" is a set of links which, while I haven't followed any of them, would undoubtedly bring you to sites that are either obscene or designed to part you from your money. I will delete posts like this as I find them, but I can't block them because the senders keep changing their identities. Michael
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on May 22, 2008 18:10:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 22, 2008 18:12:00 GMT
Conor, please stop that. While more articulate than usual, it's very naughty! Molagga and others: please be careful. This post from "eakee" is a set of links which, while I haven't followed any of them, would undoubtedly bring you to sites that are either obscene or designed to part you from your money. I will delete posts like this as I find them, but I can't block them because the senders keep changing their identities. Michael Oh...... Sorry about that, I thought it was just Conor at the usual!!
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 22, 2008 19:07:01 GMT
School Around the Corner Time II
Department of Modern Languages
English for Foreigners
Conor is responsible for the following:
"5) The letter to the Adm. was in Latin, which raised more suspicion of a Roman Prelate. Why the society wrote a six page latin letter? Only they can supply the answer"
Firstly, notice the inconsistencies in the spelling of "Latin" - clearly an unknown language for our scribe.
Why a Latin letter should raise suspicion of (or perhaps about) a Roman Prelate is not immediately obvious to me. In terms of logic, I believe that is called a non sequitur fallacy.
Correctly, for once, Conor says that we should ask the authors of the letter for the motives for writing it - and in Latin as he claims.
Similarly, unless Conor is the Adm., we are still without concrete evidence that the good Adm. did get a letter in Latin. Conor, unless the Adm., I think, said that he heard about it or words to that effect. In other words, unless he received the letter himself, he does not KNOW what he is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 22, 2008 19:08:17 GMT
The Medieval University will soon begin its Latin language courses for dummies. Stay tuned.
|
|