A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Mitch Todd]

You has a strawman argeyment

Not a strawman at all. Martin said something that is commonly said --and maybe based on some grain of truth-- but isn't correct. Martin responded with t o the effect that impossible to have complete information about a situation. I replied with an example where complete information is achievable. That is, Martin responded directly to what I said, and I responded directly to what he said.

[Martin Weidmann]

You has a strawman argeyment

Alan, I wish you all the best if you are planning to debate Todd, but be aware that he will try to drag you down to his level.
Either that or he will keep on arguing, with pathetic arguments, until you lose all energy and want to jump off a cliff.

[Alan Ford]

Not a strawman at all. Martin said something that is commonly said --and maybe based on some grain of truth-- but isn't correct. Martin responded with t o the effect that impossible to have complete information about a situation.

No he didn'tses. He used the word "case", meaning criminal case. You then cutely strawmanned what he'd said.

Now go bore someone else with your pocketful of nonsenses

 

[Mitch Todd]

Alan, I wish you all the best if you are planning to debate Todd, but be aware that he will try to drag you down to his level.
Either that or he will keep on arguing, with pathetic arguments, until you lose all energy and want to jump off a cliff.

Martin, why is it that every time you try to come off High and Mighty you wind up making yourself look huffy and prissy?

Anyway, any "descent" you make is purely your own doing. Don't blame me for your own mistakes.

[Mitch Todd]

No he didn'tses. He used the word "case", meaning criminal case. You then cutely strawmanned what he'd said.

Now go bore someone else with your pocketful of nonsenses

 

I'm the person who brought the word "case" into the discussion ("However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence."). I meant it in the most general, Mirriam-Webster-definition-1.a. meaning: "a set of circumstances or conditions."

Unlike you, I cannot speak to being able to read Martin's mind for secret meanings. While he uses the term "case" in his response, there is nothing in the context of his reply that indicates any other, more specific meaning that what I'd originally said.

Whatever you seek to impose otherwise is likely to be merely the act of your own imagination.

 

[Dan O'meara]

No, not really.
Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?

[turn out left pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here

[turn out right pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here, either.

I've run out of pocketses, and having turned them out have completed the task of gathering all available information about what is in them, so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses. QED

so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses.

This statement is incorrect.
You may conclude from your example that you didn't have Bentley keys in your pocketses ( ) at the time you turned them out.
The Bentley keys may have been removed before you checked your pocketses, so you can't say definitively that you did not have Bentley keys in your pocketses.
What tests have been performed to detect the presence or absence Bentley key in your pocketses prior to you turning them out? We are missing key information (do you see what I did there? "Key" information. Do you get it? "Key" as in...oh, forget it..."

Even in this most basic of all examples there is not complete information.
The simplest criminal case is manifestly more complex than this, so the idea of having "complete information" is a non-starter.

[Martin Weidmann]

And so the conversation we had with Andrew is going off the rails, just like Todd intended.
Have fun with the next 10 pages or so of yes vs no arguments.