Sequence of events surrounding the silencer.

[Adam]

Its also worth pointing out that majority of Adam "questions" I have already answered and corrected him on in the past. But as per usual Adam just pretends it never happens and asks the same questions over and over again. I am sure QC will agree with me.

No you haven't. Don't lie.

37 questions not answred. To David's own thread.

AE really fabricated the silencer using a bucket of diluted period blood.

[Adam]

Its also worth pointing out that majority of Adam "questions" I have already answered and corrected him on in the past. But as per usual Adam just pretends it never happens and asks the same questions over and over again. I am sure QC will agree with me.

Anyway, you would have to answer them again.

It's your thread.

[David1819]

No you haven't. Don't lie.

37 questions not answred. To David's own thread.

AE really fabricated the silencer using a bucket of diluted period blood.

And here is your answer -

The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[Roch]

David's a top-end poster on the case imo. I'm sure the likes of RJ would agree with that assessment Adam.

If MindHouse had interviewed David about Mugford's testimony and interviewed Bill on Ainsley's actions, I think that would be enough to cancel out the propaganda and swing public opinion to 50/50 at the very least. Possibly even put the defence in credit.

Anyway, sorry .. just passing through.

[Adam]

David's a top-end poster on the case imo. I'm sure the likes of RJ would agree with that assessment Adam.

If MindHouse had interviewed David about Mugford's testimony and interviewed Bill on Ainsley's actions, I think that would be enough to cancel out the propaganda and swing public opinion to 50/50 at the very least. Possibly even put the defence in credit.

Anyway, sorry .. just passing through.

What about David not responding to 37 obstacles. On his own thread post! 

I did ask in a polite way. All in the thread.

He's had a long term view that AE fabricated the silencer. Then created a 'sequence of events'.  Then refuses to address 37 obstacles.

When I create a thread I answer all posts.

[Adam]

I suspect David thought his 'sequence of events' was watertight. And that would be it.

He was not expecting to have to defend it or 37 obstacles to address. Of which he had no answers.

He intially tried to stone wall by not responding. Now he is just copying and pasting.

[Adam]

I suspect David thought his 'sequence of events' was watertight. And that would be it.

He was not expecting to have to defend it or 37 obstacles to address. Of which he had no answers.

He intially tried to stone wall by not responding. Now he is just copying and pasting.

Anyway David's really convinced everyone AE fabricated the silencer.

[JackieD]

David's a top-end poster on the case imo. I'm sure the likes of RJ would agree with that assessment Adam.

If MindHouse had interviewed David about Mugford's testimony and interviewed Bill on Ainsley's actions, I think that would be enough to cancel out the propaganda and swing public opinion to 50/50 at the very least. Possibly even put the defence in credit.

Anyway, sorry .. just passing through.

Very much appreciated

[Adam]

Any proof of that?

Julie would just see the faces. That is all you need to identify.

My first response to David's thread post. After he posted -


'Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.'

----------

No response.

[Adam]

Any proof of that?

Second response. After David posted -


After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.

----------

No response.

[Adam]

Anyway. All 37 questions in the thread.

David was so chuffed he had created his own 'sequence of events' he didn't even write anything in red.

Silly matters such as questions from other posters on it should be ignored.

[David1819]

Why is Adam so worked up about this subject? I thought the silencer was just 1 of 70 "pieces of evidence"?

He has 69 other pieces. Therefore he can join Steve_uk, Paul Harrison and Caroline in being guilters who accept the silencer is a fabrication.

[Adam]

Why is Adam so worked up about this subject? I thought the silencer was just 1 of 70 "pieces of evidence"?

He has 69 other pieces. Therefore he can join Steve_uk, Paul Harrison and Caroline in being guilters who accept the silencer is a fabrication.

You created the thread. So I was asking questions on your 'sequence of events'. As I would do on other threads from other posters.

Rob always asks me questions on my threads.  Which I always answer.

Bit weird creating a thread. Then ignoring questions.

[David1819]

You created the thread. So I was asking questions on your 'sequence of events'. As I would do on other threads from other posters.

Rob always asks me questions on my threads.  Which I always answer.

Bit weird creating a thread. Then ignoring questions.

That is different, Rob asks a few reasonable questions. You compile a flood of individually-weak, fallacious and loaded questions so long that is unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer. You deliberately do this so nobody answers you, allowing you claim victory, but everyone can see it for what it is.

"The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Ask questions properly and you will get answers.

[Adam]

That is different, Rob asks a few reasonable questions. You compile a flood of individually-weak, fallacious and loaded questions so long that is unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer. You deliberately do this so nobody answers you, allowing you claim victory, but everyone can see it for what it is.

"The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Ask questions properly and you will get answers.

There you go again. Refusing to answer questions. On your own scenario!