3.3.11 Vignette; Is Sting Is Coming Back to TNA?

[MB1025]

But you're using a very LARGE portion of the audience that you can't see, and are assuming they must agree with your point of view. How is making a declaration based upon a group that can't be measured better then making an observation based upon the information that's available?

No shit, it's my opinion. I just do a good enough job of expressing my opinions that people get the impression I'm stating fact. I cite my sources and provide the coherent logic I use to arrive at my position. I have a high degree of confidence in the material I post, and this is why you don't see me going "but this is only my opinion......" every paragraph.

Your point rests on a logical fallacy; that an immeasurable group has an opinion greatly at odds with my position. It's ideal for internet arguments, because it's an argument which relies on the fact that it can't be proven. I will still rest on the confidence of my position, with the supporting information readers can choose to view for themselves; I am afraid I find your 'all these invisible people must disagree with you' position lacking.

And, for the record, that wasn't what IDR was arguing in his post at all.

at the bolded part

Here is what IDR said.....

If TNA teases an episode of iMPACT! with "The Biggest Surprise of the Year — Guaranteed!", they have made no promise, other than the fact that it's a surprise, as it being the biggest surprise is purely subjective and relative to the viewer. What I may take as the biggest surprise, you do not. This is not a bait-and-switch tactic, as you were not baited with a clear-cut expectation (other than what you may have conjured up of your own volition), and you were not subsequently not given that expectation.

Then my whole point was you walking around calling it a failure like it was fact and then using this site as a measuring stick. You can clearly go back and see what I wrote about you not thinking it is a surprise and others do.

I have realized you really don't make a point. You just string fancy words together and use that to dance around the real topic.

 

[Rayne]

Laugh if you like. You were the person who was thinking I was stating fact, and if you don't make yourself laugh, who can? Apparently, I'm dead on with that bolded part.

Yes. You and IDR shared part of an initial argument. Then you went off on some bizarre tangent about how that if I couldn't measure all of the population, including people I have no way of measuring, then I couldn't make a judgment about what I could measure. You then proceeded to make the implied statement that the people whom I couldn't measure must support your opinion. That's where you and IDR differ; just because you end up on the same side of the argument doesn't mean your arguments are the same.

I'm sorry if my fancy words confuse you. I paid attention in school.