Stupidly Asked Questions

amp

GreeBo wrote:

Might?
Have you even read it yourself?

No I had my eyes closed the whole time.

Yeah, its almost like there are these, like, new members, or something, and they, like, have the same, like, issues as other people have had in the, like, past....mad Ted.

SAQ is a play on words for the word FAQ. FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions. These exist to answer questions that are Frequently Asked. Would you like to know more?

Ahh yes, the "Shut up" out, quality post indeed.
Now I see your point, it was the "shut up" that reinforced it nicely, whew for you, huh?:cool:

Hmm
Qosser?
Rosser?
Sosser?
Tos...a-ha!

Words random together thrown?

Tell you what, why don't you (or anybody else) write up a non arrogant Frequently Asked Questions for this forum?

rsynnott

Oh, it's the best feedback post in months; let it be.

Peace

I liked the bit when he said the stuff about nothing... that bit was funny.

Talliesin

KrankStricher wrote:

Yeah, I didn't find it funny, think Amp comes across quiet arrogant in the post, people or there questions shouldn't be put into boxes, nor is it fair to make fun of the new/week.

(FTL;"Amp give us a break")

There's a difference between the people who are new and therefore not aware of some of the subtler nuances, and the people who are new and therefore their attitude of everything having to revolve around them hasn't lead to them being banned from everywhere yet.

I read this as referring to the latter.

GreeBo

amp wrote:

No I had my eyes closed the whole time.

sorry, I forgot you had to read everyword you wrote.
I (like others) get by by assuming that the instructions from my brain have reached the screen and not lost the meaning they had in my head.
But you, being a purple, monkey, dishwasher probably dont have those skills.

amp wrote:

SAQ is a play on words for the word FAQ. FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions. These exist to answer questions that are Frequently Asked. Would you like to know more?

Feedback, a forum opened to provide users a (you guessed it) forum to leave feedback on the site.
Would you like to know more?

amp

GreeBo wrote:

sorry, I forgot you had to read everyword you wrote.
I (like others) get by by assuming that the instructions from my brain have reached the screen and not lost the meaning they had in my head.
But you, being a purple, monkey, dishwasher probably dont have those skills.

Actually I can touchtype so I look at the screen while I type.

Sparky

AMP, I love you.

Peace

Sparky-s wrote:

AMP, I love you.

/...spreads legs... shouts "GIVE ME YOUR BABIES"

GreeBo

amp wrote:

Actually I can touchtype so I look at the screen while I type.

so skilled with the keyboard, yet have to read everyword you type?:cool:

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Peace wrote:

/...spreads legs... shouts "GIVE ME YOUR BABIES"

Yeah I guessed amp spent a lot of time between ladies legs, what with being a twat 'n all.

amp

GreeBo wrote:

so skilled with the keyboard, yet have to read everyword you type?:cool:

I don't have to, it just happens.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Yeah I guessed amp spent a lot of time between ladies legs, what with being a twat 'n all.

Have I forgotten some argument we had or is there some aspect of the SAQ that hits a nerve? I'm not sure why you're being so hurtful to me

Nevyn

I think the SAQ should be sticked in every forum along with the link to the faq and the rest of this thread binned.
Damned good and funny post Amp.

Rozie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Appeal to ridicule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:

* If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier. That's crazy!
* If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by stretching the argument's logic to an absurd extreme or presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.

Although they appear very similar, this fallacy should not be confused with reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid type of logical argument. It should also not be confused with ridiculing the person making the argument, which is a form of the ad hominem fallacy.


This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

StupidLikeAFox

I Love Amp

KrankStricher

Rozie wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Why do you constantly,constanty,constantly post that same thing, over and over and over again.

(FTL;Appeal to go away)

ecksor

GreeBo wrote:

Feedback, a forum opened to provide users a (you guessed it) forum to leave feedback on the site.

I think the post qualifies as that. Even if it doesn't, I found it funny and that's the most important thing.

BTW, you're right, we do have new users all the time who ask reasonable questions in the right forum (we have a newbie's forum btw) but I don't think post was about those people.

ecksor

Rozie wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Technically you make the valid point, but your valid point boils down to "amp is logically arguing in a fallacious way against the behaviour of the steady run of idiots that inevitably come in amongst the vast majority of sensible and decent members, therefore Rozie has no sense of humour".

amp

/me falls over

Talliesin

KrankStricher wrote:

Why do you constantly,constanty,constantly post that same thing, over and over and over again.

Appeal to authority (a rhetorical technique that is not necessarily a logical fallacy, though it is often a false proof, even when it's premises are correct) combined with, ironically enough, appeal to ridicule - the implication is that Amp is using appeal to ridicule (whereas he's actually just using ridicule, he's not trying to prove anything, just have a laugh) and since appeal to ridicule is shown to be a logical fallacy the quote ridicules his post. Repetition of the quote provides an implied ad hominem (another logical fallacy). The key to the rhetorical use here is to blur the distinction between logical fallacy and rhetorical technique (appeal to emotion as part of a discussion differs from appeal to emotion intended to persuade in itself, depending on how seriously the appeal is intended to be taken).

As well as the rhetorical use appeal to authority is often used for psychological motivations by people with paranoia, feelings of persecution, superiority or inferiority complexes, etc ("Expert X says Y", "I think Y", "therefore I am superior to those who [I believe] oppose me"). As a logical argument this is at best anecdotal evidence (providing that the premises are correct, it is often the case though that the expert isn't really an expert, doesn't really agree with the speaker, or that the speaker doesn't truly agree with them, but is claiming to to assume a perceived high-ground advantage).

TalkISCheap

I agree entirely.

masteroftherealm

Amp