Author Midnight In The Desert With Heather Wade  (Read 2404862 times)

2 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #150 on: December 12, 2015, 11:32:00 PM »
I did not listen, and probably will not.  How can this person compete with a guy with years and years of interviewing experience, and a real active curiosity and enough knowledge to provide insights on a lot of topics?  I don't see it happening.  How about all those radio stations that signed on?  What could they be thinking about this?  Will they stay?  Who gets the Time Traveler income now?
Several radio stations have already thrown the show overboard. They aren't going to keep it.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #151 on: December 13, 2015, 12:18:18 AM »
Read the previous threads and see if you can figure it out.  Also, look up the term and see how it is defined and also known.   :D
I see you are back, with a Tourette's like vigor, to your only two points:

1) something, something, logical fallacy
and
2) blah, blah, ad hominem

Here is some latin for you, Sunshine. Ad nauseam. As in "Mr. Gassy mentioned logical fallacies ad nauseum."

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #152 on: December 13, 2015, 12:20:03 AM »
I find her voice very sexy. But you guys are being unfair. You cannot compare someone with decades of experience to someone who just started. She has to find her form and practice it for a long time.


Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #153 on: December 13, 2015, 12:20:56 AM »

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #154 on: December 13, 2015, 12:33:06 AM »
A word to gassy man from another teacher of critical thinking: yes, it's awfully impressive you have learned all these logical fallacy names and that you enjoy pointing out when we use them. But how does that do credit to your own argument? How does that help with your own credibility if you make yourself vulnerable to the charge of unctuousness? And isn't it true that the best arguments (that is, those most likely to persuade their audiences) benefit from close study of the audiences themselves? You betray a lack of knowledge about the circumstances from which redacted emerged and became Heather Wade. Then you attack her lack of experience and technique, even her intellect and you do so in your schoolmaster voice, seeming to assume you'll be echoed approvingly. No, sir.  To quote Aristotle, "You are not wrong, Walter. You are just an asshole." Then someone says so. Then you come out firing the fallacies list at us. We're supposed to salute you.

Is that the way you want to live your life, sir? Is that the way you teach? Surely not. It puts me in mind of the story of Stonewall Jackson reading the surveying textbook to his cadets at The Citadel. When they'd ask him a question, he'd simply start over on his reading of the chapter. Not helpful. Not teaching. Stonewall's calling would come later. Not to teaching.

You're demonstrating you've been a good pupil of logical fallacies. That's all you're doing. You've succeeded. Enjoy it.

And now we know who you are.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #155 on: December 13, 2015, 12:39:17 AM »
A word to gassy man from another teacher of critical thinking: yes, it's awfully impressive you have learned all these logical fallacy names and that you enjoy pointing out when we use them. But how does that do credit to your own argument?

I think its just joking. In an earlier post he asked people to bring it on and then a couple users made some jokes, which could just be people playing along with a joke. Just mentioning this before things move too far along.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #156 on: December 13, 2015, 12:42:26 AM »
I think its just joking. In an earlier post he asked people to bring it on and then a couple users made some jokes, which could just be people playing along with a joke. Just mentioning this before things move too far along.

Let the salt flow.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #157 on: December 13, 2015, 12:46:01 AM »
Oh great, two self-professed philosophers are fighting over nothing. Isn't the entire conversation moot considering the show won't survive anyway?

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #158 on: December 13, 2015, 12:52:09 AM »
Oh great, two self-professed philosophers are fighting over nothing. Isn't the entire conversation moot considering the show won't survive anyway?

The only philosopher I trust; Moon Man. He can wax lyrical like none other.   ;D

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #159 on: December 13, 2015, 01:02:58 AM »
Oh great, two self-professed philosophers are fighting over nothing. Isn't the entire conversation moot considering the show won't survive anyway?

It's like a couple of college freshmen on winter break, after having taken their first philosophy class...

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #160 on: December 13, 2015, 01:04:32 AM »
I see you are back, with a Tourette's like vigor, to your only two points:

1) something, something, logical fallacy
and
2) blah, blah, ad hominem

Here is some latin for you, Sunshine. Ad nauseam. As in "Mr. Gassy mentioned logical fallacies ad nauseum."
You'd be good to take your own advice, given that you haven't offered anything but the same fallacy again and again and . . . ;D

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #161 on: December 13, 2015, 01:07:29 AM »
A word to gassy man from another teacher of critical thinking: yes, it's awfully impressive you have learned all these logical fallacy names and that you enjoy pointing out when we use them. But how does that do credit to your own argument? How does that help with your own credibility if you make yourself vulnerable to the charge of unctuousness? And isn't it true that the best arguments (that is, those most likely to persuade their audiences) benefit from close study of the audiences themselves? You betray a lack of knowledge about the circumstances from which redacted emerged and became Heather Wade. Then you attack her lack of experience and technique, even her intellect and you do so in your schoolmaster voice, seeming to assume you'll be echoed approvingly. No, sir.  To quote Aristotle, "You are not wrong, Walter. You are just an asshole." Then someone says so. Then you come out firing the fallacies list at us. We're supposed to salute you.

Is that the way you want to live your life, sir? Is that the way you teach? Surely not. It puts me in mind of the story of Stonewall Jackson reading the surveying textbook to his cadets at The Citadel. When they'd ask him a question, he'd simply start over on his reading of the chapter. Not helpful. Not teaching. Stonewall's calling would come later. Not to teaching.

You're demonstrating you've been a good pupil of logical fallacies. That's all you're doing. You've succeeded. Enjoy it.

And now we know who you are.
This is great -- I'm going to use it as an extra credit assignment in one of the courses.  Thanks!  ;D

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #162 on: December 13, 2015, 01:08:40 AM »
Is that site in FrontPage 98?   ;D ;D ;D :D ;) :( :o ::) :-[ :'( :-\ :-X
What if it is?  Are you now attacking the format rather than the information?  Thanks for proving the case all over again.   ;D

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #163 on: December 13, 2015, 01:21:47 AM »
It's like a couple of college freshmen on winter break, after having taken their first philosophy class...
Actually, it's a lot like trying to teach some college freshmen, especially ones who know very little, read very little, and learn very little, and yet are eminently convinced they are correct simply because they say so.  They're almost always the ones to resort to logical fallacies like personal attacks, straw man, circular reasoning, begging the question, and hasty generalization.  Even when you point out the problems, as well as resources they can consult, the response is usually the same:  They're not the problem.  You're the problem, their parents are the problem, society is the problem, their boss is the problem, life is the problem, and so on.  Of course, they routinely fail at other things in life, too, but it's easier to blame than to face reality.   It partially explains the high failure rate in both individual classes and graduation, as well as why some people -- often the most in denial about their own incompetence -- never go to college at all, under the pretense that they're "too smart for that" and don't need formal education.  Age is not the issue, either.  An 18-year-old's ignorance and hubris might make some sense, as perhaps they're too inexperienced in life to often know better.  But we get them these days at 30, 40, 70, or whatever with the same attitude.   There are people who earn their confidence through their accomplishments.  And then there are just people who are confident, even if deep down (and sometimes not so deep), they are just reacting from insecurity.   And that often motivates them to attack people who do know more.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #164 on: December 13, 2015, 01:25:12 AM »
A word to gassy man from another teacher of critical thinking: yes, it's awfully impressive you have learned all these logical fallacy names and that you enjoy pointing out when we use them. But how does that do credit to your own argument? How does that help with your own credibility if you make yourself vulnerable to the charge of unctuousness? And isn't it true that the best arguments (that is, those most likely to persuade their audiences) benefit from close study of the audiences themselves [-1 Point Unclear. Who is the audience?]? You betray a lack of knowledge about the circumstances from which redacted emerged and became Heather Wade [-1 Point. No evidence provided.]. Then you attack her lack of experience and technique[-1 Point. Her lack of experience is the evidence of her lack of qualification], even her intellect [-5 Points Straw-man.] and you do so in your schoolmaster voice, seeming to assume you'll be echoed approvingly. No, sir.  To quote Aristotle, "You are not wrong, Walter. You are just an asshole." Then someone says so. [Unclear meaning and poor sentence structure] Then you come out firing the fallacies list at us. We're supposed to salute you. [Unclear]

Is that the way you want to live your life, sir? Is that the way you teach? Surely not. It [reminds me of the story...] of Stonewall Jackson reading the surveying textbook to his cadets at The Citadel. When they'd ask him a question, he'd simply start over on his reading of the chapter. Not helpful. Not teaching. Stonewall's calling would come later. Not to teaching. [Non sequitur]

You're demonstrating you've been a good pupil of logical fallacies. [Does he have a good understanding of logical fallacies? Is this a confused compliment? Or a personal attack?] That's all you're doing. You've succeeded. Enjoy it. [-5 Points. Ad hominem]

I don't feel as though there was much thought put into this assignment and am disappointed in the quality overall. Please try this again and turn it in by the end of the week.

And now we know who you are.
Can I join in too??? I studied political philosophy, you know, the philosophy that sometimes makes people commit genocide.  :D

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #165 on: December 13, 2015, 01:36:25 AM »
Somewhere between ad hominems and ad baculums lies a place called...Bellgab.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #166 on: December 13, 2015, 01:41:43 AM »
They're almost always the ones to resort to logical fallacies like personal attacks, straw man, circular reasoning, begging the question, and hasty generalization.

i just finished a class on rhetorical appeals.  you're causing my tourette ticks to re-emerge.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #167 on: December 13, 2015, 01:47:18 AM »
Several radio stations have already thrown the show overboard. They aren't going to keep it.

True.  I listened to Clyde Lewis for a bit on Friday and KXL Portland is giving him 2 hours back (his show was shortened to 3 hours when the station signed on for MITD).

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #168 on: December 13, 2015, 01:50:23 AM »
Somewhere between ad hominems and ad baculums lies a place called...Bellgab.

Rod Serling? Have you come back among us?

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #169 on: December 13, 2015, 01:56:07 AM »
I don't agree with this at all. I'm simply saying I don't think the circumstances are fair to Heather.

Nobody is going to be like anyone was "used to" with Art. And that's not Heather's fault.

Nail, head, hit. Heather was put in an invidious position through no fault of her own.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #170 on: December 13, 2015, 02:02:18 AM »
i just finished a class on rhetorical appeals.  you're causing my tourette ticks to re-emerge.
I feel sorry for you, haha, Michael.  If it's any consolation, I finished a law history class not too long ago, so I know how you feel, and I teach this kind of thing every term.  But at this point, I feel like I've said plenty on the subject, unless someone else wants to start flailing about with insults and logical fallacies yet again.  I'm probably also going to take another prolonged break from the boards.  With Art not doing the show anymore, I'm not sure there's really anything to talk about.  I miss quite a few of the old posters, too, and the quality of the conversation.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #171 on: December 13, 2015, 02:04:11 AM »
If Art had just thought this through better, he could've retired from the show gracefully and installed Heather as the new host in a way that might not have caused any radio affiliates to IMMEDIATELY drop the show. 

I mean, he still hasn't even put out a formal announcement or press release announcing that Heather Wade IS the new host.  That's crazy.  As far as radio stations (that aren't paying close attention) are concerned, the show is simply dead and they're now scrambling for a replacement show.

And Conan O'Brien thinks HE had it bad after he took over THE TONIGHT SHOW... sheesh!

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #172 on: December 13, 2015, 02:14:13 AM »
Actually, it's a lot like trying to teach some college freshmen, especially ones who know very little, read very little, and learn very little, and yet are eminently convinced they are correct simply because they say so.  They're almost always the ones to resort to logical fallacies like personal attacks, straw man, circular reasoning, begging the question, and hasty generalization.  Even when you point out the problems, as well as resources they can consult, the response is usually the same:  They're not the problem.  You're the problem, their parents are the problem, society is the problem, their boss is the problem, life is the problem, and so on.  Of course, they routinely fail at other things in life, too, but it's easier to blame than to face reality.   It partially explains the high failure rate in both individual classes and graduation, as well as why some people -- often the most in denial about their own incompetence -- never go to college at all, under the pretense that they're "too smart for that" and don't need formal education.  Age is not the issue, either.  An 18-year-old's ignorance and hubris might make some sense, as perhaps they're too inexperienced in life to often know better.  But we get them these days at 30, 40, 70, or whatever with the same attitude.   There are people who earn their confidence through their accomplishments.  And then there are just people who are confident, even if deep down (and sometimes not so deep), they are just reacting from insecurity.   And that often motivates them to attack people who do know more.

But enough about the Politics Threads, and back to GNS..

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #173 on: December 13, 2015, 02:18:08 AM »
From what i heard of it, she held things together about 1000% better than most would have.

I wonder what 1000% of zero is.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #174 on: December 13, 2015, 02:22:26 AM »
I wonder what 1000% of zero is.

And your best is...?  In round figures.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #175 on: December 13, 2015, 02:22:30 AM »
I feel sorry for you, haha, Michael.  If it's any consolation, I finished a law history class not too long ago, so I know how you feel, and I teach this kind of thing every term.  But at this point, I feel like I've said plenty on the subject, unless someone else wants to start flailing about with insults and logical fallacies yet again.  I'm probably also going to take another prolonged break from the boards.  With Art not doing the show anymore, I'm not sure there's really anything to talk about.  I miss quite a few of the old posters, too, and the quality of the conversation.

hard to compare gifs to conversations though...

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #176 on: December 13, 2015, 02:23:36 AM »
And your best is...?  In round figures.

Hehe. Let me get out my calculator. Whole numbers have always been a struggle for me.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #177 on: December 13, 2015, 02:26:04 AM »
Hehe. Let me get out my calculator. Whole numbers have always been a struggle for me.

You don't know how good you are when thrown into an unfamiliar task at very short notice?  You disappoint your fans I'm sure.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #178 on: December 13, 2015, 02:53:12 AM »
But enough about the Politics Threads, and back to GNS..
Best suggestion I've heard today.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #179 on: December 13, 2015, 02:55:28 AM »
hard to compare gifs to conversations though...
:)