Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The funny thing is that about your problems with this clarification of the meaning of a summary I have nothing, nothing, but what was written here in the forum from Tiassa and you, together with some of your links. So, blame yourself for distributing "comically inadequate Republican media" nonsense.
Learn to read. It does not matter if this is named a summary or whatever (btw, he has named it a summary in his clarification too, but not of the whole report). What matters if what is written there is true or not.
One can easily see the usual Dem strategy of how to handle uncomfortable news. The Clinton team has manipulated the primaries? Who cares if that information was hacked by evil Russians? Russiagate has completely failed? Who cares if the one who presented a summary of this has clarified that it is not a summary of the whole report but only of its principal conclusions?
Feel free to hope that this will give you something. After the failure of Russiagate, even success will not give you anything. Say, assume some 3432nd District investigation gives you something to impeach Trump. Would you really think that the Trump supporters would accept this? This would be only a way into a new civil war. His tax returns will also give you nothing. Anyway, a billionaire paying taxes is considered stupid, so if he didn't pay any, no Trump supporter would care.
In fact, the more interesting thing, which will give information about the actual power relations in the deep state, is if there will be a similar investigation into the collaboration of the Clinton team with the fascist Ukraine leadership. The funny thing is that the Ukrainian politicians themselves have openly admitted such a collaboration. My bet is that the globalist faction is strong enough to prevent this.
Of course, iceaura's strategy is in some elements specific to me. But I have already observed a lot of time that iceaura has applied similar strategies to other people too. So, presenting oneself in the role of the teacher, without the necessary prerequisite to actually present knowledge superior to that of those presented as stupid pupils, criticizing the sources, real or only imagined, of the arguments instead of the arguments themselves, or rejecting general claims about correlations by presenting exceptions to these correlations for some smaller groups, as well as name-calling without a base (like "denier") I have observed often enough as applied by iceaura against others too.
There are, certainly, points specifically related to me. Iceaura's avoidance to refer to sources has a simple explanation - I have already several times used the content of these sources for my own argumentation. I like to extract information from sources which do not aim to inform me at all, so iceaura has optimized the answers to minimize the amount of information which can be extracted.
I think the problems I have with iceaura's postings are shared by others too because they have a quite objective character: Relevant information or argumentation about the questions discussed is usually missed, a large part of the postings are ad hominem and simply personal attacks, moreover, boring repetitions.
Maybe, but if the answer does not contain any refutation, the straightforward conclusion is that the point was useful.
I have no problem with my assessments being suspect. Try hard to find counterarguments. As long as you don't think ad hominem is a sufficient argument, so what.
What statistical outcomes? Of how often these standards are applied resp. violated in real-world discussions? This is not the point of "usual standards". Say, ad hominem is applied very often, but I'm not aware of any source which defends ad hominem as a good, strong, valid argument. So, the thesis that ad hominem is either completely invalid or at least very weak as an argument is what I would name "usual standard". Usual argumentation tactics are certainly something different from usual standards of argumentation.
