Rhetorical Pet Peeve

[Merryprankster]

[Rant on]


When using something to back up your points, STOP using editorials and opinion columns. DO use original source documentation and expert testimony.

Just because some left-wing-commie-whacko or right-wing-reactionary-******* agrees with you doesn't validate what you have to say.

Posting infinite links to editorials and pundits from around the world doesn't do a **** thing for your argument, just as me posting links to the flat earth society don't make it true.

[/Rant off]

Now then, how is everybody today?

[dezhen2001]

im good - and you?

dawood

[Laughing Cow]

MP.

ONLY if you quote atleast 3 independant original documentation sources and/or RELIABLE expert sources that are universally accepted by BOTH sides.

Experts like the people that compile statistics are paid to produce desired results and thus are not 100% objective either.

Have fun.

[Merryprankster]

Example of an expert, financial:

Alan Greenspan

Example of "not an expert," financial

Rush Limbaugh
William Raspberry, etc.

Nope, doesn't have to be agreed upon. What they need to demonstrate, is some real accomplishment in their field. I would contend they don't need to be agreed upon by all sides.

What I'm tired of are posted links to opinion columns and editorials, as though this bolsters their argument. This does not. Opinion articles and editorials have the nasty habit of omitting certain crucial pieces of information.

I mean, did you hear about that whiner of an old woman who sued McDonald's for hot coffee spilling on her, and her suffering burns? I mean, c'mon, what a whiner, right? We obviously need tort reform in this country!

Of course, what the opinion columns and editorials usually omit is that she suffered 3rd degree burns, needed several skin grafts, spent a good deal of time in the hospital, and had medical bills of over $10,000 result from that stay alone.

Facts and original documentation have a strange way of taking the fun out editorial rants.

[Goldenmane]

Actually, Merry, that exact example interests me greatly (for reasons that have little directly to do with MA's... but still)

So can you point me toward the useful documentation about the coffee spilling?

-geoff

[Merryprankster]

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, No. CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. Dist. Aug. 18, 1994).


http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html

http://www.dsba.org/dec02pe.htm

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm


There's plenty more out there.

I'm sorry, but I can't find the original casefile. If you have Lexis-Nexus you could look it up. However, as you can see, I have provided the docket number. I'll see if somebody I know can get the original to me. 16% is innaccurate, I presume, as most of the info I've seen says 6%--which incidentally makes more sense.

Anyway, my point is that there is a difference between reporting and opinion. And opinion isn't necessarily expert opinion.

[yenhoi]

I say we all get nude and protest randoms using random links as justification for random off the wall randomness.

[Merryprankster]

Works for me.

You get naked first.

[Goldenmane]

Merry-

Thanks.

-geoff

[Mr Punch]

Who defines who is an expert?

Do you have any empirical evidence to back up Greenspan's expertise in finance? The fact that he has a lot of money? The fact that he upholds a certain set of ethics and a certain system and surprise surprise, is successful with it...?! Tha fact that a lot of people listen to him?

Any links?

[Merryprankster]

The courts hear testimony all the time from expert witnesses. People with professional expertise within a specific field. Doctors, accountants, psychiatrists, etc.

Works for me.

Feel free to take such common sense to its absurd extremes if you like.

Who defines Alan Greenspan as an Expert? I would say his OBVIOUS accomplishments in his field speak for themselves. On the other hand, he's not a nuclear physicist, is he?

[guohuen]

Allen, speaking to himself, "Raise the Fed, or lower the Fed, raise the Fed or lower the Fed? Honey, do you have a coin?" Tuff job!
As for quoting experts, I try to remember my Mark Twain "There are lies, d a m n lies and statistics."

[Merryprankster]

Statistics and Experts aren't necessarily coincidental

[guohuen]

True. In demolitions school they like to say all the experts are dead and what's left are the specialist.

[Suntzu]

Getting worked up for the big comp, huh??

Statistics and Experts aren't necessarily coincidental

depends on who's funding them… look at the Epheda issue this past week… 100 or so deaths LINKED to the drug compared to however million users… 'experts' say it’s a kiiler supp… and than you have an 'expert' paid by the supp companies spouting statistics to refute the other statistics and experts... experts are only people... some like most people are greedy and will work for the highest bidder...

as for expert witnesses in the court system… once again highest bidder… u got one Dr saying he' nuts… another Dr sayin he was in his right mind and knew full well what he was doing shooting his wifes boyfriend 34 times with a revolver… its all opinion…

and Greenspan… expert??? Naaawwwww… he's the pupetmaster in this economy illusion… right now things are just a lil out of his control…believe me… I have a degree in accounting… so I'm an expert… or am I a specialist