Ending the "epidemic" epidemic...
31 Oct 2011, 1:40 pm
aghogday wrote:
I can't read your mind.
Then don't try to.
aghogday wrote:
I asked you if you supported a change now and you refused to give a direct answer.
No you didn't. You said that a company can't change the name of a project easily like a government can't change a bill easily. I said that this was an absurd analogy because companies change names and have fights over names all of the time.
Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Just as the government is not going to change the name of an Act of congress.
Erm, what does this have to do with anything? I am sorry but a corporation isn't the usa government. Damn, I couldn't avoid thinking biting satire there.
Anyways, Corporations have all sorts of battles over names, change names of products and so all sorts of rebranding. I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent.
Page three of this thread.
You never asked me about what I thought should be done. You just assumed.
And now you're trying to make another false excuse.
You didn't have an inference. You just tried to put words in my mouth. Face it: You don't know what I should do. Don't assume. Stop doing. Quit making excuses.
You have done it before in another thread and you're doing it again. You tried to argue that your speculation about what I thought or felt was fact last time.
31 Oct 2011, 2:19 pm
Gedrene wrote:
]
No you didn't. You said that a company can't change the name of a project easily like a government can't change a bill easily. I said that this was an absurd analogy because companies change names and have fights over names all of the time.
You never asked me about what I thought should be done. You just assumed.
aghogday wrote:
I can't read your mind.
aghogday wrote:
I asked you if you supported a change now and you refused to give a direct answer.
No you didn't. You said that a company can't change the name of a project easily like a government can't change a bill easily. I said that this was an absurd analogy because companies change names and have fights over names all of the time.
You never asked me about what I thought should be done. You just assumed.
Here is my quote on page 4 where I asked if you were suggesting that they could change the slogan, now at this point.
Quote:
Are you not suggesting that they could change the slogan, now at this point?
And Here is my quote on page 5 asking you to provide clarification that you don't personally think the organization should change the name now:
Quote:
My understanding now is that you don't personally think the organization should change the name now.
If that understanding is not correct please provide further clarification.
If that understanding is not correct please provide further clarification.
You response to this indicated you were not willing to provide a clear clarification of whether or not you personally thought the organization should change the name now, instead just tellling me I don't know, so I accepted that as clarification that I wasn't going to get a direct answer from you.
31 Oct 2011, 5:45 pm
aghogday wrote:
Are you not suggesting that they could change the slogan, now at this point?
That's a could question, not a should question, which only proves my point about you saying whether I think Hp should change the name as false.
aghogday wrote:
My understanding now is that you don't personally think the organization should change the name now.
If that understanding is not correct please provide further clarification.
If that understanding is not correct please provide further clarification.
That isn't asking me. That is making an assumption and then telling me to provide you with further clarification if it's wrong. Why does that matter? Because you're still making a damned assumption.
I said you shouldn't make assumptions when you don't know already fifteen thousand times. This was the quote that prompted me to say that. Why? Because you can't read minds. Stop trying to think that you can.
31 Oct 2011, 7:21 pm
Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Are you not suggesting that they could change the slogan, now at this point?
That's a could question, not a should question, which only proves my point about you saying whether I think Hp should change the name as false.
aghogday wrote:
My understanding now is that you don't personally think the organization should change the name now.
If that understanding is not correct please provide further clarification.
If that understanding is not correct please provide further clarification.
That isn't asking me. That is making an assumption and then telling me to provide you with further clarification if it's wrong. Why does that matter? Because you're still making a damned assumption.
I said you shouldn't make assumptions when you don't know already fifteen thousand times. This was the quote that prompted me to say that. Why? Because you can't read minds. Stop trying to think that you can.
Initially I made an inference that you supported a change in the organization, because of your response to my statement: "HP started advertising the program months ago, it would not be a realistic request or expectation in any scenario for them to change the name at this point. Just as the government is not going to change the name of an Act of congress as quoted below".
You expressed that you didn't understand my comparison of the corporation with the government with the statement: "what does this have to do with anything? I am sorry but a corporation isn't the usa government. Damn, I couldn't avoid thinking biting satire there."
My inference from your response was that you saw it as a realistic expectation that HP could change the name now, in rebuttal to my statement that it wasn't a realistic expectation because you stated "Anyways, corporations have all sorts of battles over names, change names, of products and do all sorts of rebranding." and then stated "I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent."
I inferred, from your statement "I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent" to mean that it was a realistic expectation that HP could change the slogan now, if they wanted to, because it seemed like you were countering my suggestion that it was not a realistic expectation or request that HP could change the slogan now, after it had been in effect for months. That is a textbook example of an inference, as per the definition of inference that I provide below, from a third party source.
Later you quoted your statement again: "Anyways, Corporations have all sorts of battles over names, change names of products and so all sorts of rebranding. I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent." And then asked this question: "Could we not have real counter reasons to this rather than what amounts to fatalism?"
In response to your request for counter reasons, I went into detail of the marketing reasons, why it would not be realistic for HP to change the name, suggesting it would require a petition with a significant number of names on it, to warrant consideration for a change and then stated: "No one has suggested that HP change the name at this point, except you as far as I can see from the posts. as evidence that a signficant amount for support for change was not evident at this time."
I made an inference from your initial response to my statement, which is a common part of reading written communication, as evidenced by the article I provided earlier, not an assumption which is taking a statement for granted, as evidenced by the definitions below.
You later clarified that my inference was incorrect and I politely accepted that clarification. Rephrased my statement based my understanding of your clarification, and rephrased it again when you provided additional clarification that I made sure I asked for in case my inference of your first clarification was incorrect.
I have taken none of your statements that I have inferred information from for granted and have made sure I qualified each one with words like suggests, as far as I can see from the posts, and my understanding of your statements, to show that I was making an inference of meaning from your statements, not an assumption. That is part of civil discussion.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-distinguishing-between-inferences-and-assumptions/484
Quote:
1.Inference: An inference is a step of the mind, an intellectual act by which one concludes that something is true in light of something else’s being true, or seeming to be true. If you come at me with a knife in your hand, I probably would infer that you mean to do me harm. Inferences can be accurate or inaccurate, logical or illogical, justified or unjustified.
2.Assumption: An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are staying in Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night. We take for granted our belief that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities. If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them. Consider this example: “I heard a scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in.” My inference was based on the assumption (my prior belief) that only the cat makes that noise, and that he makes it only when he wants to be let in.
2.Assumption: An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are staying in Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night. We take for granted our belief that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities. If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them. Consider this example: “I heard a scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in.” My inference was based on the assumption (my prior belief) that only the cat makes that noise, and that he makes it only when he wants to be let in.
01 Nov 2011, 10:28 am
aghogday wrote:
I inferred, from your statement "I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent" to mean that it was a realistic expectation that HP could change the slogan now, if they wanted to, because it seemed like you were countering my suggestion that it was not a realistic expectation or request that HP could change the slogan now, after it had been in effect for months. That is a textbook example of an inference, as per the definition of inference that I provide below, from a third party source.
And it is clear that you have mixed up what I said again again again again again. This is a case of could and not should. I said HP could easily change the slogan, not that they should or that they shouldn't or indeed anything. You just don't know about should. Stop thinking you do.
I don't need you to tell my grandma to suck eggs by telling me what inference is. You tried to infer what think HP should do in several ways and I am sure this is another example of you trying to confuse could and should again.
Give up and apologise for putting words in my mouth.
01 Nov 2011, 12:55 pm
Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
I inferred, from your statement "I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent" to mean that it was a realistic expectation that HP could change the slogan now, if they wanted to, because it seemed like you were countering my suggestion that it was not a realistic expectation or request that HP could change the slogan now, after it had been in effect for months. That is a textbook example of an inference, as per the definition of inference that I provide below, from a third party source.
And it is clear that you have mixed up what I said again again again again again. This is a case of could and not should. I said HP could easily change the slogan, not that they should or that they shouldn't or indeed anything. You just don't know about should. Stop thinking you do.
Wow, than it sounds like my inference was correct, what you state you meant matches the quote you provided above on my inference of what I understood you to say almost perfectly. There is nothing in my quote above that you provided, about should, it states: I inferred, from your statement "I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent" to mean that it was a realistic expectation that HP could change the slogan now, if they wanted to.
Than you go on to talk about should and could and then you state: "I said HP could easily change the slogan"
My inference of what you meant and your statement of what you said, is pretty close to the same thing as far as I can see.
Your disagreement in this post does not make sense to me.
