Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
One problem with "slippery slope" arguments like the one you make is that they are often, as in this case, based on ridiculous exaggerations of a point that was never intended to be that encompassing. My logics professor referred to it as arguments of the absurd that poeple fall back on when they either can't make their own point within realistic bounds or have no substantiating data.
Instead of altering others' points, address them as made, either pro or con, doesn't matter. Just don't feel so free to put words in others' mouths. Unless of course you're auditioning for a writing gig at officiating.com
|
Garth;
When I saw the umpire from Illinois' post, I almost wrote a short treastise on "argument absurdium." Then I realized that it would be lost on someone with only a sixth grade comprehension level. I understood exactly what you were writing about and I am sure that most others that can read did also. All but the one that you were trying to communicate with, however.
I take exception to your implication that the umpire from Illinois could write for officating.com. Carl is very low on inventory at the moment (Carl: I am working on a piece this weekend which I should have to you by Tuesday), but I doubt that he is so desperate as to sign up the umpire from Illinois. But I could be wrong.
That leads me to an interesting bet that I would like to make with you and it has a bonus for Rut:
Garth: I will pay you my next article fee ($35) if Rut can become a writer for officiating.com. I figure it this way. Rut has written about 3600 posts, most of them lengthy, lets say an average of 400 words. An officiating.com article should be 800-1000 words which gets the author $35.
At that rate, Rut has written the equivalent of 1800 articles over the that last 4 years or so. At $35 per article, that's $63,000 in unrealized income that he could have made as an officiating.com writer. According to him, he is a master with valuable information for us all. If he doesn't want to write about baseball, he could dazzle us with basketball or football instead.
Now Garth, you are convinced that Rut is officiating.com writer's material. You make references to this regularly. Therefore, you should be a shoe-in to win the $35 from me.
OTOH, if Carl turns Rut down as a full time writer, then you have to sign up as an officiating.com subscriber. We will define success as a full time writer when Rut publishes his 10th article. (I am already up to 100 articles and my writing ability is much less prolific than the great Rut.)
OK, Rut, your reputation is on the line here. You are already spending many hours a day on this and other boards. By my calcualtions, you turn out the euquivalent of ten articles a week here and at McGriffs. If you posted less here and put your brilliance to work on paid pieces, you could have money in your pocket with no extra time invested. And you could prove to the world that you are a brilliant writer and your critics are full of horse manure.
This is your opportunity, Rut. Become a writer for officiating.com. Garth washed out. Rich Fronheiser ran out of ideas and washed out. Warren Willson washed out. The great Rut has the opportunity to succeed when others have failed. From your writings, I know that you will never run out of ideas.
Peter