Pushing/Posting

[canuckref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I haven't seen one person here espouse a "no talking" officiating philosophy. Not in this thread nor in anywhere else in this forum.
Thus, the second paragraph of your posts is a classic strawman. They burn easily, but generally put out more heat than light.

and calling an argument a "strawman" when it isn't is a classic logical fallacy:

from rainmaker:
"SO HOW DO I TALK?"

reply from dan ref
"don't"

did I read his "don't" wrong?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by canuckref

and calling an argument a "strawman" when it isn't is a classic logical fallacy:

from rainmaker:
"SO HOW DO I TALK?"

reply from dan ref
"don't"

did I read his "don't" wrong?

I'm not sure "wrong" is how you read it, but maybe out of context. Dan meant, "Don't keep talking after the initial explanation". But I knew what he meant from other discussions he and I have had, which you may not have been privy to. Also, Dan has been known in the past to overstate his case. Once in a while.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by canuckref

and calling an argument a "strawman" when it isn't is a classic logical fallacy:

from rainmaker:
"SO HOW DO I TALK?"

reply from dan ref
"don't"

did I read his "don't" wrong?

You took a very specific comment he made to a specific person with whom he has a long and mutually argumentative history and extrapolated it to some mythical officiating philosophy. Whether it was intentional or not, your argument is a strawman. Specifically, it's a strawman based on a false dichotomy.

Short answer to your final question. Yes.
Long answer to your final question. Yes, because you read too much into it. You need more to go on before determining and judging someone's officiating philosophy.