«

On May 24, 11:03*am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dudley Hanks writes:
> > You're confusing querying to find supporting details for a debate with
> > conducting an experiment to investigate a hypothesis ...
>
> No, I'm pointing out the blatant bias that you use to hunt for "evidence"that
> supports only your pre-existing opinion.

But that isn;t true, if yuo really are lookinh for evidence you
shouldn;t be
rejecting anything becaise the so called bias may poin tot rhe facts.

if you want info on the holocaust don;t you dare suggest Jewish
writers are biased so you
shoulnd;t look at their evidence. You should look at all evidence
biased evidence is usually easier to find
but it doesn;t make it wrong or not evidence.

>
> > You haven't produced any evidence to the contrary, which would result in a
> > win for me in any debating forum I'm aware of...
>
> It's not a contest, it's an illustration. I'm illustrating that you've adopted
> your opinion from others, rather than developed one of your own.

Most peolpe do that.

> It's easier
> to let other people think for you, until a situation arises in which you must
> think for yourself.

Yes you seem to be proving that very point.
You;re the one stating what evidence should be loked at and what
shouldn't
don't forget that evidence is nearly always provided by someone else.


> > From a strictly legal point of view, you are no doubt correct.
>
> From a rational point of view, I'm correct as well.
>
> > But, from a PR perspective, the handling of the situation clearly
> > demonstrates poor judgement on the part of Kodak; *hence, there is
> > "no wonder Kodak went broke."
>
> The PR incident came and went so quickly that no handling was necessary.
>
> > You haven't taken many courses in writing, / debating have you?
>
> I'm naturally good at both.

Yes I can see you can be consoidered a master bater


> > The idea is to argue a point, not present every detail of every study ever
> > conducted.
>
> When will you begin?

On May 24, 8:02*pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whisky-dave writes:
> > But that isn;t true, if yuo really are lookinh for evidence you
> > shouldn;t be
> > rejecting anything becaise the so called bias may poin tot rhe facts.
>
> A lack of bias will reveal the facts just as readily, and more reliably.

No it won't.
You see it in courts everyday, the prosecution is biased against the
defendant
and teh defence biased against the prosection, by revealing both side
hopefully the trugh will be found.


> > if you want info on the holocaust don;t you dare suggest Jewish
> > writers are biased so you
> > shoulnd;t look at their evidence.
>
> Many, but not all, Jewish writers on the Holocaust are biased. It's hard to
> avoid.

You shouldn't reject their evidence because you say they are biased.

>
> > Most peolpe do that.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't make it a wise thing to do.

Yes it is, provided it has a basis that can be proven.
I've seen too much footage and reports of the holocaust for me not to
believe it happened.
I find nothing wrong in being biased towards those that say it
happened.