If big 4 (6?) are so scared of Amazon why don't they ...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

Do you mean "mockery" like this?

Shari

No, because it's not mockery. It's pointing out that one can't simply dismiss a statement out of hand because of who said it. Even Hitler wasn't wrong all the time, no matter how evil he was. Mockery is defined as "teasing and contemptuous language or behavior directed at a particular person or thing".

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Yes exactly a strawman. The failed attempt at humor from you. Trying to make ridiculous mentioning Hitler by how much he loved his perfect german dogs. He loved them so much that in the end he euthanized them by poisoning? Just like he was so kind to human beings by euthanizing them. Please, give me a break.

The only good thing about Hitler that comes to my mind is that he did not reproduce.

Nope, not a strawman. Strawman is claiming someone said something that they didn't, and then use that to prove what you claim they said is wrong.

TimW said "Yes, Wylie automatically loses. There is nothing I could say that could be considered an ad hominem against Andrew Wylie when he administered the coup de grâce against himself with that foul statement."

Which is, of course, the pure definition of ad hominem, i.e. claiming the point is wrong because of who said it. Thus, I point out that even the person that he pointed to by invoking Godwin's law wasn't always wrong.

As far as saying that Hitler couldn't have loved his dogs because he killed them before committing suicide, well that's pretty obviously wrong. We hear of murder-suicides where parents kill their children, husbands kill their wives, etc.. on a regular basis. It's very common for someone to kill the things they love before killing themselves.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As far as saying that Hitler couldn't have loved his dogs because he killed them before committing suicide, well that's pretty obviously wrong. We hear of murder-suicides where parents kill their children, husbands kill their wives, etc.. on a regular basis. It's very common for someone to kill the things they love before killing themselves.

Bringing up his love for dogs is the Strawman - nobody said it until you did. You used it specifically to paint one person to be less evil than he deserves credit for. And by it discredit what you responded to. Yes, he may or may not have loved his dogs. That is immaterial as it doesn't make him any more likeable in my opinion. The other strawman (maybe it is the same?) is "Hitler wasn't always wrong" - nobody said once that "Hitler was always wrong".

A murder suicide is very common? I don't believe it is common at all even among those that commit suicide.

Did Hitler commit suicide in his bunker? That is another mystery.

But this is going way to far off-topic, bolongs in the P&R section, so this will be my last "Re:Hitler" post.

[webroot]

sure they can do but it will be a long journey when they figure out what a software really is and how to effectively make use of them, something on which amazon spent initial years without any profit.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Bringing up his love for dogs is the Strawman - nobody said it until you did. You used it specifically to paint one person to be less evil than he deserves credit for. And by it discredit what you responded to. Yes, he may or may not have loved his dogs. That is immaterial as it doesn't make him any more likeable in my opinion. The other strawman (maybe it is the same?) is "Hitler wasn't always wrong" - nobody said once that "Hitler was always wrong".

A murder suicide is very common? I don't believe it is common at all even among those that commit suicide.

Did Hitler commit suicide in his bunker? That is another mystery.

But this is going way to far off-topic, bolongs in the P&R section, so this will be my last "Re:Hitler" post.

It would have been a strawman IF I had said that TimW claimed that Hitler didn't like dogs. But that wasn't the point, the point was that dismissing a statement because of who said it is a logical fallacy.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This could be the best article on the dispute I've read:

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2...blishing.print

Buried inside the story of the dispute are a couple of data tidbits on how people read:

1. 20% of page turns are backward. (I've been assuming that I page back far more than average, but I doubt that for me it is over 20%.)

2. Enough people read in landscape to allegedly change the labels for the Voyage buttons from ">" and "<" to "|" and ".". (Too bad the buttons don't actually work in landscape on the currently shipping Voyage, according to all reports I've seen.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Buried inside the story of the dispute are a couple of data tidbits on how people read:

1. 20% of page turns are backward. (I've been assuming that I page back far more than average, but I doubt that for me it is over 20%.)

2. Enough people read in landscape to allegedly change the labels for the Voyage buttons from ">" and "<" to "|" and ".". (Too bad the buttons don't actually work in landscape on the currently shipping Voyage, according to all reports I've seen.)

I noticed the 20 percent. I thought it was interesting. I rarely page back when I read fiction, but I will occasionally go back when reading non fiction. Maybe it's people paging back when they put the book down over night and want to refresh their memory on what's happening?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I noticed the 20 percent. I thought it was interesting. I rarely page back when I read fiction, but I will occasionally go back when reading non fiction. Maybe it's people paging back when they put the book down over night and want to refresh their memory on what's happening?

Sometimes I need to reread a previous sentence or even paragraph. If this happens across a page end, I need to go back a page. I also sometimes need to go back to a figure. This is more likely with non-fiction, but can happen with fiction. I am sure most readers experience this, but I have always assumed that it happens more for me, because I think it is related to me needing to have reference information visible after I look it up and most of the people that I have worked with close the new window immediately after referring to it.

Unless a lot of people only read 5 pages at a sitting, I don't think paging back at the start of a read is responsible for a significant part of the 20% figure. In any case, I doubt whether any volunteer or paid test subjects are sleeping over at the Lab126 reading room.