Feds Raid Office of Trump Lawyer Who Paid Off Stormy Daniels. This Is a Big Deal.

[AUDub 11,147]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So its irrational to infer, when one says "I wouldn't assume this is a good sign for your idol," that the speaker insinuated that "this" (whatever it may be) is a bad sign? 

No. That's a false dichotomy, a fallacy. 

[SaltyTiger 7,794]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Did you read my posts regarding how these are unrelated matters?

What are you asking exactly?  Why would you even ask the question? (seriously)

yes Brother Homer. Is there a common denominator in the investigations? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Correct. Salty's first query was "does this mean there's nothing to the Russia stuff or obstruction?"

Tex's reply "I wouldn't assume this is a good sign for your idol." 

And that's true. You shouldn't because none of us know either way. 

Are you sure you're an attorney? 

And I inferred that Tex meant it was a bad sign for Trump, thus I posted my 2 cents re Trump. 

Being an attorney has nothing to do with engaging on a message board.  

[SaltyTiger 7,794]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Correct. Salty's first query was "does this mean there's nothing to the Russia stuff or obstruction?"

Tex's reply "I wouldn't assume this is a good sign for your idol." 

And that's true. You shouldn't because none of us know either way. 

Are you sure you're an attorney? 

Christians do take offense to the claim of anyone or anything other than God or Christ being called their idol. Sorry if I offended Texy with the "goof ball".

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

No. That's a false dichotomy, a fallacy. 

BS. I merely inferred a conclusion based on what I thought he was insinuating. If he doesn't think it's a bad sign, or if I misunderstood what he meant, then he should correct me - thus, problem solved. I maintain that my inference wasn't unreasonable, though (which I suppose is a separate issue). 

 

[AUDub 11,147]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

And I inferred that Tex meant it was a bad sign for Trump, thus I posted my 2 cents re Trump. 

But Tex didn't insinuate that. Like I said in a prior post, it's a false dichotomy, the excluded middle, bifurcation etc. There's middle ground you're either not seeing or choosing to ignore.

Just because Tex said "do not assume it's a good sign" does not mean he was outright saying it's a bad sign. We don't know that yet. 

Quote

Being an attorney has nothing to do with engaging on a message board.  

But solid reading comprehension and the ability to spot unsound logic does. Step up your game, counsellor, otherwise you do your clients a disservice. 

[AUDub 11,147]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

BS. I merely inferred a conclusion based on what I thought he was insinuating. If he doesn't think it's a bad sign, or if I misunderstood what he meant, then he should correct me - thus, problem solved. I maintain that my inference wasn't unreasonable, though (which I suppose is a separate issue). 

You're not to argue against what you think was insinuated, unless you're an imbecile. Read what he actually said, digest it and go from there. What he said and what you think he was saying are two different things. 

This is comical. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Just because Tex said "do not assume it's a good sign" does not mean he was outright saying it's a bad sign

But it could mean that he was insinuating that, which is how i understood it. 

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

But solid reading comprehension and the ability to spot unsound logic does. Step up your game, counsellor, otherwise you do your clients a disservice.

HAHA! Thanks for lecturing me on "lawyerly attributes," bud. If you think for a damn second that I approach this board the way I do work, you're mistaken. You're trying to take this utter silliness to a personal level - I must ask, are you that desperate for a boost of self-esteem or what? I mean, what would you think of me if I poked jokes about your children? Probably would speak volumes about me wouldn't it? 

[homersapien 11,367]

13 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

yes Brother Homer. Is there a common denominator in the investigations? 

Not sure what that means.  I've already posted on this.  The possible connection ranges from Mueller simply turning over a unrelated matter to the  possibility of direct Russian involvement. But obviously at this point, there's no way for us to know.

Did you read my post?  What's unclear?  

[AUDub 11,147]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But it could mean that he was insinuating that, which is how i understood it. 

But you took the ball and ran with it. Bad form, counsellor. Get your head in the game. 

Quote

HAHA! Thanks for lecturing me on "lawyerly attributes," bud. If you think for a damn second that I approach this board the way I do work, you're mistaken. You're trying to take this utter silliness to a personal level - I must ask, are you that desperate for a boost of self-esteem or what? 

I'm glad you don't. If you did, you would be the last person I would want double-checking my contracts and whatnot. 

Logic is an important skill, both here and in law practice. You fail utterly at it here. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You're not to argue against what you think was insinuated, unless you're an imbecile. Read what he actually said, digest it and go from there. What he said and what you think he was saying are two different things. 

This is comical. 

Sorry, must be the litigator in me. Litigation in the courtroom is saturated with bounds and leaps of inference. You wouldn't know though  

[homersapien 11,367]

17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

And I inferred that Tex meant it was a bad sign for Trump, thus I posted my 2 cents re Trump. 

Being an attorney has nothing to do with engaging on a message board.  

But logic does. 

[homersapien 11,367]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

BS. I merely inferred a conclusion based on what I thought he was insinuating. If he doesn't think it's a bad sign, or if I misunderstood what he meant, then he should correct me - thus, problem solved. I maintain that my inference wasn't unreasonable, though (which I suppose is a separate issue). 

 

Get rid of the shovel!  

[AUDub 11,147]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

But logic does. 

Hell, I'm two post soccer practice strong as hell beers down and can still play "spot the fallacy" lol. 

[homersapien 11,367]

12 minutes ago, AUDub said:

But Tex didn't insinuate that. Like I said in a prior post, it's a false dichotomy, the excluded middle, bifurcation etc. There's middle ground you're either not seeing or choosing to ignore.

Just because Tex said "do not assume it's a good sign" does not mean he was outright saying it's a bad sign. We don't know that yet. 

But solid reading comprehension and the ability to spot unsound logic does. Step up your game, counsellor, otherwise you do your clients a disservice. 

I'm starting to think the "attorney" thing is imaginary.  

[homersapien 11,367]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Hell, I'm two post soccer practice strong as hell beers down and can still play "spot the fallacy" lol. 

Three "medium strong" for me, plus a little sake.  

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, homersapien said:

I'm starting to think the "attorney" thing is imaginary.  

I'm at a loss. I thought being able to sign your name Esquire required a modicum of skill at argumentation.

So much for that. 

[TexasTiger 12,838]

26 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Correct. Salty's first query was "does this mean there's nothing to the Russia stuff or obstruction?"

Tex's reply "I wouldn't assume this is a good sign for your idol." 

And that's true. You shouldn't because none of us know either way. 

Are you sure you're an attorney? 

Trump worthy.

[homersapien 11,367]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You're not to argue against what you think was insinuated, unless you're an imbecile. Read what he actually said, digest it and go from there. What he said and what you think he was saying are two different things. 

This is comical. 

Thank God this forum is a written format.   

[TexasTiger 12,838]

Salty thinks this is great news for Trump! Free and clear! ?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

But you took the ball and ran with it. Bad form, counsellor. Get your head in the game.

But "I took the ball and ran with it" - No, I engaged with Tex's apologist, AKA you

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I'm glad you don't. If you did, you would be the last person I would want double-checking my contracts and whatnot. 

Logic is an important skill, both here and in law practice. You fail utterly at it here.

Ok? Judging off pictures, you'd be the last person I'd want teaching my kids how to play sports. How's that? 

Logic is an important skill, and it's also something you're not the arbiter of. Never have I ever seen someone's panties get in such a massive wad so quickly. I thought Tex was insinuating today's happenings as a "bad sign" for Trump- "Salty's idol" (which was a reasonable inference), and here we are

[homersapien 11,367]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But it could mean that he was insinuating that, which is how i understood it. 

HAHA! Thanks for lecturing me on "lawyerly attributes," bud. If you think for a damn second that I approach this board the way I do work, you're mistaken. You're trying to take this utter silliness to a personal level - I must ask, are you that desperate for a boost of self-esteem or what? I mean, what would you think of me if I poked jokes about your children? Probably would speak volumes about me wouldn't it? 

Good grief.

You can't tell me you switch from a rational, literal mode while working to an irrational, emotionally-driven mode just for this forum. 

That's just not credible.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I'm starting to think the "attorney" thing is imaginary.  

You're right. Any attorney would approach a message board with more respect for the profession than I have shown. I should strictly scrutinize a thread before commenting. Maybe even read a few treatises too before writing. 

[AUDub 11,147]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But "I took the ball and ran with it" - No, I engaged with Tex's apologist, AKA you

No. You argued against something that wasn't said.

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok? Judging off pictures, you'd be the last person I'd want teaching my kids how to play sports. How's that?

Oh, I'm heartbroken. 

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Logic is an important skill, and it's also something you're not the arbiter of. Never have I ever seen someone's panties get in such a massive wad so quickly. I thought Tex was insinuating today's happenings as a "bad sign" for Trump- "Salty's idol" (which was a reasonable inference), and here we are

It wasn't a reasonable inference. That's what makes this whole exchange so damned funny. Abort, Nola! Abort! 

[SaltyTiger 7,794]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good grief.

You can't tell me you switch from a rational, literal mode while working to a an irrational, emotionally-driven mode just for this forum. 

That's just not credible.

sure you can