User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-30881616-20191015105327
Amorkuz wrote: There was another round of strong rebuttals of what I never said or meant.
Let me start with AthenodoraKitten and answer her question whether "this is actually what [I am] arguing for?" where "this" represents her long post. The answer is, "No, it is not."If you do not mind me asking, then—User:Amorkuz, what precisely are you saying here?
Are you accusing me of writing a rebuttal against what you never said or meant, that I made a straw man out of your arguments, and put words into your mouth? That I tried to derail this conversation, by going off-topic and discussed something that has never been said?
User:Amorkuz said that my post was “long.” Oh yes, it was long—I fully admit that. All my posts are long, because I strive to be as comprehensive as I can in providing actual evidence to back up my propositions, and in demonstrating the logic I use to arrive at my conclusions, so that there would be no hidden fallacy catching people unaware. I just thought that I was merely being a conscientious member of this wiki, doing my part to contribute to this community.
Thus, in book trade, the publisher(s) of a book supplied with an ISBN (ISBNs) is not determined arbitrarily (or by publicly claiming the publication as one's own) but is read from the book's ISBN(s).
the ISBNs of these paperbacks (as well as the ISBNs contained inside the corresponding Kindle editions) are covered by Books in Print and determine that the publisher of these books is not Arcbeatle Press.
It is not the publisher of Arcbeatle books because that title is determined by their ISBNs.
Are these not statements you have made on this very thread, User:Amorkuz? And do the posts they came from—posts #6, #19, and #34 above—not contain multiple instances of similar statements concerning the use of ISBNs as a measure to access a book’s eligibility according to Rule 3 of T:VALID’s “four little rules,” on the basis that ISBNs are, allegedly, the standard measure “in book trade” to determine a book’s publisher? In which case, then, how could I be rebutting what you “never said or meant,” when I wrote a post about this proposed use of ISBNs that you yourself brought up so many times and so many words on this thread alone?
If I had wanted to build a straw man out of User:Amorkuz’s arguments, then surely would have just done so, rather than asking User:Amorkuz to clarify what he meant, and leaving him the chance to refute my straw man before I could use it as a prop for my arguments? But ask I did, and wait for User:Amorkuz’s reply, I did. And what did I get in return?
If User:Amorkuz had just answered my question, then yes, I would be happy—that was what I asked for in the first place. But why did he have to lump me into some alleged brigade of people delivering multiple rounds of “strong rebuttals of what [he] never said or meant”? And post #46 above singled me out by name, so I honestly cannot see how to read it as anything other than a personal accusation directly targeted at me.
Like I said, I always strive to have my arguments be as factually accurate and logically valid as possible, so that if I ever err and commit any fallacy, whether of form or of matter, anyone can easily point out my mistakes. User:Amorkuz did not address any part of my argument that using ISBNs as a measure to determine eligibility under Rule 3 would logically lead to a radical broadening of Rule 3 in apparent departure to what User:Amorkuz had seemingly intended, only confirmed that "no, it is not” what he had intended. Should I take it as User:Amorkuz saying that he agreed with the logic of my argument, and agreed with my assessment that his initial arguments inescapably led to a conclusion he had not intended? In which case, how could he still say that my post was but a “long” rebuttal of what he “never said or meant”?
Or should I take literally the part where he said that he interpreted the subject of my question as being “[my] long post” itself, and read his rejection of “no, it is not” as being a rejection of the entirety of my quote-unquote “long” post itself?
