Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Ariana said:
Aaaand post 6,666! :edmetal: What better way to mark it than with a
783063600_326516.gif
Click to expand...
I thought that the spoiler was hiding a

C-beer.jpg
 
I'm starting to wonder who's writing the spam, bots or schizophrenics? I just got rid of one that started:

that type of way here period up who mine that here but here through and by and 360 began well here and company and routine people me
Click to expand...

There's a fine line between gibberish and art.
 
Guys, what's the exact name of logical fallacy that would be manifested as "if USA really landed on the moon why haven't they done it since '72" or similar?
 
I don't know if the below matches the context in which you're asking this, @Zare, so bear with me if none of the below is relevant. :)

Generally speaking, I must admit I've never liked the use of the latin names of logical fallacies in a debate (directly with the one making the fallacy, that is) - it will only make it seem you're out of arguments (despite the fact you're not). Or, it depends on the type of debate. If it is a reasonable discussion between two who are both interested in a good discussion and want to understand the subject matter, and both actually know what is meant by "post hoc ergo proper hoc", you can use the phrase if you think your counterpart is making the fallacy without noticing.

Usually I think if the counterpart is ignorant of the fact he's making a fallacy, but appears to be willing to be told so, it is better to explain how he is making the fallacy, rather than just throwing a phrase at him.
 
Using Latin names of fallacies is usually a show-off, but sometimes it's simply warranted. But I would generally agree with you.
 
Thanks for replies. Perun, if I said to someone, "you're exhibiting a typical inverse post hoc ergo propter hoc" I'd sound like a shrink :)
EW, I agree with you. Sometimes the other discussant wants answers that can't be provided, because I lack knowledge or information. It would be nice to point out that merely asking that kind of question is an observed 'phenomenon' declared as logical fallacy.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
I'm starting to wonder who's writing the spam, bots or schizophrenics?
Click to expand...

If you got that on email, there are a few reasons that come to mind - probing does the mail address exist, eg. it doesn't get 'bounced' by mail transfer agent. Afterwards, getting gibberish message that's actually an email without any deducible content (links, images, or in pure linguistic sense) repeatably, without email user flagging it as spam, might lower spam score for email source in question. After a bunch of those, real spam mail with links and stuff, from that source, might go through spam filters.

/conjecture
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top