[ExI] Use of Irony, or Miscommunication?

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Fri Apr 18 23:16:31 UTC 2008

I followed all of Damien's explanation (and admission that he'd
mistaken Alex's meaning), except for one:

> Alex failed to rebut anything I said, which is why I took his
> comments the way I did (evidently in error). He *asserted* that
> anthropogenic global climate change was non-existent, without making
> any rebuttal of Lee's citation from a climate scientist. He expressed
> vehement *disagreement*--

And I think that perhaps Damien also writes (though probably
this was from the posted article, an "angle-bracket" convention
I was not aware of (should I be?)).

> <Where is the consensus? I can't see it. I must have missed the end
> of the debate, I think it must have ended with all dissenters being
> shot, thus argument settled. Shameful derailing of the scientific
> process and a damning indictment of the state of our media driven
> scientifically illiterate society. How can you defeat such ignorance
> and blatant fraud? Show me the facts, not the opinions. >
> --without any attempt (other than a reference to past fluctuations)
> to show that this is incorrect:
> ...
> Calling "I think it must have ended with all dissenters being shot" a
> *rebuttal* is the same class of error made by the media when people
> are said to have "refuted" a charge against them when all they've
> done is *denied* it.

Is that because I was misusing the word?  I thought it meant merely
saying something contrary.  But I see on the web

a.. The introduction of contradicting or opposing evidence.

a.. The introduction of contradicting or opposing evidence showing that what witnesses said occurred is not true, the stage of a 
trial at which such evidence may be introduced.

So now one must not use "refute" for "rebut", and must not
use "rebut" (as did I) for... for what?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list