[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Herman De Wael:
> 
>>>> ...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the
>>>> explanation does not conform to the CC...
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
>>> My lawbook lacks that clause.
> 
> Herman De Wael:
> 
>> Footnote to law 75, perhaps?
>>
>> Permit me to shorten a sentence that everyone
>> on this list has read 1000 times already to
>> one with the same meaning.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> If the CC is incorrectly completed, but the
> explanation is correct, and the opponents use
> the explanation to guide them (ignoring or not
> reading the CC), where is the MI?
> 

Ehm, Richard, please don't confuse issues. I was posting about 
something and said something in a shortcut. Your sentence above has 
absolutely no bearing on the original post, so please forgive me for 
not replying to it. You do say a few interesting things below, however:

> Even if Herman was intending a non-literal
> fuzzy paraphrase of the Law 75 footnote, then
> I still find his complete original statement
> perplexing:
> 
> "...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the
> explanation does not conform to the CC, the
> lawbook is silent about the reverse."
> 

Isn't that true?
The footnote says that the TD should rule MI rather than misbid in the 
absence of evidence, OK?
So, in all cases where a CC is present, there are only 2 
possibilities: either the spoken explanation conforms to the CC, or it 
doesn't (of course the explanation does not conform to the hand, or we 
would not be having a rulling to make). Now, if the explanation does 
not fit the CC, there is surely no evidence present to make believe 
that the explanation was correct after all, was there?
That is what I meant by "we should rule MI if the explanation does not 
conform to the CC".
But if the explanation does conform to the CC, what does the lawbook 
say? Nothing! There is no written rule that says that the TD should 
rule misbid if there is evidence to support that. It may well be 
understood that in general this is the case, but it is not explicietly 
written. After all, absence of evidence is easy to describe - but 
presence of evidence is harder, because one should also add how strong 
the evidence should be. Is a mere word on a CC enough? That's up to 
the TD to decide.

So. That was where I came into a thread that YOU had started, and in 
which YOU were the one advocating cases in which a TD should rule 
misinformation despite the information being present on the CC.
IIRC it was Sven who said that you should rule misbid if the 
information was on the CC, and it was I who came to your defence by 
citing law references (I admit, in too few words) to support your 
examples.

So please stop criticizing my sentences.

> If the entire sentence above is read literally,
> then the first clause is false but the second
> clause is true.  If the entire sentence above
> is read as a non-literal fuzzy paraphrase of
> the Law 75 footnote, then the first clause is
> true but the second clause is false.
> 

I have just explained how to interpret the sentence.

> Herman De Wael:
> 
>> Besides, were we not on the same side of this
>> argument?
> 
> J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers:
> 
> "I have not troubled about the Great Wars" said
> Treebeard, "they mostly concern Elves and Men.
> That is the business of Wizards: Wizards are
> always troubled about the future. I do not like
> worrying about the future. I am not altogether
> on anybody's _side_, because nobody is
> altogether on my _side_, if you understand me."
> 
> Herman De Wael:
> 
>> Do you really have to react to every little
>> message I post and try to find reason to
>> discredit me?
>>
>> That way ahead lies madness.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> A false premise implies any conclusion.  On
> some occasions Herman and I are on the same
> "side", standing shoulder to shoulder disputing
> the theories of Eric Landau or Sven Pran, so on
> those occasions I am not discrediting his
> theories.
> 

Well, you have just spent 5 messages trying to argue against a 
sentence of mine which was written in support of a statement of yours.

> On the other hand, if Herman publishes a
> zillion posts on blml advocating the logically
> fallacious De Wael School, it seems to me to be
> a tad inconsistent that he objects to me
> publishing half-a-zillion posts discrediting
> the De Wael School and apparently suggesting
> that I should restrict myself to a mere
> quarter-a-zillion posts.
> 
> Plus, whatever differences I have with the
> weirdly twisted logic of the De Wael School, I
> have repeatedly stated that I admire Herman's
> motives.  If my attack on Herman's logic could
> be misinterpreted as an "ad hominem" attack on
> Herman himself, I unconditionally withdraw and
> apologise for any such carelessness in wording.
> 

I have never felt any ad-hominem attacks from you per se. I do detect 
a willingness from many of you to argue against my posts simply 
because they come from me. That includes you Richard - as evidenced by 
this sub-thread.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be