List of Shows



    recommended for you


    Tell your friends

    TELL YOUR FRIENDS

    The Bold and the Beautiful - MESSAGE BOARDS

    Soaps Boards :: The Bold and the Beautiful Forum :: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!

    Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.

    Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!

    Started by DawnsRainbow at 2010/09/25 12:42AM
    Latest post: 2010/10/05 06:51PM, Views: 6494, Replies: 191
    « 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 » »| page:
    #91   2010/09/27 06:38AM
    Re: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!
    dani700
    image

    Quote invisigal4evah:
    Quote timtamlover:
    Quote invisigal4evah:
    Quote timtamlover:
    Quote invisigal4evah:
    Quote DawnsRainbow:
    Quote invisigal4evah: Definition of a Debate:

    Poster 1: Bwooke is a ho! Skanky! Ho! Disease! Crust!

    Poster 2: I do not agree.

    Poster 1: Are you baiting me??????????????

    Poster 3: You are beautiful beyond words, poster 1!

    Poster 2: I wasn't baiting you!

    Poster 1: Yes you were! Ho! Ho! Screw on the wall! Ho!

    Poster 3: Spot on, you genius! And you're beautiful!

    Poster 4: Yes! Beautiful and articulately fabulously fabulous! Smart and fab!

    Poster 1: Thanks for having my back against this wicked baiter. We are the best EVER! HO HO HO!!! CRUST!!





    Hmmm, well, if this is not a prime example of a fanbase group bash and flame post, I do not know what is!!
    In essence the counter argument used here (And I used the term counter argument loosely, lololll) is a fan group "ad hominem" attack and a fan red herring combo. In effect, rather than attack the argument the strategy used is to attempt to ridicule the posters with "loose" sarcasm.....HAHAHAHA, lololllll, yes, well done on a trifecta factor (Bait/Bash/Enflame achieved), lololllll!!

    Too bad we did not think to use this fanbase bash approach in the pro Bwooke threads? Oh, yes, we did. We just restrain ourselves because we prefer to debate the points of fictional characters rather than bash REAL people to defend FAKE characters!
    Talk about OVER-KILL! lololllll

    PS I am just telling the truth in my post, Bella is the sweetest poster ever along with being extremely smart (IMO) as are Logan, cat, TIMTAM, B&B, Steffy, Kat, Vixie, BT and all our ANTI-HOS too. I love our girls because most of us tend to argue the points made NOT argue against the posters or posts themselves. I firmly believe by our actions that we consist of a group of extremely self-disciplined, civilized, non bashing but intelligent and truly beautiful posters (If I do say so myself, lololll)....I admit, I could be slightly biased but I do believe the actions exhibited on the forum do support my claim!!



    The link below is from UNC and speaks of the ad hominem fallacious type of argument....I am honestly just trying to help.

    www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
    Ad hominem and tu quoque Definitions:
    Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.

    Examples: "Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is an ugly, bitter person, so you shouldn't listen to her." Dworkin's appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.


    This goes towards the ad hominem attack used in the post I am quoting!


    I appreciate your post, but in order to have a counter argument, there must be two opposing views, am I correct?

    Ordinarily, the basis for said argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences. This criteria has not been met.

    The quoted post is humorous sarcasm, and is directed toward no person in particular, so the "baiting and flaming" accusations are also nullified.

    It's been awhile, but correct me if I'm wrong here. An ad hominem argument consists of the following components:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A's claim is false.

    No claim was made, so no attack could take place.

    Hope this helps!



    I have to hop in here give my two cents worth as I just found this thread and I have studied valid and false arguments in philosophy and am intrigued by this conversation.

    "Person A" is DR claiming that it was not mistaken identity.

    "Person B" is Invisigal not talking about the claim just made but attacking the debating style of Anti-Hos instead which in effect is attacking DR.

    Thereby trying to falsify Person A's claim.

    Sounds very much like an ad hominem argument to me, JMO!

    Please correct me if you see fit coz I may have a different Person A in mind to what you have.


    I'd be glad to clarify!

    In this example, person A said "Brooke is in denial that she knew it was Oliver (sic)"

    person B , in counterpoint, posted the definition of the word "denial".

    person A replied "Is that a bash?"

    Person A is stating an opinion, and person B stated a valid argument concerning the definition of the word used to make A's point.

    Person A used the ad hominem style or argument, or deflection, to bolster his or her case.

    Now, in the case of my post, it's simply a humorous way to point out how touchy we've all become on this silly subject.

    To the point of the actual title of this post, I, too disagree with the author. I don't think Brooke knew it was Oliver at the time. I think she actually thought she was having a quickie with her husband, which isn't a whole lot better if you ask me. If you can't leave your britches on until you get home you'd better see a doctor.

    I also think it was one of the dumbest story lines in the history of soapland, but I'm not a writer.


    This issue is so off-topic and I apologise to all reading however I must reply, it is so interesting for me.

    Invisigal, by your own explanation above, wouldn't Person A be 11Aces and Person B be Dawns Rainbow, thereby creating the false argument. JMO! Please don't be angry, I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ and start an argument esp not an ad hominem argument, LOL! You've obviously studied philosophy so it is normal to debate an argument's validity in philosophy classes and it's been a while for me too. LOL!

    My ad hominem argument above works perfectly IMHO and I think that's what Dawn was pointing out. This means that my Person B avoided the topic altogether (i.e. the claim) and posted something against the poster itself.

    Person B has to make the attack on Person A, not Person A making an attack on Person B.


    You know, I reread and realized that! You're absolutely right! In my example, I was wrong.

    Very subtle, but correct in theory. 11's post was an attempt to discredit DR's assertion that the "act" was not a mistake, rather that it was intentional. 11's posting of the definition of "denial" is proof.

    However, I still wish DR would have debated that point instead of taking it as an attack.

    You're right about something else, too. I did study philosophy, psychology, boys, boys, boys and booze. It's been many moons, but I can pull some of it out of moth balls occasionally! Thanks for the intelligent discussion!




    Kudos to all those in this debate who made it intelligent and worth reading without any vulgarity involved. I tend to agree with the fact that so long as there are no personal attacks, which it wasn't in this case, although some may think there was, it's simply entertaining. Good job to 11aces, who had so much logic put into this and DawnRainbow for her rebuttals. Invisigal, wow! You have great diction. I presume it comes from an academic background. Great job everyone!

    #92   2010/09/27 08:58AM
    Re: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!
    CatClaws
    image

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry at academics being applied to a soap opera. Usually most folks don't need to use much of their intellect to decipher why a well known tramp got caught doing what she does best. I wonder if the writers had this in mind when they dreamed up the sex on the wall storyline. Seems we may never know.

    #93   2010/09/27 09:58AM
    Re: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!
    dani700
    image

    Quote CatClaws: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at academics being applied to a soap opera. Usually most folks don't need to use much of their intellect to decipher why a well known tramp got caught doing what she does best. I wonder if the writers had this in mind when they dreamed up the sex on the wall storyline. Seems we may never know.



    CatClaws, I commended invisigal for her brilliance in diction and debate. It had nothing to do with the story of a soap. It was her debating I was referring to. Laugh or cry away!

    #94   2010/09/27 10:38AM
    Re: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!
    CatClaws
    image

    Quote dani700:
    Quote CatClaws: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at academics being applied to a soap opera. Usually most folks don't need to use much of their intellect to decipher why a well known tramp got caught doing what she does best. I wonder if the writers had this in mind when they dreamed up the sex on the wall storyline. Seems we may never know.



    CatClaws, I commended invisigal for her brilliance in diction and debate. It had nothing to do with the story of a soap. It was her debating I was referring to. Laugh or cry away!


    Hey Dani, I commend you for applauding those "brilliant" techniques. Notice though, I didn't quote you merely because my statement was meant as a general assessment of all the complexities taking place on the thread--Not yourself in particular. I was bemoaning the fact that soap operas had never gotten so intricately perplexing before now. In other words, it's no longer your grandmother's soap opera... Or maybe the reason is because the audience has clearly evolved. I'm guessing it's because people want more substance from their entertainment. For instance, a renown tramp hits the replay button, gets caught, hems and haws, end of story. Nothing to see there. We want substance.

    #95   2010/09/27 12:10PM
    Re: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!
    phyllisfanatic
    image

    Quote teamsteffy_86:
    Quote phyllisfanatic:
    Quote teamsteffy_86: So I went on Youtube and watched Neacklace gate twice to see if the whole Mistaken Identity thing could fly and here are some clues that make that arguement some bs.

    A.Hope told Brooke that she told Oliver that she would let him know when she's ready for sex by saying the words I'm ready.

    B.Brooke looked into Oliver's eyes TWICE that night: Once when she hugged him and pulled him on the dance floor. The second time when he wanted to take her mask off. To quote one of my lovely Anti-Hoes Oliver's eyes don't change color just because Brooke is horny.

    C. Yes I understand that it was a quickie but Brooke has been having sex with Ridge on and off for the past 20+ years. I'm sure Ridge has a certain smell that she's use to how didn't she notice his scent was different. Example my hubby's scent is that Diddy colonge he wears it all the time. Even if I don't see him and can smell him. Oliver has a different build than Ridge and Brooke was feeling him up. Again she didn't feel the difference in body type?

    I'm sure Ridge has a way he strokes when they have sex she didn't notice the difference yet again? We alll know that your "kittie" adjusts to your man's package after awhile she didn't feel the difference?

    What I have typed above is how I know that NONE of this was a case of Mistaken Identity. How Ridge was so easy to accept this as a answer and as a excuse is sad not to mention stupid.



    this is the most valid argument here,BTW wasn't Oliver wearing a hood? Ridge would never wear a hood! only Brooke and a teenge boy would think of doing it just outside a party filled with family and friends!LMAO


    Thanks Philly. I love that you have my favorite red head as your avatar


    And I love that u represent my favorite resident of faux-LA!
    Steffy rocks!!

    #96   2010/09/27 01:44PM
    Re: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!
    teamsteffy_86
    image

    :). Thank you it's nice to hear nice things towards me for a change. I've been called a 10th grader, stupid, classless and knowing the devil on a one on one level.

    #97   2010/09/27 01:48PM
    Re: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!
    teamsteffy_86
    image

    LoganH8tr: Your witty, stunning and you crack me up everyday with your posts.I for one LOVE your sense of humor and the fact that your not uptight and not a snob on a soap oprea message board.

    MUCH LOVE to my fellow anti-ho or my new nickname for you Sister take no sh^it.

    Modified 1 times(s), last time at: 2010/09/27 01:49PM
    #98   2010/09/27 02:02PM
    Re: Mistaken identity SO SAD excuse= HO IN DENIAL!!
    phyllisfanatic
    image

    Quote teamsteffy_86: . Thank you it's nice to hear nice things towards me for a change. I've been called a 10th grader, stupid, classless and knowing the devil on a one on one level.



    stupid? classless? those are words I would use describe the HO....LOL!

    « 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 » »| page:

    Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.

    « Go back to topic list