# Cisco would like to pit me **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 22, 2007, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cisco-would-like-to-pit-me/396973 "2007-03-22T03:06:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Monstre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Monstre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monstre)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cisco-would-like-to-pit-me/396973/61 "2007-03-24T07:00:55Z")
As a regular in the Lost threads (and as the person who had the most posts in that thread until Cisco surpassed me when the **Brouhaha of Banality** ensued), I’m offering my comments. I am not interested taking sides – I don’t care who “wins” – I’m just calling it like I saw it when I was participating in that thread. **Point 1:** **Cisco** ’s refutation of the original assertion was completely valid. Too bad we don’t always use quantifiers for clarity – but spoken language is full of shortcuts. Clearly the arguing parties were interpreting things differently… and unfortunately getting bent out of shape about it. [QUOTE=Frylock] But as I said in my previous post, I think it was completely obvious from the beginning which interpretation was intended. [/QUOTE] I also thought it was completely obvious how to interpret the statement, but it differs from yours. Here’s why. When a general blanket statement is made, of this form: - _Items in category X are Y_, or _Items in category X have property Y_ …you know, things like this, where quantifiers aren’t explicitly given: - Women are stupid. Boy scouts are male. Dogs have fur. - Human albinos have blue eyes … _logically_ speaking, universal quantifiers are implied (e.g. every, all, or in the case of a negative statement, “none”) by the sentence form. These definitive statements, when asserted as fact, imply definitions or specifications of defining properties. Such an assertion can of course be invalid – like “women are stupid” – I’m sure there’s at least one counterexample! 😉 (Nice reply, though, **Contrapuntal** – it made me laugh). And if that’s not enough, consider the full context of the original statement. It wasn’t _just_ “Human albinos have blue eyes.” It was: “_Human albinos have blue eyes. Not pink._” This parses into two related assertions: 1. Human albinos have blue eyes. 2. Human albinos’ eyes are not pink. **Cisco** ’s counterexample link was clearly a refutation of (2) – regardless of how anybody chooses to interpret (1). Or does anybody really think that statement (2) should be quantified with a “typically”? If somebody says, “Albino eyes are not pink”, did they really mean “Sometimes they _are_ pink”? If I make the assertion, “ **Monstre** is not a god” – is there an implied quantifier here? Did I really mean “ **Monstre** is typically not a god, but sometimes…”? Be careful how you answer, lest I be given the power to smite thee. Regardless of intended quantifier, Cisco was responding to what was _said_. * * * **Point 2** : While I agree that **Cisco** ’s argument was perfectly valid, and I completely understood his intent… IMHO he did help escalate the squabble by overreacting in his responses. This comment: > [@Cisco](#): > > So then don’t post things like this: … as if they were true and you knew what you were talking about. comes across as condescending. **Cisco** was accurate in pointing out the discrepancy between the two statements by **PerditaX** in that post, but I’m sure there was a nicer and more tactful way to say it. And **Cisco** , I must say, when you responded to this: > [@Frylock](#): > > C. The statements you’ve cited don’t support your contention (which I think is the contention that) albinos typically have reddish eyes. I did think you were way more defensive and confrontational than necessary, _especially_ when this whole thing was over such a tiny bit of irrelevant trivia. I understood from the start that your contention was just a refutation of the statement “Albinos don’t have pink eyes”, nothing more. But I didn’t see **Frylock** ’s statement as an attack – just a mistaken interpretation of your post (and there _was_ the parenthetical that basically invited a correction). With such an angry response to a mistaken guess, no wonder **Frylock** ’s hackles were getting raised, too. * * * **Point 3** : (my turn to rant a little) What… the… Fuck. All this was in a “Lost” thread, for Chrissakes. I’m sure that most of us participating in “Lost” discussions don’t give half a shit about the ratio of blue eyes to pink eyes to purple-poka-dot eyes in the general Albino population of the world. So why do we have to wade through a ridiculous two page hijack-turned-into-a-bitch-slap-fight in a thread that _should_ be a light-hearted and fun discussion about one of our favorite TV shows?!! Who knows, maybe there _is_ an appropriate place for anal-retentive pedantry regarding albinos and their eyes, but this wasn’t it. I felt like I was trying to watch a movie while a small group of kids were running around the theater and in front of the screen, angrily squealing, yelling, and pushing each other. How about all y’all go sit in the corner until you can calm down and play nice? And quit hijacking the “Lost” threads to argue about stupid minutiae! (Or do I need to go all **Tree Crushing Monstre** on your asses?) * * * Lastly, I’m amused by the third Google ad at the bottom of page 1 of this thread – the link is “Used Cisco Hardware”. Sorry, **Cisco** – but I’m just not interested in your “hardware”. :eek: Now, **HazelNutCoffee** , on the other hand… rowrrr! ---
**Author:** ![HazelNutCoffee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@HazelNutCoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HazelNutCoffee)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cisco-would-like-to-pit-me/396973/62 "2007-03-24T08:21:13Z")
TV show threads on the SDMB always get caught up in some kind of drama or other. You just have to learn to tune it out, I feel. Like I said, I don’t even watch Lost anymore, and I think it’s silly that this whole albino thing ended up in the Pit. **Cisco** could have been nicer. But I still think that **PerditaX** ’s initial response to **Cisco** was condescending to begin with (telling _him_ to go look it up on Wiki when in fact he was correcting _her_ misinformation), so I can understand **Cisco** responding in kind. And **monstre** , my “hardware” is not for sale at the moment, but your interest is appreciated. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cisco-would-like-to-pit-me/396973.md?page=3)