Every slabbed card has a story, don't it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You seem to be conflating making assumptions with making predictions. There is a difference between making explicit claims without evidence based on assumptions and making predictions based on observable evidence and logic. There is also a difference in the language Peter used and the language I used above.

Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card.

I used qualifiers like, "I don't believe ...", "I could be wrong, but I believe ...", "He probably just ..." to make predictions about what I believed most likely occurred.

Even my third claim, which I phrased as a certainty, was based on observable evidence (a completely trashed card with nearly as many creases as I have responses in this thread). A claim that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with, as I said, "whoever did soak the card clearly didn't do it in an attempt to "scam" some would-be buyer. This was obviously just a science experiment. Someone was just having fun with the most trashed card they could find and wanted to share the results."

If you want to argue that I couldn't possibly know his motives and that it is in fact likely that he was trying to "fix" that Mays in an effort to cash in on a payday, then you're being disingenuous. There's zero chance anyone here actually believes that.

Where did I say it was Kurt? I said "the dude", and as the Facebook post shows, "the dude" did indeed use a chemical bath. And if I had said Kurt, it would have been a reasonable assumption given that Kurt posted it.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Where did I say it was Kurt? I said "the dude", and as the Facebook post shows, "the dude" did indeed use a chemical bath. And if I had said Kurt, it would have been a reasonable assumption given that Kurt posted it.

You clearly believed and implied it was Kurt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You clearly believed and implied it was Kurt.

According to you I made an "explicit" claim. Now you are talking about what I believed and "implied." You do know the difference between explicit and implicit I assume? And suppose I had "implied" that even though I obviously chose to use "the dude" rather than Kurt, even after I used Darren's name. Would that have been unreasonable given that it was Kurt who posted the before and after? Do you have a point here?

[G1911]

"This dude used some top sercret chemical bath on a shitload of major creases, and doubtless without disclosure."

The first cause is a claim to fact - and it appears undebatably true. The dude bathed it in Kurt's Spray, not water, according to the original source. Nobody seems able to deny this or offer any refutation, though one would like to.

The second clause is an opinion - the 'doubtless' denoting that it can not be proven but the poster has no doubt what will happen. Debatable, but it's a claim to future probability of what will happen with the card, "making predictions". A prediction is also a future speculation, not oft a claim to the past.

There's nothing to play logic with here. The assumption is that "the dude" = Kurt and the resulting false claim that "Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card", which does not seem to appear in the actual statement.