Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
You're asking me to prove a negative?
|
No, I'm asking you to prove your claim. If you are so certain what you believe it factual you should have no problem proving your claim.
Quote:
|
The onus is on the person making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. You can't just turn it around and make it an appeal to ignorance. I think you've gone full loony here. That's not the way it works, on Calgarypuck or in life.
|
Yes, it is. You stand up and try that crap in the classroom or the boardroom you'll get your head handed to you. You are countering someone's claim with one of your own. You are expected to back up that claim. If someone stands up and claims "the founding fathers were Christians" and you claim otherwise, the onus is equally on you to prove otherwise. If someone claims that investing in said portfolio is a wise decision, and you claim otherwise, the onus is then on you to prove why it is a bad investment decision. You have made a claim about Baertschi's attitude, to which there is evidence to support the claim - through cryptic comments from management followed by benchings, a demotion, and passovers in the minors for call ups - so the onus is on you to either prove your position correct or that of the other individual incorrect. Basic rules of rhetorical engagement.
Quote:
Also..
No, it isn't. It's asking the person who said something to back it up with evidence.
|
So, back it up. If your position is solid there must be all sorts of stories or quotes from different members in the Flames organization that Baertschi displayed a professional attitude during the time frame in question.