Proper argument and wrong argument or whether the argument is known or
not, even this fj.*** may be told hastily. But, see the person who
gives argument to tell like this well, and you'll find that is only
said and they scarcely refered to what the actual argument is.If it is
so, as far as this point "at least" is concerned, I think that such an
argument person probably "gives wrong argument" or a person who
"doesn't know the argument".Because, argument is not description of
impressions. And because, when it is not description of impressions,
that the own conclusion is only told gets out of that stage no less
than one step.

We sometimes listens to the opinion which objectionable was in about
this. Even if one tells that, a partner can't understand it. Oneself
doesn't tell that because to be here and moreover to tell to such a
partner becomes the exhaustion of the time and the labor. Some doesn't
think that it is the opinion which has a mind.  However, I necessarily
dislike it, though this opinion has an insolent mind a little, too. If
realism is told, anyone has such a mind, as is because it is supposed
to have wear. Even if the argumen person isn't disliked, after all,
the censure is in the point that the argument person is practicing
what we don't call "argument".So,  I tried to think as follows.

(1) We should include "all" in the article concerned by simplifying
"the form of the argument" without minding double time if there is
intention which gives "argument"? We should understand the form of the
major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion, or we should tell
the reason and the conclusion simplifying it more. In that case, we
will have to clear a distinction with the part of the fact and the
part of the value judgment. It is because in other words it is an
ideal that the foundation bottom does under the objective recognition
except for the conclusion all about the subject for discussion,
"sharing with others" , if you wants to discuss it. (And, because it
is mentioned in this point in what front article of the same thread.  
 Only one insists that it is perfect argument even if it is the form
which can't be said as this argument.  That takes it for granted.But,
the proof that that argument person mentions some in the front is
never given. Actually, it is common that only the argument person who
says so isn't touching it.)

If it is so, being conscious of the distinction the so-called
evaluation like sentence word and the sentence word as well, we will
have to proceed with the argument.
"Evaluation-like sentence word" that I say here is the word for
example expressed "It is ugly." This doesn't point out what is
objective, either. It is because
 "whether to be ugly" is the word which draws the different contents
which do the different evaluation that each person has in his head.
Say that argument doesn't hold good when "definition" isn't explained
as for a certain argument person. From the severe point of view, we
can say so to some extent. The posture of this argument person makes
this my article and point the same only in this time. But, it is
decided that the blame to make a mistake of the self-contradiction
isn't escaped as far as an argument person concerned uses so-called
"evaluation-like sentence word" such as "It is ugly."

(2) Well, it'll be finished the story. You should abolish the
eccentricity (Is it a curious things paper?) that still it doesn't
reflect with fj.*** and it is held and which profess the above
argument, at once. In other words, you subdivide others' article and
point out an error in turn one by one from the top of the article
again from the viewpoint of mineral and scheme for the objection,
without taking the solid of others' sentence into consideration, and
in the end add a complaint to the comment style. We should prudent to
make such a way proper form of the argument. From the reverse, as long
as such an easy technique are taken, originally so-called "argument"
can be able to exist.I think the argument person who insists that it
can exist, has a wromg overestimate about his own article.  Because
the overestimate is being given, and of course that is only
subjectivity.

In the first place, to each which differentiated delicately without
losing the character of "the argument", like urine of the dog, isn't
it unacceptable to scheme for a lot of opinions and the objection? It
is impossible to tell without losing the character of "the argument"
with the above technique even though the argument person is the main
argument guest of fj.***, such as Mr. Wacky, Mis. Masako, Mr. Shinji,
Mr. Yam, Mr. Raikou and so on.I don't mean that they lack ability to
do "the argument", so I don't want them to misunderstand.  But I say
that it is no good for "the argument" even as a result, and though it
sometimes  seems to be "argument", others must be looking at them
making "Take it for granted." lie, too.

(3) Now, though it causes a trouble about the signature, we had better
do this  rather than such a signature problem, this being healthier.Of
course this is my impression.


 -- 
KENTAROU