there are things about special pleading logical fallacies that you couldnt possibly understand because you've never studied linguistics so there is no point explaining it

would be an example

Special pleading (also called ad-hoc reasoning) is when negative test results are dismissed by the introduction of new factors into the test - factors that caused the failure.

Many of the claimants who try to win US$1,000,000 from the James Randi Educational Foundation by proving their paranormal abilities resort to special pleading when they fail to pass the preliminary test.

The most recent example was Connie Sonne, who underwent her preliminary test at TAM7 in 2009. She failed to dowse the locations of certain randomly chosen cards.

At first, there was no special pleading (quotes from http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148178)...

She repeatedly said that she was treated very fairly by the JREF. She said that we were honest and honorable. She said that the test was fair. She said the test was fair AFTER she failed the test.

But then (emphasis mine)...

The reason she gave me for failing was that the entities that talk through her did not feel that it was time to show the world of their existence, or the truth.

That's textbook special pleading. Something uncontrollable and untestable caused her abilities to fail.

James Randi described another case where a dowser, after failing, tried to blame the gold foil in the books in the library they were using for the test, despite the fact that during the unblinded dowsing test beforehand (in the same room) everything worked just fine.