Log in

View Full Version : My Side of the Story


Pages : [1] 2

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 02:51 PM
I figured it would help people understand if I went ahead and told everyone what happened that lead up to and caused the events of a week ago.

Perhaps then we can all shut up about it.

Feel free to post your responses below.

---------------------------


Members were leaving the forum before the PDians showed up because the forum could no longer sustain intelligent debate. Vexx was already in the process of leaving because of this, and I almost left too.

Then, PH spoke up about it and demanded some changes to allow members to debate and discuss again without their threads being overrun with off-topic chit-chat.

Rimmer and I strongly agreed about this, and being the only ones in power on the forum at the time (we hadn't seen any of the admins), we thought we'd get to work trying to straighten things out.

I made a thread in Googlism Chat called "Reconstruction" (it seems to have been deleted, a shame, really), where I started posting my ideas and inviting others to do so too.

The first thing I posted that needed to get done were some rules. Way back in April, Lord_Jereth wrote up some rules (because they were having the same problem to a smaller degree), which were looked over by and approved by a majority of the ministers and admins. There was one dissenter, Loki, who didn't (and still doesn't) want rules. But there was a clear majority, as everyone else liked the rules, so they were to be posted.

However, as it seems to often happen in the ML, nobody ever got around to posting them. So Rimmer and I started preparing the rules, when GeoffBoulton stopped by and approved of our work. He gave some suggestions, which we incorporated, and we posted up the rules on the forums.

Here's where the first mistake took place: before any of this happened, a little while back, the ministry decided that we could trust ministers with soem modding capabilities.

Now, once rules were posted, some ministers started to think that it as their job to enforce them. This is what caused the major infractioning problem, and why TGRR left, if I'm not mistaken.

Then, the PDians arrived.

At first, we thought Banner of Juche was just a troll, and new members were showing up, ready to debate. I understand that this was indeed the case.

However, the optimistic air was quickly soured by the inability of the ministry to properly moderate the forums. Infractions were handed out, day-long bans, the whole works.

This obviously pissed off many of the PDians, who then revolted. The problem was, many of your attacks were misguided: Geoff, LJ, FH, who all received much criticism, were simply trying to do what Rimmer and I were trying to do: bring debate back to the CoG. They deserve none of your criticism. Even the ministers who abused their modding abilities were never trying to harm anyone: everybody was simply doing what they thought would help to revive the CoG.

If you actually read over the rules (I believe I still have them as a User Note on my bio page), you'll see that they basically boil down to: try to keep the antics to IFU, no pr0n or spam, and don't disrupt people's debates. If people want to point out things that they find unreasonable, feel free to do so here.

In the end, we know what happened. People left, and with good reason, mind you. After Vexx saw our reconstruction efforts, she decided to give us one last chance, but she logged on last weekend to find this mess, and has left, potentially forever.

Now can we please work together and try to make the CoG what it should be?

Thank you.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 03:15 PM
Question: Who's PH?
I agree with that, except for one thing; I have seen very little attempt at intelligent debate from the PDians. If they could give me examples, fine, but I havn't seen any.

Echo
September 14th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Wow. Shit. I LEAVE FOR A FEW DAYS AND THIS HAPPENS.

I got a PM from Little Billy about the reformed church. I didn't bother to check it out.

My rule about keeping my sanity in the boards is simple: if I don't like the way a thread is going by the first page or two, I don't post in it and simply mark it as read. Then I ignore it from there on out. I can understand it being different for a moderator, though.

Honestly, though, I don't read a majority of the threads on the site (probably 75%).

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 04:16 PM
Question: Who's PH?
I agree with that, except for one thing; I have seen very little attempt at intelligent debate from the PDians. If they could give me examples, fine, but I havn't seen any.
PH = Paris Hilton/G00gle

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 14th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Yea because of the modding you almost lost me and rmw but she has returned and I did not leave. If only we could have figured some way to make this work.

rzm61
September 14th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Yea because of the modding you almost lost me and rmw but she has returned and I did not leave. If only we could have figured some way to make this work.

Dude, if you left I would come find you. Shove an apple in your mouth, and from there cook you like a pig over an open fire. :D

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 14th, 2008, 05:38 PM
You kept me here, so I thank you.

rzm61
September 14th, 2008, 05:55 PM
You kept me here, so I thank you.

No need to thank me! But you're more then welcome. The CoG wouldn't be the same without the Doc.

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 14th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Indeed! Some of us are just ingrained here!

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 07:00 PM
Now, once rules were posted, some ministers started to think that it as their job to enforce them. This is what caused the major infractioning problem, and why TGRR left, if I'm not mistaken.

No. TGRR (me) left because TGRR's account was deleted.


They deserve none of your criticism. Even the ministers who abused their modding abilities were never trying to harm anyone: everybody was simply doing what they thought would help to revive the CoG.

I disagree. At least 2 mods were doing what they felt was necessary to preserve their place in the pecking order. It had nothing to do with keeping the forum going (one of them even admitted this).


If you actually read over the rules (I believe I still have them as a User Note on my bio page), you'll see that they basically boil down to: try to keep the antics to IFU, no pr0n or spam, and don't disrupt people's debates. If people want to point out things that they find unreasonable, feel free to do so here.

The above mentioned mod was banning people and/or erasing posts in IFU, as well.


In the end, we know what happened. People left, and with good reason, mind you. After Vexx saw our reconstruction efforts, she decided to give us one last chance, but she logged on last weekend to find this mess, and has left, potentially forever.

"People"? Vexx, perhaps, but you already said she was leaving. All the other people we have been accused of driving off were already gone, days or weeks before the bullshit (Tag, etc).


Now can we please work together and try to make the CoG what it should be?

I'd like to. Really, I would. However, I am followed around by two lying jackasses, every time I post.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 07:02 PM
Question: Who's PH?
I agree with that, except for one thing; I have seen very little attempt at intelligent debate from the PDians. If they could give me examples, fine, but I havn't seen any.

Why would anyone debate you? You're an unregenerate liar.

Your opinion is utterly without merit, as you can't even be honest with yourself.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 07:02 PM
Wow. Shit. I LEAVE FOR A FEW DAYS AND THIS HAPPENS.

I got a PM from Little Billy about the reformed church. I didn't bother to check it out.



Sorry I wasted my time. :icon_lol:

Echo
September 14th, 2008, 07:29 PM
Sorry I wasted my time. :icon_lol:

I had just gotten another PM from someone else that was very offensive. I was leery to click the link.

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 14th, 2008, 07:35 PM
Was it some racist name?

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 07:45 PM
No. TGRR (me) left because TGRR's account was deleted.
I was referring to when you got super-pissed off the first time and went to get the PDians.
I disagree. At least 2 mods were doing what they felt was necessary to preserve their place in the pecking order. It had nothing to do with keeping the forum going (one of them even admitted this).
Very well. But I want you to understand that
a) they're ministers, not mods, and
b) the people I listed (Geoff, LJ, Vexx) are simply tryign to help the forum.
The above mentioned mod was banning people and/or erasing posts in IFU, as well.
That person no longer has the power to do any of that sort.
"People"? Vexx, perhaps, but you already said she was leaving. All the other people we have been accused of driving off were already gone, days or weeks before the bullshit (Tag, etc).
Tag actually may be moving, but that's another matter.

We lost Rimmer. He's not at the CoG right now, it's caused to much stress for him.

And when we lost some members, I was also referring to the months before last week where debate was lost and members moved on accordingly. You don't see liquidfire around, do you?
I'd like to. Really, I would. However, I am followed around by two lying jackasses, every time I post.
Well, then, maybe we should all reset our opinions of each other and start afresh.

Hi, Little Billy/TGRR. I'm scikidus. Pleased to meet you.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 07:51 PM
Very well. But I want you to understand that
a) they're ministers, not mods, and
b) the people I listed (Geoff, LJ, Vexx) are simply tryign to help the forum.


They were capable of infractions, editing, etc. Amounts to the same thing.

Also, how was what they were doing helping anything? I must confess that I am a little mystified, here.


That person no longer has the power to do any of that sort.

It's about time. I don't mind actually posting serious stuff, anymore, then.


Tag actually may be moving, but that's another matter.

No, it isn't. We stand accused of driving off everyone who's ever posted here and left. The fact that most of these people are or were gone before the bullshit began is relevant as hell.


We lost Rimmer. He's not at the CoG right now, it's caused to much stress for him.

Rimmer didn't seem to have any problem inflicting stress.


And when we lost some members, I was also referring to the months before last week where debate was lost and members moved on accordingly. You don't see liquidfire around, do you?

What does this have to do with us?


Hi, Little Billy/TGRR. I'm scikidus. Pleased to meet you.


Nice to meet you.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 07:51 PM
I had just gotten another PM from someone else that was very offensive. I was leery to click the link.

Not sure why someone else's pm nastiness would reflect on me.

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 14th, 2008, 08:00 PM
Your name was unknown at the time

rzm61
September 14th, 2008, 08:14 PM
Well, then, maybe we should all reset our opinions of each other and start afresh.

Hi, Little Billy/TGRR. I'm scikidus. Pleased to meet you.


Nice to meet you.

:icon_lol:
You guys are priceless.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 08:47 PM
Your name was unknown at the time

Not by my doing. My regular account was erased.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 08:47 PM
:icon_lol:
You guys are priceless.

It was a stupid idea. I tried to start fresh and...well, YOU certainly know what happened, don't you?

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 09:17 PM
Why would anyone debate you? You're an unregenerate liar.

Your opinion is utterly without merit, as you can't even be honest with yourself.

That's what I'm talking about. Instead of going "Here you go Tsar, look at all these examples of us engaging in intelligent discussion on this forum" or "Sorry Tsar, we haven't done any" he pulls a random insult out of his arse and sits there looking pleased with himself.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 09:22 PM
That's what I'm talking about. Instead of going "Here you go Tsar, look at all these examples of us engaging in intelligent discussion on this forum" or "Sorry Tsar, we haven't done any" he pulls a random insult out of his arse and sits there looking pleased with himself.

I am not required to post examples. You made a statement, it is YOUR obligation to prove it, not mine to prove it wrong.

Logic 101, Sparky. Get some.

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 09:23 PM
They were capable of infractions, editing, etc. Amounts to the same thing.
They can do so no longer.
Also, how was what they were doing helping anything? I must confess that I am a little mystified, here.
I'm not sure whether or not they actually helped, they tried to. The mass migration of PDians swamped them, and they overreacted.
It's about time. I don't mind actually posting serious stuff, anymore, then.
Glad to hear it.
No, it isn't. We stand accused of driving off everyone who's ever posted here and left. The fact that most of these people are or were gone before the bullshit began is relevant as hell.
You did not drive everyone off. You drove off a few members, but the majority left before you came. The trouble, I believe, stems from the fact that the PDians counteracted the plan to revive the forum.
Rimmer didn't seem to have any problem inflicting stress.
Rimmer did not know how to react. This led to irritated PDians, which led to stressed Rimmer, which led to poor decisions...it's a vicious cycle.
What does this have to do with us?
Last week's events kept the CoG on the path is was already on, when we were trying to revive it.

It's doing better now, but it sure didn't look that way a week ago.
Nice to meet you.
So, how are you doing?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 09:24 PM
Glad to hear it.



Actually, I have to retract that. After our conversation, I decided to post something other than the usual clowning.

RZM dealt with the attempt.

There will be no further attempts.

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 09:26 PM
I am not required to post examples. You made a statement, it is YOUR obligation to prove it, not mine to prove it wrong.

Logic 101, Sparky. Get some.
Actually, LB, the burden of proof falls on you in this case. He has charged you with presenting the information, and so you are responsible for presenting the information. Not him. If he were responsible, then he wouldn't be saying "I can't find any evidence of your debating on this forum."

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Actually, LB, the burden of proof falls on you in this case. He has charged you with presenting the information, and so you are responsible for presenting the information. Not him. If he were responsible, then he wouldn't be saying "I can't find any evidence of your debating on this forum."

There is no "charging someone with presenting the information" in a debate. Assertions are made, and then backed up with supporting evidence.

In this case, Tsar was attempting to refute someone else's claim with a statement:


I agree with that, except for one thing; I have seen very little attempt at intelligent debate from the PDians.

His statement does not require me to dig up counter-examples. His statement is unprovable, and is therefore garbage.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 09:30 PM
http://juanfont.eu/logica.jpg

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 09:32 PM
http://juanfont.eu/logica.jpg

Guess which one you are?

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 09:35 PM
Again, you fail to come up with any evidence.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 09:37 PM
Again, you fail to come up with any evidence.
Again, you FAIL at basic debating. I asked a question, I did not make a statement.

How does one post "evidence" for a "question"?

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 09:39 PM
Three things:
1. I was not referring to the question you just asked.
2. His statement does not require me to dig up counter-examples. His statement is unprovable, and is therefore garbage.
Yes it does. I have challenged you to provide evidence to support your argument. If you were asking the question "Show me any examples of non-intelligent debate" then I would have to bring up the evidence.
3. You still have not provided any evidence.

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 09:40 PM
There is no "charging someone with presenting the information" in a debate. Assertions are made, and then backed up with supporting evidence.

In this case, Tsar was attempting to refute someone else's claim with a statement:



His statement does not require me to dig up counter-examples. His statement is unprovable, and is therefore garbage.
Very well: can you please supply links to a few "attempts at intelligent debate from the PDians"?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Very well: can you please supply links to a few "attempts at intelligent debate from the PDians"?

Nope. I am not in the habit of doing my opponent's (Tsar's) work.

If he wishes to make completely unsupportable statements, I see no reason not to sit back and watch him make a horse's ass of himself.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 09:43 PM
Three things:
1. I was not referring to the question you just asked.
2.
Yes it does. I have challenged you to provide evidence to support your argument. If you were asking the question "Show me any examples of non-intelligent debate" then I would have to bring up the evidence.
3. You still have not provided any evidence.

I am not required to. You made a foolish, unsupportable claim. It is not my job to haul your chestnuts out of the fire, to rescue you from your own abject stupidity.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 09:44 PM
Two things
1. The burden of proof is on you. If you fail to come up with prof, then you are wrong by default.
2. You still have not provided any evidence.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 09:46 PM
Two things
1. The burden of proof is on you. If you fail to come up with prof, then you are wrong by default.
2. You still have not provided any evidence.

You are an idiot. You made the statement, the burden of proof is on YOU.

This is basic debate. If you don't understand that, then perhaps you should consider doing a little reading on the subject before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

:icon_lol:

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 14th, 2008, 09:46 PM
Neither one of you have evidence and are arguing over someones opinion... this is ridiculious!

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 09:57 PM
You are an idiot. You made the statement, the burden of proof is on YOU.

This is basic debate. If you don't understand that, then perhaps you should consider doing a little reading on the subject before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

:icon_lol:

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. This should be the easiest game in the world for you, had you any evidence.
In response to Goofy's point, here's evidence of the Asshats acting like Asshats.
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4256
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4255
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4341
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4342
That should be enough.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:06 PM
It is impossible to prove that something does exist.


What? :icon_lol:

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 10:12 PM
That was a typo.

Gabriel
September 14th, 2008, 10:15 PM
That was a typo.


Sure.


Here. A gift from me to you: http://hooked-on-phonics.com/

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:16 PM
That was a typo.

That's one possibility.

Another is that you're just stupid.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 10:18 PM
Ok, well address the point I made after I corrected it.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:21 PM
Ok, well address the point I made after I corrected it.

Okay:

DON'T MAKE UNSUPPORTABLE ARGUMENTS IN A DEBATE!

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!

:icon_lol:

This is too easy.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 10:22 PM
Wtf
I supported my argument. You have failed to support your argument.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:26 PM
Wtf
I supported my argument. You have failed to support your argument.

No, you never supported your argument (which was that none of the PD crowd have ever posted seriously).

Citing a few trivial posts isn't the same thing, dumbass.

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 10:28 PM
No, my argument was:
In response to Goofy's point, here's evidence of the Asshats acting like Asshats.
I posted evidence of that. You have yet to prove evidence to the contrary
QED

Gabriel
September 14th, 2008, 10:28 PM
And when they do make serious posts, they get moved because an assmin was too lazy to read it.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:29 PM
No, my argument was:

I posted evidence of that. You have yet to prove evidence to the contrary
QED


Nope. Your argument was that PDers don't post seriously. It's a little late to try changing the subject now, so please stop your lying.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:29 PM
And when they do make serious posts, they get moved because an assmin was too lazy to read it.

Give that man a cigar.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 10:33 PM
I challenged you to provide evidence
You failed to provide evidence
Scikidus pointed out you had to provide evidence
You failed to provide evidence
I challenged you again to provide evidence
You failed to provide evidence
Goofy pointed out that I had not provided evidence for my overall argument, "That the Asshats have not posted any intelligent discussion, and that they actually distract the topic."
I provided evidence for my argument, and I challenged you to provide evidence for your argument
You failed to provide evidence

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 10:34 PM
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
Well, except for by means of a reductio ad absurdum argument, which doesn't really apply here.

Look.

Let "X" stand for the number of threads where PDians are attempting debate.
Phalanxia says that X is small.
LB disagrees, implying that he says that X is large.

Now both parties go off and look for evidence. In this case, they are both attempting to calculate X and see if it is large or small.


So hw about both of you scurry off and try to count X?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:36 PM
I challenged you to provide evidence
You failed to provide evidence
Scikidus pointed out you had to provide evidence



He was wrong, and you are wrong. I made no claim; I am not required to put up evidence.

You made a claim. You couldn't support it.

And that pretty much means you...

http://www.worldoffail.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/fail2.jpg

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 10:36 PM
I'd love to, but I have German Homework to do.
I'll try tomorrow.
Edit: I did support it.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:37 PM
Well, except for by means of a reductio ad absurdum argument, which doesn't really apply here.

Look.

Let "X" stand for the number of threads where PDians are attempting debate.
Phalanxia says that X is small.
LB disagrees, implying that he says that X is large.

Now both parties go off and look for evidence. In this case, they are both attempting to calculate X and see if it is large or small.


So hw about both of you scurry off and try to count X?

Actually, that wasn't his argument.

His argument was that X was zero.

And I am not required to scurry off to count shit, as I wasn't the one that made the claim.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:37 PM
I'd love to, but I have German Homework to do.
I'll try tomorrow.
Edit: I did support it.

No, you didn't.

Stop lying.

Gabriel
September 14th, 2008, 10:38 PM
I'd love to, but I have German Homework to do.
I'll try tomorrow.
Edit: I did support it.


Well, at least you're doing some work. Way to bow out of backing up your claims, Tsar Phallus.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 14th, 2008, 10:41 PM
I said I'll attempt it tomorrow. It's Quarter to 11 here.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 10:41 PM
I said I'll attempt it tomorrow. It's Quarter to 11 here.

I accept your abject surrender.

Gabriel
September 14th, 2008, 10:42 PM
I said I'll attempt it tomorrow. It's Quarter to 11 here.


:icon_lol:

How long does it take to search some threads?

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 11:03 PM
Actually, that wasn't his argument.

His argument was that X was zero.

And I am not required to scurry off to count shit, as I wasn't the one that made the claim.
Same principle applies. Whenever one party makes a claim, with which another party disagrees, both parties must find evidence.

In a court of law, both the prosecutor and the defendant try to find evidence supporting their positions.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 11:16 PM
Same principle applies. Whenever one party makes a claim, with which another party disagrees, both parties must find evidence.

In a court of law, both the prosecutor and the defendant try to find evidence supporting their positions.

Incorrect. The party making the claim is responsible for any supporting evidence.

And in a court of law, the prosecutor must make his case. The defending attorney must only refute it.

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 11:29 PM
Incorrect. The party making the claim is responsible for any supporting evidence.
Yet when you disagree, you are making a claim of your own, namely that the other party is wrong.

You have a claim and a counter-claim, and both must present evidence.
And in a court of law, the prosecutor must make his case. The defending attorney must only refute it.
Refute it with what besides evidence?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 11:32 PM
Yet when you disagree, you are making a claim of your own, namely that the other party is wrong.

Refuting a claim does not equal making a claim. Please do not veer off into sophistry.


You have a claim and a counter-claim, and both must present evidence.

Incorrect. Have you ever taken part in a formal debate?


Refute it with what besides evidence?

A demand for evidence. This is pretty much impossible to satisfy, given the completely unsupportable claim made by Tsar. Sucks to be him.

sudikics
September 14th, 2008, 11:44 PM
Refuting a claim does not equal making a claim. Please do not veer off into sophistry.
It's not a biconditional, it's a conditional. If you refute a claim, then you are making a claim: the claim that the other party is wrong, that their statement is false.
Incorrect. Have you ever taken part in a formal debate?
Yes, I have. And going from above, when you refute a claim, you are automatically making a new claim.

You now have two claims, one declaring a statement true, the other declaring it to be false. Supporting a claim requires evidence.
A demand for evidence. This is pretty much impossible to satisfy, given the completely unsupportable claim made by Tsar. Sucks to be him.
And once that evidence is presented, it must be refuted. It cannot be refuted by demanding evidence; you already have evidence. Therefore, ou must provide evidence.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 14th, 2008, 11:52 PM
It's not a biconditional, it's a conditional. If you refute a claim, then you are making a claim: the claim that the other party is wrong, that their statement is false.

Try pulling that in a formal debate, and see how far you get.


Yes, I have. And going from above, when you refute a claim, you are automatically making a new claim.

Then you weren't paying much attention, because that's not how it works.


You now have two claims, one declaring a statement true, the other declaring it to be false. Supporting a claim requires evidence.

No, I have one claim, and a statement rejecting that claim, due to logical fallacy.

The first requires evidence. The second does not.

And once that evidence is presented, it must be refuted. It cannot be refuted by demanding evidence; you already have evidence. Therefore, ou must provide evidence.[/quote]

Sister Faith
September 15th, 2008, 12:05 AM
EVEN THE HYPOCRISY WITHIN THIS SO CALLED CHURCH!

Well, duh! :icon_rolleyes: We are a parody religion, after all! :icon_confused:

Puck the Pooka
September 15th, 2008, 12:57 AM
Well, duh! :icon_rolleyes: We are a parody religion, after all! :icon_confused:

We are. So why so SRS? I'll tell you what I think.

I was really enjoying some of these threads, and Billy went off the deep end today and starts up with shenanigans.

It was unfair that his thread was moved, and unfortunate that it happened just as he was starting to contribute again.

Billy, Sciky has done everything you've asked and tried to reason with you. Lot's of us are trying to talk to you, even though we know we're just feeding a troll. If this forum is so oppressive, than why are so many taking the time to try and fix the problem?

Sir Fancy Pants
September 15th, 2008, 01:00 AM
We are being opressed!!!!

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k310/Jordanoi/TheOppressed2.jpg

The Good Reverend Roger
September 15th, 2008, 03:36 AM
We are. So why so SRS? I'll tell you what I think.

I was really enjoying some of these threads, and Billy went off the deep end today and starts up with shenanigans.



AND TOTALLY UNPROVOKED, I MIGHT ADD!

Wallsy
September 15th, 2008, 08:54 AM
Hey Billy, I know reading is difficult and thinking makes your brain hurt, but you might want to have a look at what burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(rhetoric)) actually is.

In case the big words confuse you, it basically comes down to this. You claim that you have made a positive contribution. Phalanxia claims that you have not. Since there are an infinite number of ways in which you could fail to make a positive contribution, it's impossible to document them all. In order to establish the validity of your statement you need only provide one example. This makes your claim the narrower of the two, therefore burden rests on you.

See, if you provide just one example of you contributing in a positive manner, you have established the truth of your statement, but no matter how many examples of you behaving like a shit-flinging retard Phalanxia provides, you can always say he just hasn't found your positive contributions yet.

Were we to place the burden of proof on the wider claim, nothing could ever be proved¹.


Wallsy.

¹ I use "proof" here in the sense of enough evidence for us to accept a conclusion as a valid premise from which to build further conclusions. I am well aware that nothing can be conclusively ascertained with 100% certainty.

The Reverend Asshat
September 15th, 2008, 05:01 PM
Hey Billy, I know reading is difficult and thinking makes your brain hurt, but you might want to have a look at what burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28rhetoric%29) actually is.

In case the big words confuse you, it basically comes down to this. You claim that you have made a positive contribution. Phalanxia claims that you have not. Since there are an infinite number of ways in which you could fail to make a positive contribution, it's impossible to document them all. In order to establish the validity of your statement you need only provide one example. This makes your claim the narrower of the two, therefore burden rests on you.

See, if you provide just one example of you contributing in a positive manner, you have established the truth of your statement, but no matter how many examples of you behaving like a shit-flinging retard Phalanxia provides, you can always say he just hasn't found your positive contributions yet.

Were we to place the burden of proof on the wider claim, nothing could ever be proved¹.


Wallsy.

¹ I use "proof" here in the sense of enough evidence for us to accept a conclusion as a valid premise from which to build further conclusions. I am well aware that nothing can be conclusively ascertained with 100% certainty.

Well according to some of you if I am accused I am guilty until proven innocent. Wally I don't want the big words to confuse you here so I'll keep it simple. The accused are assumed innocent (not guilty; didn't do it) unless proven guilty. Thus this statement places the burden of proof on the accuser (the one what said somebody did something). If I am accused and enter a plea of not guilty I am not asserting a new claim, I am simply refuting the accusation directed at me thereby placing the burden of proof on the accuser.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 15th, 2008, 05:29 PM
We have evidence that you have not contributed in a resourceful and constructive manner. Therefore, you have to come up with evidence to counteract that evidence.

The Reverend Asshat
September 15th, 2008, 05:31 PM
We have evidence that you have not contributed in a resourceful and constructive manner. Therefore, you have to come up with evidence to counteract that evidence.


Present your evidence. In a court of law as the accused myself and my lawyer could sit and not say one word and if the accusation against me was not proven then I would be found not guilty.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 15th, 2008, 05:40 PM
*Points back 4 pages*
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. This should be the easiest game in the world for you, had you any evidence.
In response to Goofy's point, here's evidence of the Asshats acting like Asshats.
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4256
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4255
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4341
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4342
That should be enough.

The Reverend Asshat
September 15th, 2008, 05:44 PM
*Points back 4 pages*


This is not evidence that nothing has been contributed. This is evidence that tom foolery has also been used.

Try again please.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 15th, 2008, 05:52 PM
Oh ffs
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, I can provide evidence that you have done the opposite, i.e. be a nusiance on the forum.

The Reverend Asshat
September 15th, 2008, 05:54 PM
Oh ffs
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, I can provide evidence that you have done the opposite, i.e. be a nusiance on the forum.


Strawman. You fail. Release the accused and expunge his record please.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 15th, 2008, 06:06 PM
OK, fine then. I'm going to stop responding, or even referring to your posts, because it is clear from this thread that no matter how many arguments I provide in support of my opinion you will refute them with either
1. An insult
2. "Liar"
3. Nonsensical gibberish
4. Finding fault with a typo in my argument
It is impossible for either of us to win, because you refuse to admit that your statements reject basic logic, and the fact that there is so little (Read: None) evidence on your side makes it impossible for you to construct an argument. You may go "I win UNNNNNG!", but tbh
1. I don't care. Why would I want to win an argument against a random idiot from across the internet?
2. I know I'm right. I've provided evidence to back up my points and ou have failed to back up your points.
3. You're doing this to wind me up. For the past few days you have done nothing but spew random bullshit everytime I have tried to introduce intelligent discussion.
Congratulations "Winner". You've succeeded in trolling on a forum. I suppose if it wasn't the lowest thing imaginable, to insult people over the internet because you're too much of a coward to insult them to their face, then you might almost be an achievement. I know who's won the argument, and I know who's done the mature thing.

rzm61
September 15th, 2008, 06:09 PM
I love how the 'kids' are the ones who are trying to be a bit mature about things around here. :icon_lol:

sudikics
September 15th, 2008, 09:00 PM
Well according to some of you if I am accused I am guilty until proven innocent. Wally I don't want the big words to confuse you here so I'll keep it simple. The accused are assumed innocent (not guilty; didn't do it) unless proven guilty. Thus this statement places the burden of proof on the accuser (the one what said somebody did something). If I am accused and enter a plea of not guilty I am not asserting a new claim, I am simply refuting the accusation directed at me thereby placing the burden of proof on the accuser.
Wrong, completely wrong. When you enter a plea of not guilty, you are asserting that you are not guilty, you are claiming that you are not guilty.

Also:

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2003/issue3/cooper3.html#Heading26

The law of evidence recognises more than one type of burden of proof. Where a defendant is obliged to prove an element of his defence (or disprove at least one element of the offence) this is most commonly referred to as a ‘legal burden’. If the defendant has such a burden and fails to persuade the jury (or magistrates) that his defence is more probably true than not, he will stand convicted.Bam. First line.

And now, some evidence, brought to you from classic movies and books.

"To Kill A Mockingbird": Atticus presents circumstantial and direct evidence that the black man (defendant) could not have raped the white woman.

"Miracle on 34th Street": The public attorney presents the evidence (the USPS mail) showing that his client (denfendant) is legally recognised as Santa Claus.

"My Cousin Vinny": Vinny demonstrates that the boys' car could not form the skid lines found at the scene of the crime, clearing the boys' names.

Penultimately, here is the basic trial advocacy help guide for the state of Indiana:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/webinit/tanford/reference/basictactics.html

I post that because it clearly shows that defendants, along with prosecutors, present witnesses and evidence.

--------------

In short: as shown above, you, LB, are required to rebutt the claim. Phalanxia has provided his evidence, namely that he cannot find any cases where PDians are attempting debate. To rebutt this, you must provide evidence to the contrary, in the form of links to cases where PDians are attempting debate.

QED.

Loki
September 15th, 2008, 11:53 PM
Wrong, completely wrong. When you enter a plea of not guilty, you are asserting that you are not guilty, you are claiming that you are not guilty...

In Statute Law perhaps. In Civil Law the playing field is open :D

The Reverend Asshat
September 15th, 2008, 11:56 PM
Wrong, completely wrong. When you enter a plea of not guilty, you are asserting that you are not guilty, you are claiming that you are not guilty.

Also:

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2003/issue3/cooper3.html#Heading26

Bam. First line.

And now, some evidence, brought to you from classic movies and books.

"To Kill A Mockingbird": Atticus presents circumstantial and direct evidence that the black man (defendant) could not have raped the white woman.

"Miracle on 34th Street": The public attorney presents the evidence (the USPS mail) showing that his client (denfendant) is legally recognised as Santa Claus.

"My Cousin Vinny": Vinny demonstrates that the boys' car could not form the skid lines found at the scene of the crime, clearing the boys' names.

Penultimately, here is the basic trial advocacy help guide for the state of Indiana:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/webinit/tanford/reference/basictactics.html

I post that because it clearly shows that defendants, along with prosecutors, present witnesses and evidence.

--------------

In short: as shown above, you, LB, are required to rebutt the claim. Phalanxia has provided his evidence, namely that he cannot find any cases where PDians are attempting debate. To rebutt this, you must provide evidence to the contrary, in the form of links to cases where PDians are attempting debate.

QED.

I get it. Because you said so someone is now guilty until proven innocent. You are still mistaken. While the one example you used that was actually valid shows the indeed the accused MAY choose to present witnesses and evidence does not show they are required. I could start spouting things about you and the first thing you would say is "show me where". Can't have it both ways.

Learn to debate.

The Reverend Asshat
September 16th, 2008, 12:02 AM
OK, fine then. I'm going to stop responding, or even referring to your posts, because it is clear from this thread that no matter how many arguments I provide in support of my opinion you will refute them with either
1. An insult
2. "Liar"
3. Nonsensical gibberish
4. Finding fault with a typo in my argument
It is impossible for either of us to win, because you refuse to admit that your statements reject basic logic, and the fact that there is so little (Read: None) evidence on your side makes it impossible for you to construct an argument. You may go "I win UNNNNNG!", but tbh
1. I don't care. Why would I want to win an argument against a random idiot from across the internet?
2. I know I'm right. I've provided evidence to back up my points and ou have failed to back up your points.
3. You're doing this to wind me up. For the past few days you have done nothing but spew random bullshit everytime I have tried to introduce intelligent discussion.
Congratulations "Winner". You've succeeded in trolling on a forum. I suppose if it wasn't the lowest thing imaginable, to insult people over the internet because you're too much of a coward to insult them to their face, then you might almost be an achievement. I know who's won the argument, and I know who's done the mature thing.

I am merely debating the issue with you. You will now accuse me of trolling a forum because I actually posted something of worth in this thread and you don't like it. And of course no Discordian has ever posted anything of value have we? You have failed to substantiate your claim and now you choose to blame me. Very mature "winner".
You refuse to accept I am not required as the accused to present valid defense and that as the accuser you are the one required to present evidence of your accusations.
I will have to reject your 'intelligent discussion' if your last post is any indication of what you consider intelligent discussion.

Learn to debate.

The Laughing Man
September 16th, 2008, 12:05 AM
Wrong, completely wrong. When you enter a plea of not guilty, you are asserting that you are not guilty, you are claiming that you are not guilty.

Also:

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2003/issue3/cooper3.html#Heading26

Bam. First line.

And now, some evidence, brought to you from classic movies and books.

"To Kill A Mockingbird": Atticus presents circumstantial and direct evidence that the black man (defendant) could not have raped the white woman.

"Miracle on 34th Street": The public attorney presents the evidence (the USPS mail) showing that his client (denfendant) is legally recognised as Santa Claus.

"My Cousin Vinny": Vinny demonstrates that the boys' car could not form the skid lines found at the scene of the crime, clearing the boys' names.

Penultimately, here is the basic trial advocacy help guide for the state of Indiana:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/webinit/tanford/reference/basictactics.html

I post that because it clearly shows that defendants, along with prosecutors, present witnesses and evidence.

--------------

In short: as shown above, you, LB, are required to rebutt the claim. Phalanxia has provided his evidence, namely that he cannot find any cases where PDians are attempting debate. To rebutt this, you must provide evidence to the contrary, in the form of links to cases where PDians are attempting debate.

QED.

http://www.beverlyajackson.com/Gayle/ThumbsUp.jpg

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Hey Billy, I know reading is difficult and thinking makes your brain hurt, but you might want to have a look at what burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28rhetoric%29) actually is.

In case the big words confuse you, it basically comes down to this. You claim that you have made a positive contribution.


No I fucking haven't.

Go back and read, dumbshit.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 12:41 AM
I get it. Because you said so someone is now guilty until proven innocent.


Maybe he lives in North Korea?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 12:42 AM
We have evidence that you have not contributed in a resourceful and constructive manner.


Actually, no you haven't. You have pointed at a few threads in which I have not contributed in a resourceful and constructive manner.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Please put another quarter in, and try again.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 12:43 AM
Oh ffs
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.


Then you admit you made an unsupportable claim?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 12:43 AM
Wrong, completely wrong. When you enter a plea of not guilty, you are asserting that you are not guilty, you are claiming that you are not guilty.



What country do you live in? :icon_lol:

The Reverend Asshat
September 16th, 2008, 01:00 AM
I think we are wasting our breath here LB.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 01:37 AM
I love how the 'kids' are the ones who are trying to be a bit mature about things around here. :icon_lol:

Uh huh.

Because we all know that endlessly bleating logical fallacies is the height of maturity.

Besides, we've kept them arguing for about 100 pages on a total of about 5 threads. Yep, that's maturity on everyones' part.

:icon_lol:

Of course we in The TRUE Church can't be bothered with silly shit like "maturity on a message board". We're too busy getting cheap laughs, at the expense of people like Wallsy and Tsar. And why would we do this? Well, we could point at the obvious, such as Tsar's hilariously pedantic bullshit, or Wallsy's pathetic little hate (he'd NEVER make it in The Church™), but it's probably just easier to put it down to a combination of misanthropy and a head full of bad wiring.

LB/TGRR,
Professional Hater.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 01:39 AM
I think we are wasting our breath here LB.

I decided THAT yesterday, when RZM took my attempt to be serious (which I only agreed to because Scikky asked) again, and shat on it in a deliberate derail (and subsequent move to IFU).

Since he obviously wants the type of posts we've doing since the troubles began, I feel I should provide them.

LB,
Giving the little people what they want.

Loki
September 16th, 2008, 01:45 AM
Leave rzm61 alone! Stop it!

By the way folks - if I'm not on-line again for a few days it's due to nasty worky shit.

I try to avoid it but - shit, it's relentless and keeps tracking me down.

This thread is piss funny btw.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 01:56 AM
Leave rzm61 alone! Stop it!



:icon_question:

TGRR,
Has been the very soul of restraint (by my standards).

Gabriel
September 16th, 2008, 02:07 AM
Leave rzm61 alone! Stop it!


:icon_lol:

rzm61
September 16th, 2008, 02:09 AM
Leave rzm61 alone! Stop it!


Quiet you!

sudikics
September 16th, 2008, 03:14 AM
I get it. Because you said so someone is now guilty until proven innocent. You are still mistaken. While the one example you used that was actually valid shows the indeed the accused MAY choose to present witnesses and evidence does not show they are required. I could start spouting things about you and the first thing you would say is "show me where". Can't have it both ways.

Learn to debate.
There were two parts to that first quote. One part is an obligation to prove your own claims, the other part is to disprove the prosecutor's claims.

I never said that the accused are guilty until proven innocent. I said that you have been accused, the prosecutor has provided evidence (an inability to find threads with PDians attempting debate), and you have failed to provide evidence yet to the contrary. Currently, your case leans to guilty.

And why are my examples invalid? Dismissing sources with a reason why doesn't get us anywhere.
What country do you live in? :icon_lol:
Here, want me to spell it out for you?


an assertion of a right (as to money or property); "his claim asked for damages"
assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing; "He claimed that he killed the burglar"
an assertion that something is true or factual; "his claim that he was innocent"; "evidence contradicted the government's claims"
demand as being one's due or property; assert one's right or title to; "He claimed his suitcases at the airline counter"; "Mr. Smith claims special tax exemptions because he is a foreign resident"
demand for something as rightful or due; "they struck in support of their claim for a shorter work day"
ask for legally or make a legal claim to, as of debts, for example; "They claimed on the maximum allowable amount"
an informal right to something; "his claim on her attentions"; "his title to fame"
lay claim to; as of an idea; "She took credit for the whole idea"
title: an established or recognized right; "a strong legal claim to the property"; "he had no documents confirming his title to his father's estate"; "he staked his claim"
take as an undesirable consequence of some event or state of affairs; "the accident claimed three lives"; "The hard work took its toll on her"
call: a demand especially in the phrase "the call of duty"Notice how the definition cites an example of someone making a counter-claim just as I was describing it.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 03:18 AM
There were two parts to that first quote. One part is an obligation to prove your own claims, the other part is to disprove the prosecutor's claims.

I never said that the accused are guilty until proven innocent. I said that you have been accused, the prosecutor has provided evidence (an inability to find threads with PDians attempting debate), and you have failed to provide evidence yet to the contrary. Currently, your case leans to guilty.



Nope. All the defense has to do is refute the evidence brought up by the prosecutor. The defense is never under obligation to provide evidence of any kind, exculpatory or otherwise.

Have you ever been in a court?

Gabriel
September 16th, 2008, 03:20 AM
Nope. All the defense has to do is refute the evidence brought up by the prosecutor. The defense is never under obligation to provide evidence of any kind, exculpatory or otherwise.

Have you ever been in a court?


+1.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 16th, 2008, 04:37 AM
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9611/cosbyfhtagnjy0.jpg

Echo
September 16th, 2008, 04:54 AM
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9611/cosbyfhtagnjy0.jpg

I LOL'ed so hard I had an asthma attack. I DON'T FUCKING HAVE ASTHMA!

tatty000
September 16th, 2008, 07:40 AM
Um, what happened? Please, I like being 'in the loop', and my current quietness is probably not related to whatever happened, so please inform me?

Tsun
September 16th, 2008, 08:15 AM
I've only read the first page of this thread so far. I'll read the rest of it after I post this.

What I don't understand is, why do the Principia Discordians have so much sway on here? Most of us are completely fine with the way the modding is (even if I might say otherwise for laughs, haha) and thats why we've stayed. No one has to be here. If you like it, you stay, if you don't, you leave. I don't see why some people who come demanding changes have the whole forum. I mean, Rzm's new rules, while a good attempt at diplomacy, basically read like "These are the laxest rules I could think of, do you approve of them? If not, I can change them up"

The Reverend Asshat
September 16th, 2008, 11:47 AM
There were two parts to that first quote. One part is an obligation to prove your own claims, the other part is to disprove the prosecutor's claims.

I never said that the accused are guilty until proven innocent. I said that you have been accused, the prosecutor has provided evidence (an inability to find threads with PDians attempting debate), and you have failed to provide evidence yet to the contrary. Currently, your case leans to guilty.

And why are my examples invalid? Dismissing sources with a reason why doesn't get us anywhere.

Here, want me to spell it out for you?
[/list]Notice how the definition cites an example of someone making a counter-claim just as I was describing it.




Your examples don't pertain to the discussion at hand. Oh, point of Law Your Honor, An inability to find evidence does not constitute evidence.

I will say this yet again; the accused is under no obligation to produce any evidence of any kind. And you have yet again failed to make a valid case. The burden of proof lies wholly on the prosecution. Your inability to locate evidence is conjecture on your part and personal opinion since what you think of as contributing may or may not be the same as mine or that of anyone else. You have no valid case. You have presented no evidence.

With a little practice in making smarter arguments you have all the makings of a fine Discordian.

Wallsy
September 16th, 2008, 01:13 PM
Well according to some of you if I am accused I am guilty until proven innocent.

Firstly, this isn't a trial, this isn't a democracy, this is a private internet forum. The only people with authority here are the moderators and admin, and they can decide your guilt or innocence on whatever basis they like. But since you're being accused only by other members, it's just a debate, not a trial of any kind. So legal rules about proof don't apply. The rules of logic do though, and the claim "you have posted nothing of value" is the less narrow claim and therefore the default position. If you'd actually read and understood the article on burden of proof, you'd know this.


I could start spouting things about you and the first thing you would say is "show me where".

If you accuesed me of never having contributed anything of value, I could point out several posts just off the top of my head where my input has been valued by the other members. The burden would be on me to provide such evidence, and I could do it. When we say that you have contributed nothing of value, the burden is on you and your only response is to accuse us of lies and bias, because you have no evidence to show.


No I fucking haven't.

Go back and read, dumbshit.

You were accused of not having made a positive contribution. You called the person who made that claim a liar and claimed he had no basis on which to make such a claim. That constitutes a claim that you've made a positive contribution at some point.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's amazing how well you can remember the rules of logic when they work to your advantage. If only your memory worked this well all the time.


Then you admit you made an unsupportable claim?

In the same way that "There's no such thing as fairies" is an unsupportable claim. It's true that no one can prove that fairies don't exist, and that's why the burden of proof is on the ones who claim that they do exist. All they have to do is show us one fairy and they win.


Wallsy.

The Reverend Asshat
September 16th, 2008, 01:22 PM
Firstly, this isn't a trial, this isn't a democracy, this is a private internet forum. The only people with authority here are the moderators and admin, and they can decide your guilt or innocence on whatever basis they like. But since you're being accused only by other members, it's just a debate, not a trial of any kind. So legal rules about proof don't apply. The rules of logic do though, and the claim "you have posted nothing of value" is the less narrow claim and therefore the default position. If you'd actually read and understood the article on burden of proof, you'd know this.




If you accuesed me of never having contributed anything of value, I could point out several posts just off the top of my head where my input has been valued by the other members. The burden would be on me to provide such evidence, and I could do it. When we say that you have contributed nothing of value, the burden is on you and your only response is to accuse us of lies and bias, because you have no evidence to show.




You were accused of not having made a positive contribution. You called the person who made that claim a liar and claimed he had no basis on which to make such a claim. That constitutes a claim that you've made a positive contribution at some point.




It's amazing how well you can remember the rules of logic when they work to your advantage. If only your memory worked this well all the time.




In the same way that "There's no such thing as fairies" is an unsupportable claim. It's true that no one can prove that fairies don't exist, and that's why the burden of proof is on the ones who claim that they do exist. All they have to do is show us one fairy and they win.


Wallsy.

You are a Good Citizen™. Just because you would feel the need to run around and gather evidence of your contributions doesn't mean everyone has to feel the same way now does it?
Perhaps you place too much credibility on your accusations? I don't. Making unsupportable accusations doesn't affect me in the slightest if you really want to know. I just enjoy the debate.
Oh, and judging from the length of this thread and the responses in it is it possible this discussion contains contribution of value? Or shall we now drift into the murky waters of opinion of what constitutes contributions of value?

rzm61
September 16th, 2008, 01:25 PM
Or shall we now drift into the murky waters of opinion of what constitutes contributions of value?

Do it!

sudikics
September 16th, 2008, 10:59 PM
All the defense has to do is refute the evidence brought up by the prosecutor.
OK, so refute it. Just calling it false doesn't refute it. Just give examples of PDians attempting debate. That would be refuting the prosecution's evidence.
Your examples don't pertain to the discussion at hand. Oh, point of Law Your Honor, An inability to find evidence does not constitute evidence. True. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." But that's doesn't apply when every possible thread has been examined. Then the evidence is there.
I will say this yet again; the accused is under no obligation to produce any evidence of any kind. And you have yet again failed to make a valid case. The burden of proof lies wholly on the prosecution. Your inability to locate evidence is conjecture on your part and personal opinion since what you think of as contributing may or may not be the same as mine or that of anyone else. You have no valid case. You have presented no evidence.
I notice that you fail to back up your statements. I have supplied several sources. Please provide sources.

sudikics
September 16th, 2008, 11:03 PM
In other news, I now have final evidence proving Phalanxia's point.

I personally have gone through every post made by a Discordian on this site, and have failed to find attempts at debate in any of them.

There. I went through every thread. Every post. No posts have any PDians attempting debate.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 16th, 2008, 11:28 PM
That was quite dedicated.
The People 1 - PDians 0
QED.

-۞-
September 16th, 2008, 11:31 PM
a) a bit of proper debate would be good.
I do try to avoid posting rubbish ins Serious Discussion but I can't resist some gags.
I'm a smart-ass what can I do? :D

b) I haven't read all the PDian posts but all the ones I did read were pap.
If anyone thinks that bunch are going to raise the bar then we're doomed.

c) I'm surprised you haven't mentioned prima facie in the evidence row.

The prosecution needs to present a prima facie case or the case fails.
However the defence is given further opportunity to rebut the case with evidence of it's own.

Gabriel
September 16th, 2008, 11:50 PM
In other news, I now have final evidence proving Phalanxia's point.

I personally have gone through every post made by a Discordian on this site, and have failed to find attempts at debate in any of them.

There. I went through every thread. Every post. No posts have any PDians attempting debate.


1. No you don't.

2. Try the Making Joe Mad thread, where a dipshit mod moved the thread from Serious Discussion, without even reading it.

3. You lying sack of shit. :icon_lol:

Tsun
September 16th, 2008, 11:53 PM
1. No you don't.

2. Try the Making Joe Mad thread, where a dipshit mod moved the thread from Serious Discussion, without even reading it.

3. You lying sack of shit. :icon_lol:
Who the fuck cares what you think? What makes you think your opinions, ideas, or thoughts matter in any way?

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 12:04 AM
Who the fuck cares what you think? What makes you think your opinions, ideas, or thoughts matter in any way?


Aww, you hurt my little feeling.....:icon_lol:

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 12:06 AM
By the way, Skippy:


There. I went through every thread. Every post. No posts have any PDians attempting debate.


Really? Then what do you call the exchange between yourself and The Reverend Asshat about the burden of proof?

*gasp*

That's right. A DEBATE.

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 17th, 2008, 12:33 AM
It was not moved until after TGRR fliped on rzm for saying it should have been posted else where

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 12:41 AM
It was not moved until after TGRR fliped on rzm for saying it should have been posted else where


How could rzm know if it should have been in SD or not, if he didn't read it?

TGRR posted it to get people thinking, open their eyes. And all he got was "sorry, pal, this doesn't belong here, it belongs there, but I wouldn't know because I didn't read it."

sudikics
September 17th, 2008, 12:43 AM
1. No you don't.

2. Try the Making Joe Mad thread, where a dipshit mod moved the thread from Serious Discussion, without even reading it.

3. You lying sack of shit. :icon_lol:
What, are you accusing me of lying? Where's your proof? I, obviously, don't have to present anything. Prove that I'm lying. Present a case where PDians are attempting debate.

And by the way, starting to debate right after does not apply to the argument. Starting to be good after being charged doesn't affect things.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 01:03 AM
Modern Architecture, and You Sold Your Soul threads, have debates in them. And that took me all of 5 seconds to find.

But you knew that.

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 17th, 2008, 01:15 AM
How could rzm know if it should have been in SD or not, if he didn't read it?

TGRR posted it to get people thinking, open their eyes. And all he got was "sorry, pal, this doesn't belong here, it belongs there, but I wouldn't know because I didn't read it."

Rzm spoke to soon and mad a bad call yes, that is true! All I am saying one persons mistake is not the whole boards. I read it and I liked it and I told TGRR so.

sudikics
September 17th, 2008, 01:20 AM
Modern Architecture, and You Sold Your Soul threads, have debates in them. And that took me all of 5 seconds to find.

But you knew that.
Modern Architecture: Thread started September 15, 2008
You Sold Your Soul: Thread started September 16, 2008

Phalanxia's post (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92142&postcount=2) starting this whole thing: September 14, 2008

And by the way, starting to debate right after does not apply to the argument. Starting to be good after being charged doesn't affect things.

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 02:01 AM
By the way, Skippy:





Really? Then what do you call the exchange between yourself and The Reverend Asshat about the burden of proof?

*gasp*

That's right. A DEBATE.


I was wondering. I also posted a few threads in SD. Should I start a thread about kittens to be considered contributing?

Fuck the lot of you.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 02:06 AM
I was wondering. I also posted a few threads in SD. Should I start a thread about kittens to be considered contributing?

Fuck the lot of you.


Apparently it has to meet their standards to qualify.

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 02:10 AM
Apparently it has to meet their standards to qualify.


Tonight I have RL stuff to do. Perhaps tomorrow I will just start trolling.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 02:12 AM
Quote: Originally Said by scikidus http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?p=93067#post93067)
And by the way, starting to debate right after does not apply to the argument. Starting to be good after being charged doesn't affect things.


The Reverend Asshat has been here since the 10th, and debating you since registering.

Next?

sailor
September 17th, 2008, 04:16 AM
I was wondering. I also posted a few threads in SD. Should I start a thread about kittens to be considered contributing?

Fuck the lot of you.

Hey, it helps. Don't knock it 'til you try it, bubba.

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 04:21 AM
2. Try the Making Joe Mad thread, where a dipshit mod moved the thread from Serious Discussion, without even reading it.


Get you're fucking facts straight.
I didn't move the thread, nor did I plan to move the thread till I started seeing what kind of discussion would take place, after what TGRR posted. However he flipped shit, so then I moved it to IFU. That way he could just keep on, keeping on.

How could rzm know if it should have been in SD or not, if he didn't read it?

That's why I asked if it belonged in SD. I made one comment, TGRR flips shit. So then I moved the thread for his use of profanities and what not.

Believe what you want, however I didn't set out to trash that thread. TGRR let me. I'm not saying I'm not a guilty party here, however no need to try to blame me for everything.

TGRR posted it to get people thinking, open their eyes. And all he got was "sorry, pal, this doesn't belong here, it belongs there, but I wouldn't know because I didn't read it."

Would you kids start getting your facts straight. So far I've seen nothing but lies come out of the lot of you, and yet you say everyone else is lying.

Rzm spoke to soon and mad a bad call yes, that is true! All I am saying one persons mistake is not the whole boards. I read it and I liked it and I told TGRR so.

Yeah, I shouldn't have opened my mouth. Clearly TGRR can't take a little bit of questioning.

I forgot we're not allowed to question the members, however members are supposed to question the mods.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 04:33 AM
I've only read the first page of this thread so far. I'll read the rest of it after I post this.

What I don't understand is, why do the Principia Discordians have so much sway on here? Most of us are completely fine with the way the modding is (even if I might say otherwise for laughs, haha) and thats why we've stayed. No one has to be here. If you like it, you stay, if you don't, you leave. I don't see why some people who come demanding changes have the whole forum. I mean, Rzm's new rules, while a good attempt at diplomacy, basically read like "These are the laxest rules I could think of, do you approve of them? If not, I can change them up"

Okay, the pinheaded racist contingent has weighed in. :icon_lol:

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 04:34 AM
Believe what you want, however I didn't set out to trash that thread.


Uh huh.

"Discordians never post anything serious"

*Discordian posts something serious*

"I didn't read that, but it doesn't belong in Serious Discussions."

EOS.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 04:37 AM
What, are you accusing me of lying? Where's your proof? I, obviously, don't have to present anything. Prove that I'm lying. Present a case where PDians are attempting debate.

And by the way, starting to debate right after does not apply to the argument. Starting to be good after being charged doesn't affect things.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4162

So maybe you WERE lying.

Or just mistaken. You seem to attempt to be fair-minded, so I'm going to assume it was a mistake.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 07:06 AM
Get you're fucking facts straight.
I didn't move the thread, nor did I plan to move the thread till I started seeing what kind of discussion would take place, after what TGRR posted. However he flipped shit, so then I moved it to IFU. That way he could just keep on, keeping on.



Did you read it before you moved it to IFU, or after? Or have you still not read it?




Yeah, I shouldn't have opened my mouth. Clearly TGRR can't take a little bit of questioning.
:icon_lol:


I forgot we're not allowed to question the members, however members are supposed to question the mods.:icon_rolleyes:

Tsun
September 17th, 2008, 12:22 PM
Okay, the pinheaded racist contingent has weighed in. :icon_lol:
You're so clever. Just throw some ad hominem arguments around and totally skip addressing anything I actually said.

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 02:44 PM
You're so clever. Just throw some ad hominem arguments around and totally skip addressing anything I actually said.


I can't imagine you ever saying anything of value.

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 02:46 PM
I can't imagine you ever saying anything of value.

But yet your comments are?

Tsun
September 17th, 2008, 02:48 PM
I can't imagine you ever saying anything of value.
I feel sorry for your lack of imagination..

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 02:49 PM
imagination..

http://www.yourpostcardsite.com/images/2323/imagination_border1.jpg

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 02:53 PM
I have to go to work now. Troll ya later fuckheads.

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 02:55 PM
I have to go to work now.

:icon_eek:
YOU HAS A JOB!?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 03:57 PM
You're so clever. Just throw some ad hominem arguments around and totally skip addressing anything I actually said.

That's all you rate.

Sorry.

TGRR,
Doesn't expend much energy debating with racists.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 03:58 PM
:icon_eek:
YOU HAS A JOB!?

Sure he does. You?

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 03:59 PM
Sure he does. You?

Yes sir!
Everyday
7:30 AM - 4 PM

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 04:01 PM
Yes sir!
Everyday
7:30 AM - 4 PM

Uh huh.

sudikics
September 17th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Quote: Originally Said by scikidus http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?p=93067#post93067)
And by the way, starting to debate right after does not apply to the argument. Starting to be good after being charged doesn't affect things.


The Reverend Asshat has been here since the 10th, and debating you since registering.

Next?
I have found no evidence of this debating, after searchng every one of his posts.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 05:50 PM
I have found no evidence of this debating, after searchng every one of his posts.

And ignoring the direct links. :icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 05:53 PM
Would you care to share them? Oh and btw, according to your philosophy we aren't allowed to just post links and comment on them.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Would you care to share them? Oh and btw, according to your philosophy we aren't allowed to just post links and comment on them.

How many times are we supposed to post them? :icon_lol:

Quit trolling, ya little shit.

Dolores
September 17th, 2008, 06:04 PM
Would you care to share them? Oh and btw, according to your philosophy we aren't allowed to just post links and comment on them.

ITT we learn that TP can't tell the difference between me and Roger.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 06:06 PM
ITT we learn that TP can't tell the difference between me and Roger.

Tsar is a little slow, you see.

Cain
September 17th, 2008, 06:19 PM
Why would we want to provide content to a failing site run by power-tripping admins?

We already have our own, much better attended site, which puts out far superior material and quite frankly there is little point in wasting time investing in this place as well, seeing how it treats its members.

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 06:22 PM
Why would we want to provide content to a failing site run by power-tripping admins?

We already have our own, much better attended site, which puts out far superior material and quite frankly there is little point in wasting time investing in this place as well, seeing how it treats its members.


So the how come everyone still sticks around here?

Dolores
September 17th, 2008, 06:26 PM
Not done yet.

Cain
September 17th, 2008, 06:26 PM
So the how come everyone still sticks around here?

How would I know? I haven't posted in nearly a week.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 06:33 PM
So the how come everyone still sticks around here?

Sometimes it's fun to rub your nose in the broken glass, you know?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 06:33 PM
Not done yet.

I think you owe me an internets. Toldja this place was unsalvageable.

EDIT: HAR HAR! Count the number of Discordian vs Non-Discordian users below.

Loki
September 17th, 2008, 09:17 PM
I think you owe me an internets. Toldja this place was unsalvageable.

EDIT: HAR HAR! Count the number of Discordian vs Non-Discordian users below.

(My emphasis) - I don't believe that. I've been shocked and dismayed by the reception you've been given but this site isn't dead.

Dolores
September 17th, 2008, 09:30 PM
I think you owe me an internets. Toldja this place was unsalvageable.

EDIT: HAR HAR! Count the number of Discordian vs Non-Discordian users below.

I totally owe you. :( You were right, I was wrong. At least you're not going to make me shave my head...

The Good Reverend Roger
September 17th, 2008, 09:34 PM
I totally owe you. :( You were right, I was wrong. At least you're not going to make me shave my head...

And wreck the hotness?

Perish the very notion.

Oh, and I have MS paint now. :icon_lol:

Dolores
September 17th, 2008, 09:39 PM
And wreck the hotness?

Perish the very notion.

Oh, and I have MS paint now. :icon_lol:


PHEAR!

Tsun
September 17th, 2008, 09:39 PM
That's all you rate.

Sorry.

TGRR,
Doesn't expend much energy debating with racists.
Good thing I'm not a racist then.

You seem to think writing "nigger" makes someone a racist. I always thought it was how someone actually felt, and how they acted in the real world, that determined if they were racist. I guess I can't think low enough to see it from your point of view.

You are a troll though, so I don't expect any sort of actual answer to this point. Don't take this the wrong way. This paragraph isn't some reverse psychology, telling you "You wont" just so you'll defy me and make an intelligent, non-ad homenim argument. I am merely making a prediction that, once fulfill, will only further cement your status as a troll.

I have to say, I'm disappointed in you...

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/733/backinthedaytrollingmeajg4.jpg

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Tsun needs mohr rep.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 09:54 PM
I have found no evidence of this debating, after searchng every one of his posts.


Do you even know the definition of a debate?

Tsun
September 17th, 2008, 09:58 PM
Do you even know the definition of a debate?
I would not be surprised if Sciky invented a time machine and went back in time to fix the comma splices in the definition of "debate".

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 10:01 PM
Do you even know the definition of a debate?

define:debate (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:debate)



take your pick.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 10:03 PM
define:debate (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:debate)



take your pick.


Thank you, Captain Obvious. However, I was not asking you.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 10:04 PM
*Is unsure if Rzm pwned Gabriel, or if Gabriel pwned himself*

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 10:06 PM
Meh. I'm just a hack who made post after post in debate and then tried to post things of content in SD and got shit on for it. So now that silly little game is over. Here's a thought. One of you jackboot lickers pick a fucking topic, start a thread and let's get it the fuck on.

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 10:06 PM
*Is unsure if Rzm pwned Gabriel, or if Gabriel pwned himself*


You're a fucking idiot.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 10:09 PM
I like how you could think of nothing else to say. Am I hated so much you've already used all of the available insults?

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 10:09 PM
*Is unsure if Rzm pwned Gabriel, or if Gabriel pwned himself*


Neither.

By saying there's no evidence of debating by TRA, which there is, the question of whether or not scikidus (or you, or rzm.....) even knows what debating is has been raised.

The evidence is there, you're all just glossing it over to try to prove your point. Unfortunately, we're better.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 10:11 PM
You're a fucking idiot.


He's just one of those douchebags that yells "PWNED!" in support of his buddies, regardless of whether or not it actually happened.

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 10:12 PM
I like how you could think of nothing else to say. Am I hated so much you've already used all of the available insults?

Why would I waste my time thinking of something original on a POS like you? Dear god that's quite an opinion of yourself you have there. Shitball.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 10:14 PM
Diddums.

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 10:14 PM
Neither.

By saying there's no evidence of debating by TRA, which there is, the question of whether or not scikidus (or you, or rzm.....) even knows what debating is has been raised.

The evidence is there, you're all just glossing it over to try to prove your point. Unfortunately, we're better.

Don't throw me into the mix.

I have nothing to do with this nobody is 'debating' issue.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 10:16 PM
Don't throw me into the mix.

I have nothing to do with this nobody is 'debating' issue.


Then why'd you put the search link in? I know full well what a debate is AND how to use Google. If you have nothing to do with this, stay the fuck out of it. :icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 10:18 PM
So why are you here?

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 10:18 PM
So why are you here?

To fulfill your every fantasy dear boy.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 10:19 PM
So why are you here?
,

The Reverend Asshat
September 17th, 2008, 10:22 PM
To fulfill your every fantasy dear boy.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 10:24 PM
Evidently, you deliberately misunderstood the question.
http://www.wilddamntexan.com/kids/demotivators/Strawman.jpg
Why are you here?

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 10:24 PM
Then why'd you put the search link in? I know full well what a debate is AND how to use Google. If you have nothing to do with this, stay the fuck out of it. :icon_lol:

You asked about the definition of debate.

Don't ask if you don't want a response.

We are Googlists after all.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 10:33 PM
Are you really this stupid?


/rhetorical question.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 17th, 2008, 10:36 PM
Which one of us?

rzm61
September 17th, 2008, 10:37 PM
Me, stupid.

Gabriel
September 17th, 2008, 10:39 PM
Which one of us?


It's hilarious that you have to ask.

Loki
September 17th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Me, stupid.

Statement or question?
:icon_razz:

-۞-
September 17th, 2008, 11:15 PM
Am I the only one who thinks they've walked in to the argument sketch?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Loki
September 17th, 2008, 11:18 PM
Am I the only one who thinks they've walked in to the argument sketch?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

No you're not!

-۞-
September 17th, 2008, 11:19 PM
Yes I have.
People seem to be debating whether they're having a valid debate.

Loki
September 17th, 2008, 11:25 PM
Yes I have.
People seem to be debating whether they're having a valid debate.

Sorry - I was continuing the sketch!

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 12:39 AM
PHEAR!

Should I do a PROPER treatment of Wallsy?

Dolores
September 18th, 2008, 12:47 AM
Should I do a PROPER treatment of Wallsy?

Fuck yes.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 12:52 AM
Good thing I'm not a racist then.



Too late for that, pinhead.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 12:52 AM
Fuck yes.

Gotcha. Gonna take some time to crop his head, given that fucking beard.

Seriously. Are they ALL sheep herders down there?

The Reverend Asshat
September 18th, 2008, 01:11 AM
Evidently, you deliberately misunderstood the question.
http://www.wilddamntexan.com/kids/demotivators/Strawman.jpg
Why are you here?


To fulfill your every fantasy dear boy.

rzm61
September 18th, 2008, 01:13 AM
To fulfill your every fantasy dear boy.

:icon_lol:
This made me LOL (IRL)

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 01:16 AM
So why are you here?
,

Wrath, obviously.

The Reverend Asshat
September 18th, 2008, 01:23 AM
Wrath, obviously.


TITCM

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 18th, 2008, 02:06 AM
Yes I have.
People seem to be debating whether they're having a valid debate.
QFT and that was an awesome sketch.

sudikics
September 18th, 2008, 02:11 AM
Do you even know the definition of a debate?
Yes, I do. Are you again accusing me of lying? If so, feel free to present proof, in the form of links to posts made by PDians attempting debate prior to September 15, 2008.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 02:22 AM
Yes, I do. Are you again accusing me of lying? If so, feel free to present proof, in the form of links to posts made by PDians attempting debate prior to September 15, 2008.

I did. You ignored it.

sudikics
September 18th, 2008, 02:23 AM
I'm sorry, but I probably missed it. I've been on the busy side over the past few days. Could you possibly repost the links, or at least point me to your original post?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 02:28 AM
I'm sorry, but I probably missed it. I've been on the busy side over the past few days. Could you possibly repost the links, or at least point me to your original post?

Yeah.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4162 Edited, but original is still on post 2, and debate predates the bullshit.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4051 Satire, asking people to re-examine assumptions

sudikics
September 18th, 2008, 02:43 AM
Yeah.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4162 Edited, but original is still on post 2, and debate predates the bullshit.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4051 Satire, asking people to re-examine assumptions
You do realize what you just did, right?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 03:10 AM
You do realize what you just did, right?

Enlighten me.

Gabriel
September 18th, 2008, 03:50 AM
Are you again accusing me of lying?


Actually, no. If I were, I'd say it bluntly.

Gabriel
September 18th, 2008, 03:51 AM
You do realize what you just did, right?

Proved his point?

-۞-
September 18th, 2008, 07:23 AM
Sorry - I was continuing the sketch!

No you weren't.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 18th, 2008, 08:55 AM
I'd post something, but I'm waiting for Sciki's bombshell.

sudikics
September 18th, 2008, 01:34 PM
Enlighten me.
1. You just provided the counter-examples (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92350&postcount=34) you declared you would not attempt to provide (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93616&postcount=204).

2. You just validated my point (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92509&postcount=66), that saying someone's claim is wrong is in itself a claim. I claimed to have read every thread (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93055&postcount=111), you called me a liar (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93060&postcount=114) (saying my claim was false), and following your rules on burden of proof, I had you present the arguments on your charge (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93616&postcount=204).

By presenting the evidence for your claim, you have validated my point, that saying a claim is false is itself a claim.

The Reverend Asshat
September 18th, 2008, 02:30 PM
1. You just provided the counter-examples (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92350&postcount=34) you declared you would not attempt to provide (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93616&postcount=204).

2. You just validated my point (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92509&postcount=66), that saying someone's claim is wrong is in itself a claim. I claimed to have read every thread (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93055&postcount=111), you called me a liar (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93060&postcount=114) (saying my claim was false), and following your rules on burden of proof, I had you present the arguments on your charge (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93616&postcount=204).

By presenting the evidence for your claim, you have validated my point, that saying a claim is false is itself a claim.

You really are pathetic aren't you? Because he chose to your tiny little mind used it to justify your inane argument. Get a fucking grip dumbass.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 18th, 2008, 02:31 PM
Oh, so now Sciki is the enemy? Why am I not surprised?

The Reverend Asshat
September 18th, 2008, 02:34 PM
Oh, so now Sciki is the enemy? Why am I not surprised?

Hush, adults are talking.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 02:47 PM
1. You just provided the counter-examples (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92350&postcount=34) you declared you would not attempt to provide (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93616&postcount=204).

2. You just validated my point (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92509&postcount=66), that saying someone's claim is wrong is in itself a claim. I claimed to have read every thread (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93055&postcount=111), you called me a liar (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93060&postcount=114) (saying my claim was false), and following your rules on burden of proof, I had you present the arguments on your charge (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=93616&postcount=204).

By presenting the evidence for your claim, you have validated my point, that saying a claim is false is itself a claim.


1. Yeah, I was responding to YOU, not to Tsar, so I decided to be civil. Your point?

2. No, I didn't. I decided to demonstrate my point. I was not REQUIRED to do so. For example, in a court of law, the defense is ALLOWED to present exculpatory evidence, but is not REQUIRED to. The burden is still on the prosecutor.

So I haven't really validated anything.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Oh, so now Sciki is the enemy? Why am I not surprised?

No. Now be quiet. Your betters are discussing things.

sudikics
September 18th, 2008, 05:15 PM
You really are pathetic aren't you? Because he chose to your tiny little mind used it to justify your inane argument. Get a fucking grip dumbass.
I don't know where all of this hostility arose from, so I'm going to ignore this.
1. Yeah, I was responding to YOU, not to Tsar, so I decided to be civil. Your point?

2. No, I didn't. I decided to demonstrate my point. I was not REQUIRED to do so. For example, in a court of law, the defense is ALLOWED to present exculpatory evidence, but is not REQUIRED to. The burden is still on the prosecutor.

So I haven't really validated anything.
1. Except when you said you wouldn't do this before.
(http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92350&postcount=34)
2. Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly do you reject the notion that saying a claim is false is in itself a claim?

Tsar Phalanxia
September 18th, 2008, 05:22 PM
Your betters are discussing things.

[Citation needed]

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 05:31 PM
I don't know where all of this hostility arose from, so I'm going to ignore this.

1. Except when you said you wouldn't do this before.
(http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showpost.php?p=92350&postcount=34)

Okay, any further claims that you want "serious discussion" will be henceforth met with the laughter and scorn they merit.


2. Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly do you reject the notion that saying a claim is false is in itself a claim?

Because I'm not a sophist. Because I understand basic logic.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 05:32 PM
[Citation needed]

No it isn't. Hush.

sudikics
September 18th, 2008, 05:58 PM
Okay, any further claims that you want "serious discussion" will be henceforth met with the laughter and scorn they merit.
Er, can you explain why?
Because I'm not a sophist. Because I understand basic logic.
So can you point out where in logic it says this? (Note: looking for future reference here, not to be an annoying little shit. :D)

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Er, can you explain why?


Nope. Our conversation has ended, effective your last post.

:D

This thread is now about train wrecks.

http://andymoore.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/464px-train_wreck_at_montparnasse_1895.png

CupcakeCupcake
September 18th, 2008, 07:13 PM
http://meltaylor.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/train-wreck-1.jpg

Tsar Phalanxia
September 18th, 2008, 07:14 PM
I.e. You surrender.

CupcakeCupcake
September 18th, 2008, 07:19 PM
nope, thread got boring, going in circles, subject changed, like so:
this thread is now about kittens and coffee mugs
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o134/Teufelgott/funny-pictures-kittens-coffee-cups.jpg

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 07:23 PM
I.e. You surrender.

Nope. Scikky has revealed that he actually ISN'T interested in serious conversation, so I'm changing the subject to something more interesting.

So don't put words in my mouth, you little shit.

Thanks.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 18th, 2008, 07:24 PM
I call it as I see it.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 18th, 2008, 07:25 PM
I call it as I see it.

Nobody gives a fuck. :icon_lol:

CupcakeCupcake
September 18th, 2008, 07:25 PM
need glasses

The Reverend Asshat
September 19th, 2008, 12:42 PM
I call it as I see it.


Of course you do.

Does your mommy know you are using her computer?

Wallsy
September 19th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Nope. Our conversation has ended, effective your last post.

:D

This thread is now about train wrecks.

I guess you're not familiar with how forums like this work. See, each thread is about a certain topic. If you don't want to discuss that topic, you don't post in that thread. If you want to discuss a new topic, you post a new thread.

It's really quite simple, I'm sure you'll get the hang of it in no time.


Wallsy.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 19th, 2008, 05:04 PM
I guess you're not familiar with how forums like this work. See, each thread is about a certain topic. If you don't want to discuss that topic, you don't post in that thread. If you want to discuss a new topic, you post a new thread.

It's really quite simple, I'm sure you'll get the hang of it in no time.


Wallsy.

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

Eat a dick. :D

Tsar Phalanxia
September 19th, 2008, 05:16 PM
http://homepage.mac.com/laddie/orangepeelmorris/spotted_orange-peel_dick.jpg
Yum yum.

-۞-
September 19th, 2008, 09:16 PM
Tsar, You're dick is spotted.
I'd see a doctor about that.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 20th, 2008, 10:11 PM
Tsar, You're dick is spotted.
I'd see a doctor about that.

Looks like he's totally infested with penis ticks, too.

Tsar Phalanxia
September 20th, 2008, 10:20 PM
Epic fail on your part Roger.

The Good Reverend Roger
September 20th, 2008, 10:24 PM
Epic fail on your part Roger.

Yeah, so you say.

TGRR,
Knows that an inscrutable, un-funny joke on your part is failure ONLY on your part.

The Reverend Asshat
September 20th, 2008, 11:20 PM
Looks like he's totally infested with penis ticks, too.

Aren't most pricks?

The Good Reverend Roger
September 20th, 2008, 11:29 PM
Aren't most pricks?

I KNOW MINE IS!

CupcakeCupcake
September 20th, 2008, 11:51 PM
Wallsy....... why do you sign all your posts at the bottom?
We can see who you are, it's unnecessary. It's almost like saying "over" at the end of every sentence to the person sitting next to you on the couch.

rzm61
September 21st, 2008, 01:55 AM
Wallsy....... why do you sign all your posts at the bottom?
We can see who you are, it's unnecessary. It's almost like saying "over" at the end of every sentence to the person sitting next to you on the couch.

THANK YOU!


I've brought this up before and he has some bullshit reason.

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 21st, 2008, 02:00 AM
I have also brought it up but really he says it is nice or something then he would not sign his reps... if I remember correct.

rzm61
September 21st, 2008, 02:47 AM
Yeah, something about personalizing the messages. :icon_rolleyes:

Yet he doesn't feel the need to sign the reps....because he's a coward.

CupcakeCupcake
September 21st, 2008, 02:51 AM
Yeah, something about personalizing the messages. :icon_rolleyes:

Yet he doesn't feel the need to sign the reps....because he's a coward.

Because an avatar, a name, a sig and all the other crap it puts up with every post isn't personal enough?
I mean c'mon guy. Put your "signiture" in your sig line.

rzm61
September 21st, 2008, 03:01 AM
Because an avatar, a name, a sig and all the other crap it puts up with every post isn't personal enough?
I mean c'mon guy. Put your "signiture" in your sig line.

EXACTLY!

Cupcake, you're preaching to the choir.

Dr Goofy Mofo
September 21st, 2008, 03:03 AM
I think he said something about the Sig is to impersonal and he would rather take the time to type it.

Dolores
September 21st, 2008, 03:27 AM
THANK YOU!


I've brought this up before and he has some bullshit reason.

It is because he is a leprechaun from upside-down-land.

Echo
September 21st, 2008, 04:14 AM
It is because he is a leprechaun from upside-down-land.

I like leprechauns. They taste like chicken.

Echo.

sailor
September 21st, 2008, 06:45 PM
I like leprechauns. They taste like chicken.

Echo.

Are you going to offer up some kind of a midget or leprechaun sized ring? I mean what exactly are we looking at here, besides 60-70 years of little smileys in white boxes with thin ziggly lines all over them.

Parents!!!

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm160/ispeak4thetrees/scared-1.gif

Don't fxxing do that to me, echo!

Not NOW!

:icon_eek:

Loki
September 21st, 2008, 08:07 PM
Are you going to offer up some kind of a midget or leprechaun sized ring? I mean what exactly are we looking at here, besides 60-70 years of little smileys in white boxes with thin ziggly lines all over them.

Parents!!!

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm160/ispeak4thetrees/scared-1.gif

Don't fxxing do that to me, echo!

Not NOW!

:icon_eek:

Megs. Can you translate that into sane please :D