Questions for Lucianarchy

[T'ai Chi]

So where's Claus' IP address evidence?

I think a 'skeptic' who goes around telling others to provide evidence etc. all the time and makes lists of questions and demands answers (and has MANY posts to some people, sometimes over 4 times as many as they do to him..) should naturally be held to a higher standard.

So where's Claus' IP address evidence?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, you have claimed "very similar IP's". You have cliamed the IP's are over 2000 miles apart. Yet, you have provided no evidence what so ever. You have become the biggest hypocrite ever to walk the boards. The very thing you dispise, you have become.

O.......K. You didn't get it, then. Let me explain:

The Earth is ca. 40,000 km in circumference.

Get it yet?

Karma.

What, a new prediction??

a) Why would Lucianarchy refuse to answer CFL questions arguing that he'd be glad to answer in the relevant thread (remember his signature?), but now shots back in this thread?

.....because Lucianarchy is not all that smart?

b) How a particular, non-inclusive speculation such as T'ai Chi's can be impartial?

T'ai Chi is not "impartial". He has serious personal issues with a growing number of people here. He tries constantly to bring attention to his own petty feuds. He promises "critiques", "analyses" and "counts", but ignores that he can never deliver, or that these "counts" and "analyses" are fundamentally flawed. Those who point it out go on his list of enemies.

c) Will I be "badgered" as CFL advocate (or hipocrite or what-have-you), just as the woos cried before?

Probably. If you focus on issues instead of the woos.

I think a 'skeptic' who goes around telling others to provide evidence etc. all the time and makes lists of questions and demands answers (and has MANY posts to some people, sometimes over 4 times as many as they do to him..) should naturally be held to a higher standard.

Again, you point to a number, as if it means anything. It doesn't. What matters is the content. (Let's see how clever you are here...)

As for higher standards? Not at all. Everybody should be met with the same requirements.

As for the IP? Do I claim that it is Lucianarchy? Just yes or no, please.

 

[gnome]

As for the IP? Do I claim that it is Lucianarchy? Just yes or no, please.

I hate to jump in again, but you're trying to have it both ways again. You claim that it is "Very likely", but when pressed for evidence you say you aren't making any claim.

There is NO WAY that you would let someone you were debating get away with this. I have applauded you in the past for that strong position. Absent providing information WHY we should believe it is "very likely," consistency demands you reprase your statement.

 

[T'ai Chi]

.....because Lucianarchy is not all that smart?

Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't have anything to do with your IP address evidence, dear.

As for the IP? Do I claim that it is Lucianarchy?

You claimed they were similar. What is your evidence they are similar?

Quit stalling.

 

[CFLarsen]

I hate to jump in again, but you're trying to have it both ways again. You claim that it is "Very likely", but when pressed for evidence you say you aren't making any claim.

There is NO WAY that you would let someone you were debating get away with this. I have applauded you in the past for that strong position. Absent providing information WHY we should believe it is "very likely," consistency demands you reprase your statement.

Whoa....just a second. Do I claim that it is Lucianarchy, or do I claim that it is likely that it is him? Those two are not the same.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Whoa....just a second. Do I claim that it is Lucianarchy, or do I claim that it is likely that it is him? Those two are not the same.

Ridiculous attempted 'out', Clauzzz.

What is your evidence they are similar? What is your evidence it is highly likely?

You're saying if you attach 'highly likely' onto something then you didn't make a claim or don't have to provide evidence for your claim?? That's a new one.

 

[gnome]

Whoa....just a second. Do I claim that it is Lucianarchy, or do I claim that it is likely that it is him? Those two are not the same.

They are not the same, but the latter still requires evidence if you expect people to take you seriously, and not to believe it is an unfounded smear. You can't hide behind "very likely". Especially since you claim to have some evidence, which you have made by saying there are "similar ISP's". That claim is worthless unless you share the details behind it.

Come on... I'm borrowing from YOUR book here, in questioning you... what the heck is up?

 

[gnome]

It is "very likely" that CFLarson secretly is the stuffed animal molestor who keeps breaking into homes. Very similar facial features.

No, I'm not going to say how I know that.

How is this different from your claim?

 

[CFLarsen]

They are not the same, but the latter still requires evidence if you expect people to take you seriously, and not to believe it is an unfounded smear. You can't hide behind "very likely". Especially since you claim to have some evidence, which you have made by saying there are "similar ISP's". That claim is worthless unless you share the details behind it.

As I have explained, I am working on that. Until then, do what you feel you have to do. If you think that makes it an unfounded claim or whatever, then do that.

Do you think that we should stop talking about something, unless we have evidence of it?

Come on... I'm borrowing from YOUR book here, in questioning you... what the heck is up?

I wrote a book?

 

[gnome]

As I have explained, I am working on that. Until then, do what you feel you have to do. If you think that makes it an unfounded claim or whatever, then do that.

Do you think that we should stop talking about something, unless we have evidence of it?

I believe that if you do not yet have evidence you can share, that you should not represent that you have evidence.

I suggest rephrasing it, "I personally believe Lucianarchy may be the poster. I may be able to present evidence of this soon, I will add that information when it is available."

Or something like that. Seriously, phrasing it your way makes you look like a jerk who's full of bull.

I wrote a book?

Call it a playbook, made from observing your debating tactics.

 

[CFLarsen]

I believe that if you do not yet have evidence you can share, that you should not represent that you have evidence.

The evidence is not strong enough. Yet.

I suggest rephrasing it, "I personally believe Lucianarchy may be the poster. I may be able to present evidence of this soon, I will add that information when it is available."

Or something like that. Seriously, phrasing it your way makes you look like a jerk who's full of bull.

But that is exactly what I have been saying all along: I personally believe Lucianarchy may be the poster. I may be able to present evidence of this soon, I will add that information when it is available.

I'm sorry if I haven't been clear before. I hope that helps.

Call it a playbook, made from observing your debating tactics.

Ehh...what's a "playbook"?

 

[gnome]

But that is exactly what I have been saying all along: I personally believe Lucianarchy may be the poster. I may be able to present evidence of this soon, I will add that information when it is available.

I'm sorry if I haven't been clear before. I hope that helps.

It would help, if you would edit the OP and restate it so--MINUS the hint about ISP evidence that you are unwilling to provide specifics of yet.

 

[CFLarsen]

It would help, if you would edit the OP and restate it so--MINUS the hint about ISP evidence that you are unwilling to provide specifics of yet.

I can't edit the post. Forum rules.

I won't rule out a "New & Improved Questions For Lucianarchy" on the new forum, though... However, it will probably not be without the "hint", as you call it. It will be more clear, though.

 

[Lucianarchy]

No, but one of the mods can.

Upchurch, you have seen that Claus wants to make amends and correct his mistake. Please now do so for him. Thank you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

After repeated pleas for evidence, Claus wrote:

As I have explained, I am working on that.

Classic line...! It will go in the hall of shame for sure.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The evidence is not strong enough. Yet.

There is no evidence so far, just your opinions.

I'm sorry if I haven't been clear before. I hope that helps.

That's a good wittle skepdic. Was dat so difficult? Sheesh.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, but one of the mods can.

Upchurch, you have seen that Claus wants to make amends and correct his mistake. Please now do so for him. Thank you.

No, no, no...that's not what I said. I said the "hint" would be there, to clarify. I did not say anything about correcting any "mistake".

As usual, you try every trick in the book to twist and turn things to your advantage.

That's a good wittle skepdic. Was dat so difficult? Sheesh.

Do you really think that posts like these help you? They do nothing for your credibility.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What doesn't help your credibility is claiming something, then running from it, then finally admitting that it was your opinion...

 

[Lucianarchy]

No, no, no...that's not what I said. I said the "hint" would be there, to clarify. I did not say anything about correcting any "mistake".

Not in so many words, but we all know now that that is what you meant. You have no evidence at all. You have made a claim without providing evidence. You have realised that that is illogical for a skeptic and now want to correct your mistake. That's good. You have said that you are unable to make amends due to the editing restriction. That's OK, we'll get one of the mods to do it for you.

Mods. in this thread, the question which asks about a stupid anti-randi quote and to which Claus says it is "very likely" that it is mine, Claus says he is unable to provide evidence so will you please remove the question.

Thanks.

 

[Lothian]

Mods. in this thread, the question which asks about a stupid anti-randi quote and to which Claus says it is "very likely" that it is mine, Claus says he is unable to provide evidence so will you please remove the question.

Thanks.

Will you then answer some others ?