Skepticism and The Normal

[Curnir]

wrong thread post

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you wish better answers, you need to ask better questions.

Is that part of your "conflict resolution" methodology too?

ETA: And your response is also flawed as shown in the following analogy:
Prof. Hawking is giving a lecture on cosmology to a group of high-schoolers (to get them interested in the subject or some such). He is trying to explain the finite-no-boundries concept and people are not getting it. He doesn't then blame the students for asking the wrong questions to understand the concept.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I am going over the theoritical arguments on this forum, and am not making a formal presentation of the practical application, as that would involve me publically revealing proprietary and copyright protected information.

Aha! Here we finally get to the meat of the issue.

Your framework cannot do what you claim it does. You try to hide this fact by showering us with big, steaming piles of sophistry. You claim that practical applications of OS012 are "secret".

I've got it now. Thanks for making that clear.

If all of these rebuttals sum up to: 'Okay, this is true, but not interesting' or 'this isnt new, but true, ' I'm fine with that. I can assure you in practice, this is alarmingly new and very interesting, yet it is not neccesary I show or prove that for the sake of the theoritical argument. I'm not here to find kudos and applause.

Good thing, that.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If you wish better answers, you need to ask better questions.

I have. You claim that the answers are a secret.

You're not worth my time.

 

[WWHP]

Is that part of your "conflict resolution" methodology too?

ETA: And your response is also flawed as shown in the following analogy:
Prof. Hawking is giving a lecture on cosmology to a group of high-schoolers (to get them interested in the subject or some such). He is trying to explain the finite-no-boundries concept and people are not getting it. He doesn't then blame the students for asking the wrong questions to understand the concept.

You're framing a lecture as a discussion, and I am framing a discussion as a discussion. Two distinct 'games', not the same. And even if they were, if one student is asking questions about 'God' to understand 'finite-no-boundries' concept, I assume Stephan Hawking would at least think that the questions are not refrential to the answers regarding physics.

Jonny5 asked the best and most refined questions, and he got the best answers. I can only answer the question from your point of view as best I see it. If you don't tit for tat with me, then you and I can't possibly follow each other for certain.

Look, all of you are well educated, far more so than myself, I imagine. You all hold a value to critical thinking, we all do. I challenge you like I want you to challenge me. I assume you can question better, I assume you can ask more questions and define where you dont understand or where things get muddled for you.

 

[WWHP]

Your framework cannot do what you claim it does. You try to hide this fact by showering us with big, steaming piles of sophistry. You claim that practical applications of OS012 are "secret".

Well here we have a conflict of idea. I can say for almost certainty that it can do what I say it can do. I have performed it hundreds of times with virtually perfect success and consistant results. That's where my truth value lay, right there in direct research, in the thick of it.

Yours seems like an uninformed opinion to me. You can have that opinion, I dont care, it's not valuable to me for you to see what it can or cannot do yet. And since you haven't succeeded in providing any convincing or critical argument regarding the governing propositions that was'nt easily refuted, I assume you dont know what you are talking about.

 

[WWHP]

I have. You claim that the answers are a secret.

You're not worth my time.

stop misleading yourself. The formalized framework in online discussion is irrelevant to the basic propositions, the behavior is the behavior.

If the propositions are false, then the framework can't possibly work. If the propositions are true, then in theory the framework can work. It's no more complex than that.

You wont understand the framework until you understand the propositions, just like Stephan Hawkins could say that the students could not test the theory in the laboratory until they understood the theory.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well here we have a conflict of idea. I can say for almost certainty that it can do what I say it can do. I have performed it hundreds of times with virtually perfect success and consistant results. That's where my truth value lay, right there in direct research, in the thick of it.

SO YOU CLAIM. Unsupported claims are worthless around here.

Yours seems like an uninformed opinion to me.

Well, of COURSE it's uninformed, because you won't say how OS012 is useful.

You can have that opinion, I dont care, it's not valuable to me for you to see what it can or cannot do yet. And since you haven't succeeded in providing any convincing or critical argument regarding the governing propositions that was'nt easily refuted, I assume you dont know what you are talking about.

And since you refuse to answer straightforward questions about how OS012 might actually accomplish some of the things you claim it can, I assume you are a troll.

Goodbye, troll.

 

[WWHP]

And since you refuse to answer straightforward questions about how OS012 might actually accomplish some of the things you claim it can, I assume you are a troll.

Goodbye, troll.

ahhh, back to the claims of me trolling when my arguments cannot be refuted. Old trick, doesnt work. You're trying to find clever ways of making me wrong so you wont have to consider my arguments.

I introduced my argument at the top of this thread. I gave two examples of arguments that crumble in the face of the third value, and then I continued to argue those assertions and rebut. That's what this discussion is about. I directly addressed all questions relative to the argument. I addressed all questions relative to the propositions.

Anyother answers given by myself to any other questions are graavy, and anything I don't address outside of my O/P is IRRELEVANT.

 

[pv+]

ahhh, back to the claims of me trolling when my arguments cannot be refuted. Old trick, doesnt work. You're trying to find clever ways of making me wrong so you wont have to consider my arguments.

I introduced my argument at the top of this thread. I gave two examples of arguments that crumble in the face of the third value, and then I continued to argue those assertions and rebut. That's what this discussion is about. I directly addressed all questions relative to the argument. I addressed all questions relative to the propositions.

Anyother answers given by myself to any other questions are graavy, and anything I don't address outside of my O/P is IRRELEVANT.

You have addressed nothing, and there is no third value. This thread and all your bluster are a sham and you know it. You set up this thread, just as you did at Badscience, just so that you can be disgustingly abusive to everyone who disagrees with you. Continually accusing forum members of not being able to understand something, when you know full well there is nothing to understand, is abusive.
You don't have an intellectual leg to stand on and you can only continue this charade by indulging in a stream of thinly disguised abuse and misrepresentation. Apart from the displays of your awful arrogance and your stupendous ignorance you have enlightened no-one. You are a troll, plain and simple.

 

[WWHP]

You have addressed nothing, and there is no third value.

This is a demontratably false statement, containing absolutly no objective truth whatsover.

 

[pv+]

Bubblefish, I presume you have read the following quote from this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2320617&postcount=769

I know you have, but reading it a second or third time will do you no harm - always assuming you can understand any of it.

Dear all internet trolls:

Please, before posting, use a spell check in the word processor of your choice. Also, please take a few moments to look up the differences between "no" and "know" as well as "your" and "you're", and of course "their" "there" and "they're."

In short, please do not expect a serious evaluation of your ideas if you appear to have the writing capabilities of the average 3rd grader. This type of poor communication skill forces us to want to pinch your cheek and say "Isn't that cute! You think you're being original!" rather than pay any attention to your feeble attempts at discourse.

You see, to explain our situation further, there is this event in the history of the internet which sadly brings into question the intelligence anyone who types l1ke th1z. We call this Eternal September. You see in September 1993 America Online opened the gates of their corral to flood Usenet (and eventually the entirety of the internet) with drooling, half-witted simpletons that began to post retardedly inane ideas under the misguided notion that they were clever, or revolutionary, or that no one in the world had ever heard this idea before. Those early trolls may have been the first to preach the word of Jesus, Allah, Xenu, Amway, or whatever other topic was the flavor of the week, but that was 13 years ago. It was irritating then, it is just laughable now. You are not original, you are not revolutionary, and you are not clever in the slightest. Please refrain from pretending that you are so that the rest of us can continue our nice cup of coffee and conversation on this little corner of the internet we call "our forum."

If you would like to learn some basic english skills, then we invite you to stay and order yourself a Chai Latte. Otherwise, please excuse yourself or face the derision, chiding and condescention of 13 years of dealing with idiots such as yourself from people who are far more clever and original.

Thank you in advance.

-The small consortium of literate and reasoning internet posters.

Ok? Clear?

My thanks to fowlsound.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You're framing a lecture as a discussion, and I am framing a discussion as a discussion.

No, I am framing it that "we" are the audience that you are presenting your idea to, and that you are the presentor. A discussion on your idea would require that we already be familiar with it.

Two distinct 'games', not the same.

Bullspit. The onus is on you to present your idea in a manner that is intelligible by your audience. You have failed to do so, by in large.

And even if they were, if one student is asking questions about 'God' to understand 'finite-no-boundries' concept, I assume Stephan Hawking would at least think that the questions are not refrential to the answers regarding physics.

Stop making assumptions and listen to the questions being asked. Stop trying to filter them through your preconceived notions of how this thread should or should not go and treat them for what the person asking them intended, not for what you wish them to be.

Jonny5 asked the best and most refined questions, and he got the best answers. I can only answer the question from your point of view as best I see it. If you don't tit for tat with me, then you and I can't possibly follow each other for certain.
Look, all of you are well educated, far more so than myself, I imagine. You all hold a value to critical thinking, we all do. I challenge you like I want you to challenge me. I assume you can question better, I assume you can ask more questions and define where you dont understand or where things get muddled for you.

Stop blaming your audience for the fact that few people are making sense of your gibberings.

 

[WWHP]

No, I am framing it that "we" are the audience that you are presenting your idea to, and that you are the presentor. A discussion on your idea would require that we already be familiar with it.

exactly, and that's a poor comparison. You are not my audience, you are my opponent in a debate/discussion. I put forth my argument regarding the third value, and only need to address arguments which claim to refute mine.

The onus is on you to present your idea in a manner that is intelligible by your audience. You have failed to do so, by in large.

The onus is also on you to be clear about what you do not understand. I dont second guess my opponent, I simply go on his or her words, and nothing more.

Stop making assumptions and listen to the questions being asked.

I am reading your text, not listening. When i make an assumption, I tell you what I am assuming. I assume you do not have any critical argument for the sole reason that you're not providing one.

Stop trying to filter them through your preconceived notions of how this thread should or should not go and treat them for what the person asking them intended, not for what you wish them to be.

this thread should be exactly as it is, and nothing more. I can account for how this thread got to where it is.

Stop blaming your audience for the fact that few people are making sense of your gibberings.

I am not blaming anyone, nor am I frustrated.I am thrilled with this discussion. I have made my point. If you were truly interested, then you would provide reasonable and critical questions. You're not, your making proclaimations about me being wrong because you're not getting the lecture you think you need to understand this.

I dont care if you disagree with me, I only care if your disagreement is founded on the proof of the falsity of these propositions. It honestly doesn't appear to me that it is.


Bubblefish

 

[Z]

I notice, though BF, that you have refused to reply to my posts; either my over-long posts from before, nor my simple request for you to demonstrate how OS012 deals with the conflict of ideas between the required death of a heretic, and the idea that there is no God, as I requested such a demonstration earlier.

I've asked for a very simple and concrete demonstration. We have two persons whose ideas are in conflict. One has the idea that his faith requires him to kill a heretic. The other has the idea that God does not exist.

How, then, does OS012 resolve this conflict? Indeed, how do both sides 'win' in this case?

 

[JQH]

Bubblefish, in post 858. you clain that OS012 can be used to resolve conflict and predict human behaviour. Prove it by resolving the conflict of ideas on this thread and by predicting how the rest of us are going to behave (on the thread, so prediction and results are visible to all).

 

[pv+]

I can account for how this thread got to where it is.

Of course you can. You set it up for trolling and that's precisely what you've done. You have lied, flannelled and prevaricated your way through it with no respect for anyone, with results even a drivelling idiot like you could predict.
You don't need voodoo or some fantasy gobbledygook called OS012, or BS360, to figure out that if you torment people and insult them they tend to not like it, and they are inclined to treat you as the cretinous troll you undoubtedly are.

 

[pv+]

This is a demontratably false statement, containing absolutly no objective truth whatsover.

Your statement is, objectively, illiterate garbage.

You are bogus, Blobby. All your assertions are bogus. All your illiterate ramblings amount to the alphabetic equivalent of random electrostatic interference. Your pretence is as transparent as the Emperor's new clothes. You are the equivalent of the garrulous, drooling drunk collapsed in the pub toilet, slurring at everyone about how you are the greatest philosopher it has been mankind's privilege to know. Just replace the excessive alcohol with an excessive amount of whatever your favourite recreational drug (escape from reality) happens to be, and there you have one fully functioning, fully gibbering, Internet troll who posts under the name Bubblefish.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Your statement is, objectively, illiterate garbage.

You are bogus, Blobby. All your assertions are bogus. All your illiterate ramblings amount to the alphabetic equivalent of random electrostatic interference. Your pretence is as transparent as the Emperor's new clothes. You are the equivalent of the garrulous, drooling drunk collapsed in the pub toilet, slurring at everyone about how you are the greatest philosopher it has been mankind's privilege to know. Just replace the excessive alcohol with an excessive amount of whatever your favourite recreational drug (escape from reality) happens to be, and there you have one fully functioning, fully gibbering, Internet troll who posts under the name Bubblefish.

Don't hold back, man, tell us how you really feel!

 

[Basilio]

Please guys, 5 pages ago I figured that he has never won a real argument, he simply wears people down to the point where they walk away in disgust at the amount of time they wasted on verbal bullsh*t. Then he claims that he won, and their arguments "have crumbled into dust". Really, a very childish analogy for someone who claims to be so advanced.

Come over and enjoy one of our lovely dog or cat threads!

basilio