Book 2 – Page 110

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby MarbitChow » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:00 pm

Somna wrote:This is why I've said Fate is "Reactive" instead. Although the motive in each case would be "to make a Prediction come true," so that could apply to Active Fate as well.
But then what determines what the important "Fate Points" that Fate is readjusting towards? What determines what can be predicted? If Fate is passive, these 'nodes' just are. If it is active, it's picking them, and for a reason.
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Spruce » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:00 pm

Well how about a natural disaster: for example a volcano spontaneously erupts in a hex that Wanda is in, even when the probability of a volcano erupting would be close to nothing, there would still be infinite volcanoes burning infinite Wandas. Saying that it is impossible for a volcano to erupt when Wanda is present means there is some omnipotent force (fate?) eliminating those branches of the time.
Spruce
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:34 pm

Spruce wrote:Saying that it is impossible for a volcano to erupt when Wanda is present means there is some omnipotent force (fate?) eliminating those branches of the time.
Volcanoes only erupt where there are volcanoes and earthquakes only happen on fault lines. There are places all over the world where those things are impossible (not just unlikely) without anyone having to do anything to make them impossible, and that's pretty clearly even more true for Erfworld than it is for the real world. Plus I don't think anyone would suggest that volcanoes erupt by chance; they are determined by natural processes underground.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby bensans » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:58 pm

I am sure I am not the first one to notice this, but some characters (Parson, Wanda, Jillian, Jack?) are often portrayed with white in their eyes whereas everyone else only have monochromatic circles. Anyone knows the meaning of this?
User avatar
bensans
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:00 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Oberon » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:14 pm

MarbitChow wrote:
Oberon wrote:Of course he had a good reason to use "boop" instead of just not having any characters curse at all until he moved to his own site. What would be more awkward: No cursing at all until the comic changed venues, or "boop"? Given that Parson basically dropped an epic curse storm right as he was summoned, I think the latter was the better tool for overcoming the restriction.
Those aren't the only 2 conditions. A third option - no cursing at all, even in the new venue - could easily exist.
That option would eliminate the epic "FUCK YOU!" I don't really see that happening. In fact, it didn't. So your third option is only theoretical.
Kreistor wrote:Swearing is an ideal vector for that demonstration, so I still think he would have used it, even if he could have found another way.
You can think that all you like. That's completely contrary to what actually happened, as is typical with your "deep thoughts". "Boop" would not have been a part of the comic had it not originally been hosted at GitP.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Kreistor » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:22 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Kreistor wrote:Under Passive Fate, there is only one Path, the Path it knows you took.
Predictamancy is magic and that means the power to do the impossible; it doesn't need there to be only one Path when it is powerful enough to search infinite paths.


Irrelevant. You don't get to define "magic". Rob does.

Imagine time like a river that branches repeatedly. As you think of it, Fate would be outside of time, able to see the whole river at once from its source to its countless destinations. When a Predictamancer uses Predictamany from a certain point in the river, the magic somehow examines all branches that are ahead and finds statements or ideas that happen to be true in every branch.


Impossible, without an Active force involved. Suggesting this demands that there is no randomness.

Clay denies random chance can kill Wanda. There are two possible scenarios. First, that an Active Force is preventing random death happening to her. Second, an Observer that can tell that no random event will kill her. I call these Active and Passive Fate. Your third scenario, where random chance can not kill her and only one outcome exists for her without an active force creating these outcomes is both statistically impossible and absurd, since it denies causality. Your version, where no matter what she does she comes to the same events, demands an Active role for Fate, and if you insist upon Free Will, it must also be subtle. I really don't know how you're twisting your mind to allow the third possibility without an active force involved.

That is why the power of Predictamancy is limited; there are so many things about the future that they don't know, because most things aren't the same in every path, and that is also one reason that Erfworlders have free will.


No, your logic does not reach that conclusion. You are failing to explain how all streams reach one event, without an Active Fate. You're simply ignoring the question. You treat it as if it can happen as an inevitability, just because you state it's possible. Erfworld is a realm of chaos and random death. Why is Wanda immune regardless of her actions, if no Active Force is involved to ensure her survival? Why does no stream lead to the cliff everyone else can fall off?

Kreistor wrote:I've seen people cry to manipulate. I am beyond "believing" when it comes to Delphie. I lack sympathy for that devil.
You really hate Delphie! I'm surprised. Of course I saw her as a bit of a villain in the beginning of Book 0, and I shared Wanda's dislike for Delphie, but when it became clear that Delphie was right all along and Wanda was wrong, I started to have sympathy for Delphie.


No, not hate. I merely think she was an arrogant, self-centered wretch that viewed her analytical ability as beyond everyone else's understanding and consequently when she overstepped and took on responsibility by rationalizing her Ruler's thoughts irrelevant, she got the appropriate punishment, to whit, death. It is one thing to think you're better than everyone else. It's another to act upon that belief and fail to obtain alternative opinions on your course of action.

She lied, but she was doing it to try to save Goodminton.


No, she wasn't going to save Goodminton. None of her Predictions foresaw that outcome. Had she sat down and gotten everyone together, explained the whole thing, and said, "Is there any way we can save this place?" then she might have gotten a flash of insight from someone else that could have achieved that end. Her own plan couldn't achieve that end at all, and she knew it.

Delphie knew in advance that Clay would fall in love with Wanda, which gives Delphie a strange perspective on things and I think it justifies Delphie's behavior pretty well. I would love to know why she is such a devil to you.


Are you saying that Clay's love for Wanda justifies something? Last I checked, I don't get a choice to love someone... it happens or not. How can you justify anything done to Wanda by Clay's emotional betrayal of Delphie? Emotional betrayals are beyond our control, and not justification for anything at all, much less justification for acting against an innocent third party that isn't even aware of it!

Volcanoes only erupt where there are volcanoes and earthquakes only happen on fault lines. There are places all over the world where those things are impossible (not just unlikely) without anyone having to do anything to make them impossible, and that's pretty clearly even more true for Erfworld than it is for the real world. Plus I don't think anyone would suggest that volcanoes erupt by chance; they are determined by natural processes underground.


Yeah, I would. The above is entirely 100% false. You describe only the most commonly known events.

Earthquakes: Southern Ontario in Canada is far from any fault line, but suffers up to 6.0 Richter scale earthquakes every 3-5 years. This is because the ground is "rebounding". 12K years ago, a mile thick sheet of ice had pressed the continent down for 1000K years. With that weight gone, it is rising, causing earthquakes. Earthquakes happen wherever rock moves, not just at fault lines. (Rock also moves in volcanoes, which cause earthquakes, too.) These earthquakes can centre anywhere in the region from Western Lake Superior to Eastern Lake Ontario, from lower Lake Erie to north of Ottawa.

Volcanoes: Volcanoes form where magma presses up into the plate. This happens anywhere, and they can form where none existed due to brownian motion in the magma below (though that is incredibly rare). In places like Hawaii and Yellowstone, it's hot spots below the plate that punch up through, but that's a little predictable since it forms a line of volcanoes. The Pacific plate is punching back up and hitting the bottom of the North American, which traps magma and pushes it up into the continent, below Nevada. This can cause volcanoes anywhere in the region. But a hot spot can theoretically hit anywhere on any continent, since magma is fundamentally chaotic. While there is a causal reason for a volcano's eruption, we cannot detect that reason, so new volcanoes appear as random events to us.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Kreistor » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:49 pm

Oberon wrote:You appear to be forgetting about your "there's foolamancy afoot! Jack must be alive!" posts which came afterwards. You can't throw one post "in my face" and hope that I'll forget about the others. And, yet again I'll have to "throw in your face" that whatever your original opinion was is still and will always remain irrelevant to this discussion. I taunt you for your 7 comic lag of clear thinking.


Oberon wrote:I'm getting a good laugh out of this. Wasn't it you who just came to the startling conclusion, 7 strips after Jack died, that he was really dead?


I'm not thinking clearly? You seem to think that if you just keep talking, we'll overlook that you're flip-flopping, grasping desperately for anything that can rationalize your continued participation in this argument, and trying to somehow get me to overlook your own obsession to provoke me into... what? Why on earth do you think provoking me is going to come out well for you? You haven't even come close to embarrassing me. You're now trying to pretend you came up with things I already admitted to, as if they're some great insight. No one is buying your spin job, pal.

So, having abandoned the claim I didn't accept Jack's death the way you originally claimed, are you prepared to do the right thing and admit your mistake?
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby effataigus » Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:59 pm

Sir_Dr_D wrote:So no real proof. I am just throwing a plausible, but low proof theory out there. The reason that Jack and the dragon, and Parson fighting the doll, were drawn interspersed, was that rolls were taken from Jack to give to Parson.
Ah, ok... makes sense. I miss stuff about this comic on the first read with some regularity and was wondering if I missed the Doll's level. I think your theory is a neat idea. T'would be tough to prove, but we have good reason to believe that luckamancy exchanges have been going off like crazy in this battle, so it's certainly not a stretch to say that it could be true for the Parson battle as well. Unfortunately, we don't know enough about how competent/incompetent the two sides are to say that Jack definitely paid off a numbers debt Parson owed.

Hmm, related speculation that ties into the other discussions... could Jack have been paying off a numbers debt that Parson was about to owe? Certainly not by my favorite interpretation of fate, but seems plausible by some of ye others'.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Oberon » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:18 pm

Kreistor wrote:
Oberon wrote:You appear to be forgetting about your "there's foolamancy afoot! Jack must be alive!" posts which came afterwards. You can't throw one post "in my face" and hope that I'll forget about the others. And, yet again I'll have to "throw in your face" that whatever your original opinion was is still and will always remain irrelevant to this discussion. I taunt you for your 7 comic lag of clear thinking.

Oberon wrote:I'm getting a good laugh out of this. Wasn't it you who just came to the startling conclusion, 7 strips after Jack died, that he was really dead?

I'm not thinking clearly? You seem to think that if you just keep talking, we'll overlook that you're flip-flopping, [...]
I'm flip-flopping? You continue to amuse! You're the admitted flip-flopper, that's the entire reason I laughed at you to begin with. You've admitted it, and I've posted quotes from you where you admit it. So drop the hypocrisy.

Kreistor wrote:So, having abandoned the claim I didn't accept Jack's death the way you originally claimed, are you prepared to do the right thing and admit your mistake?
I abandon nothing, because I never made that claim. I've said many times that not only do I not care about your original position on Jack's death, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. But you've got nothing else to fall back on, so you just keep repeating yourself. You cannot attempt to re-write history or change the subject in an attempt to wriggle away from your own words.


Kreistor's Record of Comprehending English
Occam's Razor - Fail
Anthropomorphism - Fail
Prejudicial - Fail
Two-faced - Fail
Evidence - Fail
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:19 pm

Kreistor wrote:Irrelevant. You don't get to define "magic". Rob does.
Defining magic doesn't mean anything except specifying its boundaries and limitations. All I'm doing is saying that Rob has the power to make magic do anything he chooses to make it do, no matter how powerful. If you're saying that magic has less power than that, then you're the one trying to put limits on the power of magic and putting yourself in the place of Rob.

Kreistor wrote:Impossible, without an Active force involved. Suggesting this demands that there is no randomness.
If time is a branching river then the course of events down that river can take random turns at some branches.

Kreistor wrote:Your third scenario, where random chance can not kill her and only one outcome exists for her without an active force creating these outcomes is both statistically impossible and absurd, since it denies causality.
I don't understand how it denies causality and it doesn't look statistically impossible to me. What I see is a situation that seems highly plausible: Wanda was a valuable caster in an area that had high probability of being totally conquered by Haffaton for a long distance in every direction (since we know this is what eventually happened). Given that situation, it seems very probable that no matter what Wanda chose she would inevitably end up in Haffaton. Is that what you are calling statistically impossible? What would you have Wanda do to prevent it?

Kreistor wrote:I really don't know how you're twisting your mind to allow the third possibility without an active force involved.
I'm just taking it on a case-by-case basis and checking how believable it could be that the Predicted outcome is also an inevitable outcome, and so far I haven't seen any Prediction that couldn't possibly be inevitable.

Kreistor wrote:You treat it as if it can happen as an inevitability, just because you state it's possible.
I treat it as if it can happen as an inevitability because my judgement suggests that could be true, on top of the fact that I believe Delphie when she says there is no force that would prevent Wanda from croaking herself.

Kreistor wrote:Erfworld is a realm of chaos and random death. Why is Wanda immune regardless of her actions, if no Active Force is involved to ensure her survival?
There are several active forces working to ensure Wanda's survival. Wanda herself is probably the most active and hardest working of all of them, especially with her ability to build an army from the dead that requires no upkeep. Wanda's not going to choose to go into melee fights using her own hands where some lucky blow could croak her. On top of that, any side that wants Wanda's powers would try to take her alive, and we know that at least Haffaton is one of them.

Kreistor wrote:No, not hate.
You have a strange concept of hate if you'd wish death upon people that you don't hate.

Kreistor wrote:I merely think she was an arrogant, self-centered wretch that viewed her analytical ability as beyond everyone else's understanding and consequently when she overstepped and took on responsibility by rationalizing her Ruler's thoughts irrelevant, she got the appropriate punishment, to whit, death.
I agree with all of those accusations, but I think your recommended punishment is overly harsh. Remember how the Overlord rejected the Prediction about Wanda; it's possible that he would also have rejected Delphie's Predictions if she had been open and honest, and if that were true then Delphie's plan to trick her Overlord might actually have been Goodminton's only hope. It's very harsh to sentence her to death when she might be a hero, even if it's only a slim chance.

Kreistor wrote:No, she wasn't going to save Goodminton. None of her Predictions foresaw that outcome.
The deal would have saved Goodminton if people had just kept blindly following Delphie for a little bit longer. It wasn't Predicted, but it seems obviously true to me. At least Goodminton would have bought itself many more turns than it otherwise had.

Kreistor wrote:Are you saying that Clay's love for Wanda justifies something? Last I checked, I don't get a choice to love someone... it happens or not. How can you justify anything done to Wanda by Clay's emotional betrayal of Delphie?
Just as Clay's emotions were beyond his control, so were Delphie's emotions beyond her control. I'm not saying Wanda deserved to be treated the way Delphie treated Wanda, but Delphie didn't do it because she was a bad person. Perhaps "justify" is the wrong word, but Delphie was only human.

Kreistor wrote:Yeah, I would. The above is entirely 100% false. You describe only the most commonly known events.
I acknowledge your superior understanding of geology. Thank you for the correction. Even so, Erfworld geology is surely very different from Stupidworld geology, so I have no reason to rule out the possibility that volcanoes and earthquakes are far more limited and maybe even totally predictable in Erfworld. Surely no one would object to the idea that volcanoes might not have free will.
Last edited by Lilwik on Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:48 pm

MarbitChow wrote:
Somna wrote:This is why I've said Fate is "Reactive" instead. Although the motive in each case would be "to make a Prediction come true," so that could apply to Active Fate as well.
But then what determines what the important "Fate Points" that Fate is readjusting towards? What determines what can be predicted? If Fate is passive, these 'nodes' just are. If it is active, it's picking them, and for a reason.


Easy copout answer is the Titans.

My best non-copout guess is that units, objects and sides have an unknown Fate-related stat that is generated when the unit/object/side/whatever forms. This stat can trigger Predictions involving them, hence all the commentary in Book 0 about how Wanda has a huge Fate. (I wouldn't be surprised if there are different things/concepts all being shoved under the single "Fate" name to help cause more confusion.)

You know what? I'm just going to call that theoretical stat "Plot Armor" because that's exactly what it acts like anyway.

My personal belief is that Predictamancers unconsciously trigger Predictions (and thus those "Fate Points") themselves when provided enough information about said unit, object, or side with Plot Armor. As a result, the Predictamancer can also trigger a Prediction themselves, if a Prediction exists, by researching for information about the subject as well. (Knowing what information to look for and how to look for it is probably a part of what makes the difference between the basic Predictamancer, the Adept, and the Master class.)

This does mean that there are probably more "Fate Points" than Predictions in this theory, and you'd need to be a really knowledgeable Predictamancer to trigger all of them.

This is completely different from the little same-turn-or-next-turn things that Predictamancers are 100% accurate at as well.

When I brought up Marie unconsciously triggering Predictions about Wanda, someone argued that Marie could have just saw Wanda, actively use her Predictamancer senses on her, and got the Prediction that way. But that doesn't explain Marie having her second slack-jawed Prediction immediately when Jillian spoke Wanda's name at the Faq meeting later on, since Wanda was not physically in that meeting to scan in the first place. Until we catch another Predictamancer in the middle of receiving a Prediction, Predictions (and ONLY Predictions) being a reaction to information and not being a standard part of the Predictamancer active senses makes more sense to me.
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:12 pm

Somna wrote:I'm just going to call that theoretical stat "Plot Armor" because that's exactly what it acts like anyway.
This exactly why I dislike Active Fate. Some people think lack of free will ruins stories for philosophical reasons, but that's nothing when compared to Plot Armor.

Somna wrote:My personal belief is that Predictamancers unconsciously trigger Predictions (and thus those "Fate Points") themselves when provided enough information about said unit, object, or side with Plot Armor.
I expected that someone would eventually suggest that Predictamancers actually cause their own Predictions to come true. It's a natural suspicion, especially for people who believe in Active Fate, but it would mean that each Predictamancer could be blamed for every bad Prediction she ever makes, which makes it hard to see having a Predictamancer as a good thing.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:14 am

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:I'm just going to call that theoretical stat "Plot Armor" because that's exactly what it acts like anyway.
This exactly why I dislike Active Fate. Some people think lack of free will ruins stories for philosophical reasons, but that's nothing when compared to Plot Armor.

Somna wrote:My personal belief is that Predictamancers unconsciously trigger Predictions (and thus those "Fate Points") themselves when provided enough information about said unit, object, or side with Plot Armor.
I expected that someone would eventually suggest that Predictamancers actually cause their own Predictions to come true. It's a natural suspicion, especially for people who believe in Active Fate, but it would mean that each Predictamancer could be blamed for every bad Prediction she ever makes, which makes it hard to see having a Predictamancer as a good thing.


No, that's different. Think more like the Observer Effect. The "Fate Point" is there but it's not set to anything until a Predictamancer gets a Prediction about that point. Once the Predictamancer gets a Prediction for that "Fate Point," it stays that way and doesn't change further. (Keep in mind that it's possible to get more information to clarify it further, but it won't change pre-existing information.)
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Kreistor » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:48 am

Oberon wrote:
Kreistor wrote:
Oberon wrote:You appear to be forgetting about your "there's foolamancy afoot! Jack must be alive!" posts which came afterwards. You can't throw one post "in my face" and hope that I'll forget about the others. And, yet again I'll have to "throw in your face" that whatever your original opinion was is still and will always remain irrelevant to this discussion. I taunt you for your 7 comic lag of clear thinking.

Oberon wrote:I'm getting a good laugh out of this. Wasn't it you who just came to the startling conclusion, 7 strips after Jack died, that he was really dead?

I'm not thinking clearly? You seem to think that if you just keep talking, we'll overlook that you're flip-flopping, [...]
I'm flip-flopping? You continue to amuse! You're the admitted flip-flopper, that's the entire reason I laughed at you to begin with. You've admitted it, and I've posted quotes from you where you admit it. So drop the hypocrisy.


Changing your opinion in the face of new information is not flip-flopping. It is the only rational choice. It proves I'm a normal, reasonable, rational human being. It proves I can change, am not hardheaded or irrationally stubborn, and can objectively reconsider my beliefs. I welcome opportunities like this, since people around here have a tendency to think those things about me. I love to prove them wrong, and I'm not about to change that to avoid accusations from someone that is acting the way you are now. And I don't think anyone is going to find fault in me for treating such accusations as the disingenuous ego defense they obviously are.

To flip-flop, you need to respond to peer pressure (the politician's method), or as in your case, switch back and forth between two conflicting viewpoints. (Which is also double-speak, by the way, in the classic Orwellian sense, since you maintain two mutually exclusive facts as true.)

You vilify me because I did not believe Jack died until 7 comics after he died.

You have stated that it is irrelevant that I held the opinion in the first reaction thread that Jack was dead.

Both facts are quoted above for all to see. If my original belief in Jack's death was in fact irrelevant, than you were wrong to vilify me for it. If it was okay to vilify me for it, it was not irrelevant. They are mutually exclusive statements that cannot resolve.

So keep talking. You're only handing me more ammunition with every desperate attempt. And you can't avoid it, either. No amount of spin can pull you out of that death spiral you've gotten yourself into.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Oberon » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:45 am

Kreistor wrote:Changing your opinion in the face of new information is not flip-flopping. It is the only rational choice.
If the change was based upon normal, rational information, I'd agree. Your change was based upon your sudden conclusion that foolamancy was somehow involved, without any supporting evidence and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. And you kept at that fallacious conclusion until about 7 comics had passed during which much evidence was presented that Jack was indeed dead.

That doesn't prove that you're a "normal, reasonable, rational human being", it proves that you jump to a conclusion totally unsupported by evidence and then back that conclusion to the hilt regardless of conclusive evidence to the contrary.

And only later, after something (who knows what...) triggered your sanity routine, did you manage to flip back again to your original conclusion.
Kreistor wrote:To flip-flop, you need to respond to peer pressure (the politician's method), or as in your case, switch back and forth between two conflicting viewpoints. (Which is also double-speak, by the way, in the classic Orwellian sense, since you maintain two mutually exclusive facts as true.)
Bullshit. To flip-flop you only need to change your mind. The motives behind that change are irrelevant. They could be political, sure, but they could also be for any one of a number of other reasons. You do not get to define the term by your limited scope. It surpasses you, just as does logic.

Kreistor wrote:You vilify me [...]
Ah yes, more hyperbole. You're very good at using it to try to support your points. But just as you have attacked others for citing only the most common causes of volcanism by citing the least common (all the while ignoring other very valid causes), I call bullshit on your choice of words. Vilify is "To make vicious and defamatory statements about", I only call attention to your false statements and your attempts to avoid being assigned responsibility for your own words.

I will need to add vilify to my list of terms you obviously do not understand.


Kreistor's Record of Comprehending English
Occam's Razor - Fail
Anthropomorphism - Fail
Prejudicial - Fail
Two-faced - Fail
Evidence - Fail
Vilify - Fail
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lipkin » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:58 am

Could you two just drop it?
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby zilfallon » Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:39 am

Lipkin wrote:Could you two just drop it?


I actually like reading Oberon's replies, especially his "Kresitor's Record of Comprehending English" section is fun, no offense intended, Kreistor :D
rkyeun wrote:Roses are red.
Violets are blue.

Image
User avatar
zilfallon
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:47 am
Location: Magic Kingdom

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Archameades » Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:10 am

Lipkin wrote:Could you two just drop it?


Agreed; it's getting offensive just to read, especially, the "Comprehending English" section.
Archameades
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby LordBiscuit » Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:58 am

They don't even make points related to the story any more, just bashing at each other.
We really need a new update so we can drop this discussion.
User avatar
LordBiscuit
Tool + Erfabet + Pins + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Tool + Erfabet + Pins + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:27 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby MarbitChow » Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:59 am

Image
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Daefaroth, Google [Bot], Jules.LT, kefkakrazy, Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests