Book 2 – Page 110

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby mortissimus » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:05 pm

drachefly wrote:
Kreistor wrote:
Lilwik wrote:The view from outside nondeterministic time simply sees the points in time where nondeterministic choices are made as splitting off one course of events from another, and Fate doesn't know which course is chosen. Fate doesn't have to know because Fate sees the whole of time, including everything that follows in each branch, both the ones that are chosen and the ones that are missed, and all of the later branches of the chosen and the missed.


How you can propose a nondeterministic world that always resolves to a single outcome, I do not know.


He said above that it wouldn't always resolve to a single outcome, but there is a single outcome it will happen to resolve to.

Like, if you have a contingency table, and Fate only guarantees certain points on it will be reached. Between them it can branch out and reconverge. That said, you're totally right that the reconvergence will require a lot of cleanup work, funneling things back into their fated destinations. This is anything but passive.


Active funneling is only needed if you assume that the normal state of things is ever diverging branching. Otherwise there can be convergence points that will be passed in all branches, which means those (and only those) can be predicted.

For those claiming Predictomancy becomes to much like Mathamancy, I wil give you Marie using predictomancy actively (not the "I so predict this tidbit"):

http://www.erfworld.com/2013/03/inner-peace-through-superior-firepower-%E2%80%93-episode-065/

“It’s all zeros!” said Marie, sounding upset. “This is not Fate’s plon for Olive Branch. Fate doesn’t want her croaked this way.”

“Fate can suck a sweaty sausage!” said Jillian, making a pair of fists. What, was the entire game rigged against Faq? Small chances she could deal with, but zero chance was just unfair. Was that how the Titans played, for real? The world was run by cheaters? Everything was all Carnymancy? “Shoot the broom, then!” she snapped. “The broom’s the problem, right? Shoot for the dismount, ’n let her fall inside the city!”


Sounds rather similar to the bracer.

Edit: This tread is btw ridicolous in size. May Rob and Xin grant us another comic update soon, before the thread gains consciousness (with or without free will) and takes over the rest of the forum.
mortissimus
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Shai_hulud » Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:39 pm

mortissimus wrote:Edit: This tread is btw ridicolous in size. May Rob and Xin grant us another comic update soon, before the thread gains consciousness (with or without free will) and takes over the rest of the forum.
considering almost every other thread ends up like this...
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby ftl » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:39 pm

It is Fated for threads to end up that way.

Therefore, all the participants don't have Free Will. Or do we?
ftl
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Shai_hulud » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:34 am

I meant maybe it's already happened.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Denar » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:18 am

Oh wow, how did we forget about this section of Book 0?

“Oh, one? Against a high-level caster? I mean...” Jillian couldn’t see what harm it would do. “We can try it,” she said. “But it would have to be one really lucky shot.”

“Luck would matter only if the shot didn’t,” said Wanda.

“Mm,” she heard Marie grunt in assent.

Jillian sensed some deeply-frustrating caster nonsense behind that grunt. But she had to bite. “Whaddya mean?”

I mean that it matters to Fate whether I hit Olive or not,” said the Croakamancer. “Fate will borrow Numbers from somewhere. With your permission, I will place the spell on the tower. Then the Predictamancer will cast. Sister Marie will let me know when I am meant to shoot.”


Active Fate, and Marie agrees with Wanda.

Then later:

“It’s all zeros!” said Marie, sounding upset. “This is not Fate’s plon for Olive Branch. Fate doesn’t want her croaked this way.”


Despite Marie searching for any moment where Wanda fires the shot, none of them manage to croak her. It has a plan and wants and won't allow any scenario where Olive is croaked.


And an aside, why we don't like determinism in stories:

“My life,” said Banhammer slowly, “is worse than nothing if I am only Fate’s mechanism, its...blind tool. I would be a better man. I would be wise. I would be just. I would be good. And,” he said, drawing a deep breath, “I would be free to be all of those things, by the choices of my own mind and heart.”


Banhammer clearly agrees that determinism makes everything a hollow endeavour. He wants to be free, not a mechanism that blindly believes it is free.
Denar
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby drachefly » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:48 am

Lipkin wrote:I mean, no one is controlling your actions but you when you are drunk. Your judgement is being impaired, and you are more suggestible, but there is still no grand manipulator taking control of you.
That... that's not a sufficient criterion for having free will at all. It just removes one possible failure mode. Your judgement is a vital component of your free will. Impair that, and your free will is impaired.

Lipkin wrote:You are still responsible for everything you do while inebriated. If you weren't, "I was drunk" would be a valid legal excuse for wrong doing. Which it is not.
You are held responsible for actions done while drinking for two reasons:

1) if we didn't, it would be a cheap way to get out of anything .
2) you did decide to get drunk.

None of that means that while you're falling-down drunk you have unimpaired free will.

Lipkin wrote:I'm not a religious person. But what I'm describing is what people talk about when they say god gave man free will. God is not controlling us, only man.
Yes, and the notion's origin helps explain why it's such a confused notion.


Lilwik wrote:
drachefly wrote:
Lilwik wrote:Nondeterminism is not the same thing as randomness
How so? Do you mean in the sense that Quantum Mechanics splits the two?
No, I mean the simplest thing imaginable: randomness is not the only way to be nondeterministic. Determinism means that the future of the world is determined by the state of world and some laws. Nondeterminism is anything else, which includes randomness, but just as well includes magical puppeteers pulling all the strings and having a chuckle when they trick us into believing in determinism and have our empirical experiments provide consistent results all entirely by the whim of the puppeteers.
Ahem. What determines what the magical puppeteers do next? You've just added a layer of indirection, not a solution.

Lilwik wrote:Edit: In other words, a nondeterministic universe could be pure noise, but it could also be anything, including a universe that looks exactly like our universe. Nondeterminism makes no positive statements about what you can expect from examining the universe.
Granted, but only to the extent that pure noise can produce our universe, even for a moment as a Boltzmann brain.


Lilwik wrote:
drachefly wrote:He said above that it wouldn't always resolve to a single outcome, but there is a single outcome it will happen to resolve to. Like, if you have a contingency table, and Fate only guarantees certain points on it will be reached. Between them it can branch out and reconverge.
No, you and Kreistor seem to be allowing the conversation to lead you away from the facts of the matter as found in the story. There is no single outcome and there is no reconvergence. Surely you don't think that Wanda's Fate to serve Olive meant Wanda had only one possible outcome and that all her paths converged to the same place. They are only the same place if you think the destruction of Goodminton and the death of Wanda's family is trivial. Is "Wanda serving Olive while Tommy is alive" the same outcome as "Wanda serving Olive while Tommy is dead"?
No, no, no. I mean that the way it happened in the story is the outcome. As it turns out, that is the latter case. The convergence was referring to the parts of the world that Fate didn't care about. They could be anything, as far as Fate was concerned - as long as they didn't contradict what Fate did care about.
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lipkin » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:36 am

So someone who has brain damage to their judgement center doesn't have free will? Free will to me says that you are not under the control of someone or something else. Alcohol does not control you, it effects your ability to control yourself.
User avatar
Lipkin
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Shai_hulud » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:10 pm

Actually there are people who suffer brain damage to the parts of their brains that appear make to decisions/have motivations. Those people just sit and do nothing until told to do something by some one else. As far as we can tell, they aren't choosing to obey the orders either. They just react to the order, like they react to the stimulus of having to urinate. So yeah, the evidence seems to suggest that some people can lose their ability to choose from brain damage.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby multilis » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:11 pm

I think in our world, free will is not just black and white but also can be shades of gray.

Example 1: You always said no to drugs as part of your free will. Enemies kidnap you and tie you up and inject Heroine drug into you on regular basis. You become very addicted. They untie you and offer you the means to inject more heroine into yourself, when you are going through extreme withdrawal.

Example 2: World war 3 has supposedly started and your new "friends" an evil cult take you to their "bomb shelter" for "your own safety" , feeds you only cabbage soup, and deprives you of sleep for many days as part of their brainwashing method. In this state your mind has much more trouble resisting the teachings of their charismatic "messiah". The messiah needs to mate with all the women over 13 years of age to create the holy seed, while the men work to fortify the bunker from eventual attack by demon outsiders. [World War 3 didn't start, was only an elaborate deception]

(yes some people may resist extremes, but majority may "choose" to do what they normally would have never chosen to do before... free will is reduced)

Milgard experiment suggests that 2/3 of people from almost any culture can be "convinced"/fooled at least once to follow directions and electrocute/murder someone else.

...

Some parts of africa have problem with kids being taken from homes at young age and brainwashed into soldiers/killing machines. Better than adults, they do what they are told, don't ask questions, don't rebel.
...

Scientists are now openly working on "remote-controlled cockroach" (in news in last few days). Science fiction has similar things done to human.
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:42 pm

drachefly wrote:Ahem. What determines what the magical puppeteers do next? You've just added a layer of indirection, not a solution.
That question is a trick; isn't it? Nothing determines nondeterministic things; the question has no answer, so either you are trying to get us to forget that they are nondeterministic, or else you are having a hard time imagining nondeterminism.

Maybe this will help. Determinism is an extraordinary claim about the structure of the universe; that events are constrained by some set of rules that define those events exactly from the current situation, so if you could know all the rules and all the details of the current situation then you could know everything that would ever happen in the future. Unlike most extraordinary claims, this one has extraordinary evidence from our everyday lives so we tend to believe it, but it's still a very specific idea about the way the universe works much like a religion and it could very easily be wrong if its claims aren't 100% true. If even one subatomic particle has nonlawful movement, that's a nondeterministic universe. Of course I can't describe how that particle moves because any description could be taken as a law, but please don't jump straight to random for its movements; there's a whole world of possible nondeterministic movements between lawful and random. Maybe the particle has social relationships with other particles that influence (but not determine) its movements.

The most important defense that a determinist has against an incompatibilist is the extraordinary complexity of the human brain. It is surely more than enough to deterministically explain free will and everything we value about the experience of being human, if only we completely understood its operation. If you want to imagine a nonrandom nondeterministic universe then simply take away that brain. Imagine a universe that is exactly like real life in every detail, but instead of a brain humans explicitly have souls inside their heads and the soul contains no inner workings, no way to store memories, no circuits or pathways, not even moving molecules as in a fluid. Examining this frustrating object scientifically forces people to conclude that no laws could ever be devised to explain exactly how a person is able to think and the actions that people take. Of course people aren't random in that universe and psychological guidelines could be devised, but laws are impossible, and not just because they are beyond the human capacity to discover the laws; the laws really don't exist in that nondeterministic universe.

Look at it another way. The whole reason for the existence of incompatibilism is probably the fact that people feel that their decisions are informed by their memories, plans, and desires, but not totally determined by them with absolute lawful certainty. I could go against my plans and ignore my desires if I ever chose to, so I can't imagine what kind of laws could properly describe my mind. Compatibilists like you and I believe that the nonexistence of laws could be an illusion easily generated in the vast complexity of the brain, and it would even be foolish to expect us to be able to introspect the laws that determine our own thoughts. Unfortunately none of that actually proves that the incompatibilists are wrong about the true source of our free will: maybe when we get down to the deepest levels we really will find that no laws can explain all of human decision making.

I'm just trying to get across that noise is only one of the many ways that determinism could be false. Compatibilism is true beyond all doubt, but determinism is based heavily on intuition and science has denied many intuitions in its history, so even in our apparently orderly universe there could be important ways in which things don't have to obey laws.

drachefly wrote:The convergence was referring to the parts of the world that Fate didn't care about. They could be anything, as far as Fate was concerned - as long as they didn't contradict what Fate did care about.
Maybe "convergence" means something different for you than it does for me because I can't understand what you mean. In the two wildly different paths that Wanda could have chosen, I see no convergence at all, and there is especially no convergence in the parts that Fate didn't care about.

Denar wrote:Active Fate, and Marie agrees with Wanda.
"Fate will borrow Numbers from somewhere" is pretty unambiguously active, but is that really how Fate works? I can't help but notice that it's Wanda who says it and she is notoriously weak at the workings of Fate. On top of that, the rest of the episode makes me doubt that even Wanda really believes in Active Fate.

If Wanda believed in Active Fate then why did she even bother with Marie's help? Wanda should just have taken the shot immediately, maybe while screaming "Fate is my copilot!" The shot was only going to get harder to make with every delay, and Active Fate wouldn't have let the shot miss if it were necessary to hit. Marie's help would be entirely redundant.

Let's make the risky assumption that Wanda knew what she was talking about. Marie made no technical protests to Wanda's description of how Fate works in this case, so maybe Fate really did borrow Numbers, but even that doesn't actually imply the existence of a Fate-monster actively interfering in events, because this time we had a Predictamancer actively interfering in events using Fate magic. Maybe it was Marie's juice that did the actual borrowing of Numbers as she carefully arranged the shot when the Numbers were just right. Apparently Wanda didn't think Marie was unnecessary, either.

Aside from the borrowing of Numbers, everything said about Fate in that episode is completely irrelevant to the issue of Active or Passive Fate. There's no reason why Passive Fate couldn't have plans and desires.

Denar wrote:Banhammer clearly agrees that determinism makes everything a hollow endeavour. He wants to be free, not a mechanism that blindly believes it is free.
Banhammer clearly doesn't understand compatibilism. Unfortunately it seems that Banhammer desires far more wisdom than he has, especially in his dealings with Olive.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lipkin » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:23 pm

Shai_hulud wrote:Actually there are people who suffer brain damage to the parts of their brains that appear make to decisions/have motivations. Those people just sit and do nothing until told to do something by some one else. As far as we can tell, they aren't choosing to obey the orders either. They just react to the order, like they react to the stimulus of having to urinate. So yeah, the evidence seems to suggest that some people can lose their ability to choose from brain damage.

Don't think my point was that people were unable to lose their ability to choose...

I honestly can't remember. This argument has been going on for so long.
User avatar
Lipkin
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby drachefly » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:01 am

Lilwik wrote:
drachefly wrote:Ahem. What determines what the magical puppeteers do next? You've just added a layer of indirection, not a solution.
That question is a trick; isn't it? Nothing determines nondeterministic things; the question has no answer, so either you are trying to get us to forget that they are nondeterministic, or else you are having a hard time imagining nondeterminism.


No, the answer was a trick. Literally all you did was take the repertoire of 'determined' + 'random' and try to add something outside the system. Well, I'm saying, consider the larger system. You're exactly where you were before.

Lilwik wrote:If you want to imagine a nonrandom nondeterministic universe then simply take away that brain. Imagine a universe that is exactly like real life in every detail, but instead of a brain humans explicitly have souls inside their heads and the soul contains no inner workings, no way to store memories, no circuits or pathways, not even moving molecules as in a fluid.


Then the base laws of this universe are extraordinarily complex, because they contain souls. If there are no rules for this, then, well... you can state what you said, but you can't even get as far as the Cartesian criterion that you can clearly and completely conceive it. It just doesn't run. It's like saying, 'Imagine a car that would run with no means of propulsion whatsoever'.

Lilwik wrote:maybe when we get down to the deepest levels we really will find that no laws can explain all of human decision making.


Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that if you were able to monitor the state of a brain and trace back the causal chain, you would end up with... what? Something that violates every conceivable rule of physics?

We have a name for things that can't be predicted even in principle: stochastic. It means fundamentally random. Measuring systems that are not in a pure state of the measurement you're performing? Stochastic outcome.

So what happens when we trace back the causal chain to some really weird feature in the brain that spits out things and we can't probe any deeper than that? We can find a probability distribution over its behavior, find what laws there are to be found, and treat the rest as random. And when you go down to the base level of the universe... either there are laws with stochastic elements, or... or what? If there aren't laws, then what we found is a perfectly accurate description of what is going on, so there are effectively laws anyway. If there's a trend, we can find it. Where there isn't, it's random.

Another case would be where there are laws but we can't figure out what they are. But that doesn't really impact determinism+stochasticity in principle. That would also apply to the case where there is an infinitely complex law where every time we think we've nailed down a rule set with stochasticity, we find that another part of the random element can be explained. Because what we know doesn't impact whether the law exists.

Lilwik wrote:I'm just trying to get across that noise is only one of the many ways that determinism could be false.


And I'm trying to get across that all of these are transparent dodges or incoherent.

Lilwik wrote:
drachefly wrote:The convergence was referring to the parts of the world that Fate didn't care about. They could be anything, as far as Fate was concerned - as long as they didn't contradict what Fate did care about.
Maybe "convergence" means something different for you than it does for me because I can't understand what you mean. In the two wildly different paths that Wanda could have chosen, I see no convergence at all, and there is especially no convergence in the parts that Fate didn't care about.


Parts of it did converge, and parts didn't. Like, whether Wanda serves Olive with Tommy alive or dead, regardless she's going to end up being important to a warlord from FAQ. The things in between, no matter how different they are in most respects, only end up leading to these. You've got a huge, wide divergence of possibilities that all end up focusing (in at least one dimension) down so as to fit this fixed result. It doesn't converge to a single configuration, but certain elements of it.
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Shai_hulud » Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:45 pm

Lipkin wrote:Don't think my point was that people were unable to lose their ability to choose...

I honestly can't remember. This argument has been going on for so long.
Oh nvm then. I'm only half paying attention to the conversation anyway. Just thought it was an interesting bit of information.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby zilfallon » Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:58 pm

Who would agree with me if I said that I think Rob is delaying an update to see how long this thread can go? :P
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 Lilwik » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:26 pm

drachefly wrote:If there are no rules for this, then, well... you can state what you said, but you can't even get as far as the Cartesian criterion that you can clearly and completely conceive it. It just doesn't run. It's like saying, 'Imagine a car that would run with no means of propulsion whatsoever'.
I see that I was right about you having a hard time imagining nondeterminism. You say that I can't clearly and completely conceive of a world where people have no brains, but as specified it is just like the real world except simpler and therefore easier to conceive, so in what sense do I fail to conceive of it? And is a car that runs with no means of propulsion so hard to imagine? You press down the gas pedal and it just goes, even though the pedal isn't connected to anything, baffling all who study it and converting masses to a new religion. It's far simpler than a real car.

drachefly wrote:Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that if you were able to monitor the state of a brain and trace back the causal chain, you would end up with... what? Something that violates every conceivable rule of physics?
Yes, this is what nondeterministic means; anything that is not deterministic. You make it sound like an absurdity that there would be something that laws can't describe, but it's no more absurd than the idea that people in society do not always obey the laws that have been written for them. Everything we know about the universe suggests that the universe is deterministic, but imagining nondeterministic worlds is very possible and you need to do it in order to think about incompatibilism fairly.

drachefly wrote:We have a name for things that can't be predicted even in principle: stochastic. It means fundamentally random.
And what if your stochastic particles do something that defies your capacity for belief in their randomness, like arranging themselves spontaneously into the letters of your name, then re-arranging themselves whenever you speak so that you can have an intelligent conversation with them by peering through a microscope and reading the words they form. They declare themselves to not be random in this conversation. Do you think you'll be able to come up with laws to explain that behaviour? Not even probabilistic laws would be any use at all. Imagining this sort of stuff is easy. Science is great at lawfully explaining the real universe, but pit it against all imaginable universes and it fails very hard.

drachefly wrote:Parts of it did converge, and parts didn't.
It's a bit like Wanda is in an airport in London and she is being forcefully deported so that she needs to leave immediately and all flights that are immediately available to her go the the United States. She wants to go to Canada, but that flight isn't leaving soon enough and she's going to be physically shoved into a plane to Miami if she doesn't choose an earlier flight. And Delphie is Wanda's travel agent screaming, "Go to Detroit! Go to Detroit!" because it's the closest Wanda can get to Canada. Wanda screams to Delphie, "You don't know everything! I can get to Canada if I try hard enough!" And so Wanda goes to Miami. Both the flight to Detroit and the flight to Miami are going to the United States; that country was Wanda's Fate, but "convergence" means coming together at a single point, and Detroit isn't nearly close enough to Miami to be called the same point.
Last edited by Lilwik on Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:55 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Shai_hulud » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:34 pm

Does anyone besides me only read like one out of five posts, set to this soundtrack?
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby mortissimus » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:31 am

Drachefly and Lilwik, I think what you are talking about is described in biologics as Emergence.

The usage of the notion "emergence" may generally be subdivided into two perspectives, that of "weak emergence" and "strong emergence". Weak emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is reducible to its individual constituents. This is opposed to strong emergence, in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents.

Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level. Emergence, in this case, is merely part of the language, or model that is needed to describe a system's behaviour.

Strong emergence says that if systems can have qualities not directly traceable to the system's components, but rather to how those components interact, and one is willing to accept that a system supervenes on its components, then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are irreducible to the system's constituent parts.


zilfallon wrote:Who would agree with me if I said that I think Rob is delaying an update to see how long this thread can go? :P


So we shoukld stop, in order to get an update? :D
mortissimus
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Sir_Dr_D » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:14 pm

Don't be naive people . These pointless discussions will continue, even on the next update. :p
Sir_Dr_D
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Oberon » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:47 pm

Kreistor wrote:
Oberon wrote:Wait, what? I thought you'd already abandoned your position that Jack had to be alive because of your foolamancy theory? Now you want me to try to support a theory you concocted and then abandoned?

You can support anything you want to. Or deny anything you want to. But when you directly provoke me the way you have been, you better be ready for the consequences.
The consequences being that you'll continue to prevaricate rather than stand up for your actions, I suppose. I taunt you because you are ridiculous. If you were capable of gracefully admitting your error instead of weaving your lies and deceptions about your record, this would be over. You are a liar and a hypocrite.
Kreistor wrote:You seem distinctly incapable of taking responsibility for your actions.
There is a fine irony here, but I wouldn't expect you to comprehended it.
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 multilis » Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:12 pm

Oberon wrote:
Kreistor wrote:
Oberon wrote:Wait, what? I thought you'd already abandoned your position that Jack had to be alive because of your foolamancy theory? Now you want me to try to support a theory you concocted and then abandoned?

You can support anything you want to. Or deny anything you want to. But when you directly provoke me the way you have been, you better be ready for the consequences.
The consequences being that you'll continue to prevaricate rather than stand up for your actions, I suppose. I taunt you because you are ridiculous. If you were capable of gracefully admitting your error instead of weaving your lies and deceptions about your record, this would be over. You are a liar and a hypocrite.
Kreistor wrote:You seem distinctly incapable of taking responsibility for your actions.
There is a fine irony here, but I wouldn't expect you to comprehended it.

"What's goin down man?" (no idea, not worth reading old arguments to find out. All I see is bitterness and I have no motivation to find out why)

It's a clam!

Punx!

Hoboken... !?! (Second last frame)

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F133.jpg Hoboken was enough to kill a unit and its mount. That suggests fight in magic kingdom may have gone as far as croaking mages rather than just incapacitating.
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests