BF2S Forums Claim anything, I'll prove it wrong

I win.

to express dissatisfaction

And i never contradicted myself once, Nice try though. Proved again you don't know basic English.

Ja jestem Polski.

sfarrar33 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

1.) There was no picking & choosing. You claimed you would not think for a whole week. I merely underlined the part that defined that portion of your claim. You claimed you would not think - of any claim (which is a statement & all language/logical propositions consist of statements) - for a whole week.

2.) You misunderstand my statements equally as much as you misunderstand your own statements. I did not suggest you could not impose a meaningless time limit upon yourself. I pointed out that - it in no way was imposed upon us; thus I pointed out - that it is "self-imposed."

3.) It is not an opinion. You clearly stated you would not think for a whole week. And you clearly imposed a meaningless time limit upon yourself: that you would not post any thought (claim/statement/proposition) during that one-week self-imposed posting-restriction. The one portion of the statement (not thinking of a statement/claim) is not proved by you not posting (within a week); the other part of the statement. You have failed to demonstrate that you did not think of a claim/statement within the one-week period.

Not posting - is not proof - of you not thinking of a claim. So you are wrong.

4.) Your self-imposed posting restriction is not a one-week time limit on us to prove your original erroneous statement wrong.

1) there was picking and choosing because in the english language a sentance must be read to a full stop (or colon or whatever exceptions you want to thinkup) or it has not finished. You choose parts of my statement that did not end in such a sentance ending symbol (for lack of a better term) therefore you were selective in the parts you chose to analyse.

2) there was no misunderstanding i knew you meant self imposed over imposed but i said that i can impose not just self impose because your rules (or at least DU's rules) don't state otherwise.

3)you are right i did not prove that i didn't think up a claim for a week, you however have failed to prove that i did, which means i am still winning.

4)I could take the alternative view point that the week started when i hit the 'submit' button therefore that statement is not a part of the week as it was thought up beforehand and therefore is not inherently wrong, and that still means i am winning.

5) there is no pride to be swallowed on the internets is there

OK, back to one of my original requests...

Please submit medical proof of brain-death for the week in question, to confirm your statement is true (and not proved wrong); and that in fact you did not think during your self-specified time period.

Either you were brain-dead the week in question or you are a liar. Which is it? Did you actually have no thoughts during that week (and this encompasses the use language; as its use, for humans, is in general equality to making statements in-mind); or are you just lying about it - not thinking for a week that is.

You still don't realize that it does not matter if you posted a statement (made a claim here; and posted it) or not. What is germane is the essence of the original statement. It only matters that you did not think at all, that you did not use language at all, during the week in question. It would have been a more reasonable claim if you said: I will not think of a claim in the next 1 second and not post it here for within the next week. This is a probable - reasonable. Not thinking (using language; constructing statements in-mind) for a whole week; is really only possible if your brain ceased normal biological functioning.

Satisfying one condition of your original statement (not posting for a week) does not validate the other condition (that you will not think of a statement/claim within the one-week period). If either condition is false - the entire statement becomes false. Any multi-conditional claim (your original statement) can only be true - if and only if - all conditions of the entire-statement are true.

You have stated a possibility that requires brain-death to make your claim reasonable and probable. Yet, you and I (and everyone else) know you did not suffer brain-death as evidenced by your continued posting in this thread. And, you and I know you've been avoiding the liar issue (lying about not thinking). Either way your claim has been proved wrong.

At this point the burden of proof has shifted to you. Your claim is clearly false. Either you were brain-dead, or you are lying. Admitting you're lying about not thinking for a week is, well, evidence confirming the falseness of your original claim. Only independently confirmed documented medical proof of brain-death can make your claim a true one. Until then I consider this closed.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-03 09:34:04)

topal63 wrote:

OK, back to one of my original requests...

Please submit medical proof of brain-death for the week in question, to confirm your statement is true (and not proved wrong); and that in fact you did not think during your self-specified time period.

Either you were brain-dead the week in question or you are a liar. Which is it? Did you actually have no thoughts during that week (and this encompasses the use language; as its use, for humans, is in general equality to making statements in-mind); or are you just lying about it - not thinking for a week that is.

You still don't realize that it does not matter if you posted a statement (made a claim here; and posted it) or not. What is germane is the essence of the original statement. It only matters that you did not think at all, that you did not use language at all, during the week in question. It would have been a more reasonable claim if you said: I will not think of a claim in the next 1 second and not post it here for within the next week. This is a probable - reasonable. Not thinking (using language; constructing statements in-mind) for a whole week; is really only possible if your brain ceased normal biological functioning.

Satisfying one condition of your original statement (not posting for a week) does not validate the other condition (that you will not think of a statement/claim within the one-week period). If either condition is false - the entire statement becomes false. Any multi-conditional claim (your original statement) can only be true - if and only if - all conditions of the entire-statement are true.

You have stated a possibility that requires brain-death to make your claim reasonable and probable. Yet, you and I (and everyone else) know you did not suffer brain-death as evidenced by your continued posting in this thread. And, you and I know you've been avoiding the liar issue (lying about not thinking). Either way your claim has been proved wrong.

At this point the burden of proof has shifted to you. Your claim is clearly false. Either you were brain-dead, or you are lying. Admitting you're lying about not thinking for a week is, well, evidence confirming the falseness of your original claim. Only independently confirmed documented medical proof of brain-death can make your claim a true one. Until then I consider this closed.

You continue to say that i would need to be medically brain dead to not think up a claim that would prove you wrong, and whilst i am flattered that you think i am that intelligent, it is not the case i could have been thinking of an almost infinate number of other things completely un-claim related, or i could have been trying to think up claims and simply not have come up with one i felt would win, therefore medical proof of brain death is not required to prove my statement correct, and as no accurate techniques of monitoring thought proccess' exist it would be impossible for me to prove exactly what I was thinking so you cannot request that either.

i'm alive

Scr0k wrote:

I have to take a dump

No you don't. This sentence is everlasting, even though your must to take a dump is not

Bruce-SuperNub wrote:

I win.

to express dissatisfaction

And i never contradicted myself once, Nice try though. Proved again you don't know basic English.

You do not win. Except the DU's Weekly price for the most persistant troll honored enemy:

Undetected_Killer wrote:

Ja jestem Polski.

Ah. This inspired me to add a rule

~[_-=*Hanma*=-_]~ wrote:

You're alive.

You who? DeathUnlimited alive? Are you kidding?

ceslayer23 wrote:

i'm alive

Forum nick is alive That is impossible!

[Fin]Dami3n wrote:

User ceslayer23 from bf2s forum was offline when i wrote this...

The user wasn't offline everywhere. He was offline on the forums maybe, but not offline on his/her life for example.

NooBesT wrote:

d4rkst4r wrote:

This was fun only when Death Unlimited did it.

It's still really funny to laugh at all these comments. If you got sense of humor that is.

I'm 4 days off and you guys think I'm dead

Last edited by DeathUnlimited (2007-07-04 17:01:13)

I don't win yet i get a trophy?

I win the trophy hence still winning.

read again "you do not win. 'except the' DU's Weekly price for the most persistant troll honored enemy"

Omg, R-E-A-D- Meaning i still won something, Meaning i still won.
kthx

Last edited by Bruce-SuperNub (2007-07-05 00:01:05)

Of course i do, Yet it doesn't say anywhere expect, It says except. Kinda made a fool of yourself there, didn't you?

Bruce-SuperNub wrote:

Of course i do, Yet it doesn't say anywhere expect, It says except. Kinda made a fool of yourself there, didn't you?

At least I'm not changing topic into something totally unrelevant when I understand that I have lost.

Bruce-SuperNub wrote:

Larkin wrote:

Bruce-SuperNub wrote:

Of course i do, Yet it doesn't say anywhere expect, It says except. Kinda made a fool of yourself there, didn't you?

Ever thought about going into politics?

Nah. Not good at public speaking.

Also Noobest, You tried to change the word. tsktsk. I won that argument too.

Bruce - 2 NoobesT - 0

Ermm... No I didn't...

BTW... If talking about mistakes. Your scoreboard has errors, you typed my name totally wrong and even changed the way you typed it half way trough your post.

Bruce-SuperNub wrote:

Your names not all that important for me to remember where you put your capitals.

So unless you wanna keep trying to prove me wrong without knowing all the facts. Bruce - 2 Noobest - 0

Your conting skills are faulty as well.

Anyways, I won't be replying to you anymore since you seem to be unable to accept losing. Have fun...