Pages: 1 … 65 66 67 68 69 … 93

 

2007-06-20 13:08:30
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6773|InGerLand

topal63 wrote:

sfarrar33 wrote:

but the laser would not be a part of my eye, prosthetic or not, it would simply be attatched to it, if the device were to be moved inside the eye it would then simply be "a laser emitting device inside the eye" but still not a part of the eye itself. Therefore my original statement that "I cannot shoot lasers from my eyes" still stands (or whatever the original statement actually was)
Read please OK... it doesn't have to be part of your natural eye. You never specified that. "My eyes" merely implies you claim them as yours, and that can include ownership. The FACT you have yet to purchase or construct "laser shooting eyes" is irrelevant, because in fact you "can shoot lasers with my eyes" (owned by you) as soon as you construct/purchase them.
but it would not be a part of the artificial eyes either
an eye is:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye wrote:

An eye is an organ that detects light. Different kinds of light-sensitive organs are found in a variety of creatures. The simplest eyes do nothing but detect whether the surroundings are light or dark. More complex eyes are used to provide the sense of vision.
what I am saying is that my eyes cannot shoot lasers.
what you are saying is that a device in or around the eye can, and thats true, it just doesn't prove my statement wrong.
it doesn't matter if that device is artificial or not.
2007-06-20 13:14:06
DUnlimited
got any popo lolo intersting?
+1,160|6617|cuntshitlake

sfarrar33 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

sfarrar33 wrote:

but the laser would not be a part of my eye, prosthetic or not, it would simply be attatched to it, if the device were to be moved inside the eye it would then simply be "a laser emitting device inside the eye" but still not a part of the eye itself. Therefore my original statement that "I cannot shoot lasers from my eyes" still stands (or whatever the original statement actually was)
Read please OK... it doesn't have to be part of your natural eye. You never specified that. "My eyes" merely implies you claim them as yours, and that can include ownership. The FACT you have yet to purchase or construct "laser shooting eyes" is irrelevant, because in fact you "can shoot lasers with my eyes" (owned by you) as soon as you construct/purchase them.
but it would not be a part of the artificial eyes either
an eye is:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye wrote:

An eye is an organ that detects light. Different kinds of light-sensitive organs are found in a variety of creatures. The simplest eyes do nothing but detect whether the surroundings are light or dark. More complex eyes are used to provide the sense of vision.
what I am saying is that my eyes cannot shoot lasers.
what you are saying is that a device in or around the eye can, and thats true, it just doesn't prove my statement wrong.
it doesn't matter if that device is artificial or not.
Ney seriously listen. "from my eyes" means from the eyes, not from the natural eyes.

If I shoot somebody from a car, It doesn't mean I'd be a part of the car. I still can shoot "from the car".

I consider this done, let's move on.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
2007-06-20 13:43:57
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6773|InGerLand

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Ney seriously listen. "from my eyes" means from the eyes, not from the natural eyes.

If I shoot somebody from a car, It doesn't mean I'd be a part of the car. I still can shoot "from the car".

I consider this done, let's move on.
ok it feels like your winning on technicality but it's in the rules so i can't really complain
I should probably think it through a bit more 'cos it sounds a bit like a winner, but...

new statement:
I, that is the real living person behind the bf2s account of the name 'sfarrar33', will not think up a claim that you cannot prove wrong. I will also not think this claim up within the next week and I will not post it here in this thread. (sorry i couldn't think of a way to combine those two sentances and make them easily understandable hence the seperation)
2007-06-20 17:42:48
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6497|California

Stormscythe wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
Uhm, i don't wanna switch sides but basically you only find oxygen in molecules. There's no such thing as 'elementary' Oxygen although it's an element. You can of course produce an uneven number of oxygen in chemical processes so that one atom would be left, but until you literally 'find' it, it will have reacted with something else
Well thats cool, but guess what. Those molecules are ON Earth, hence, "found on Earth". Furthermore, an element is a type of atom that is defined by its atomic number; that is, by the number of protons in its nucleus. The term is also used to refer to a pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons.












Props to wiki

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2007-06-20 17:43:06)

2007-06-20 22:55:46
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6497|California
Still waiting for a legit contradiction.....^^^^^^......unless....you know......i win
2007-06-21 01:01:26
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|6703|EUtopia | Austria

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
Uhm, i don't wanna switch sides but basically you only find oxygen in molecules. There's no such thing as 'elementary' Oxygen although it's an element. You can of course produce an uneven number of oxygen in chemical processes so that one atom would be left, but until you literally 'find' it, it will have reacted with something else
Well thats cool, but guess what. Those molecules are ON Earth, hence, "found on Earth". Furthermore, an element is a type of atom that is defined by its atomic number; that is, by the number of protons in its nucleus. The term is also used to refer to a pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons.
Sorry for the delay, had been partying...

I think this could possibly be a language barrier, but what about O2. That's elementary Oxygen (but not literally 'elementary' as C for Diamond or Ag for pure silver), yet a molecule and not one single element. Of course, Oxygen is an element known to mankind and also available on earth - but you'll find it only in compounds You can, in a reaction, quite naturally use a single Oxygen to solve an equation, but you always have to split it off with some catalyst as Oxygen is nasty enough to replace other elements in compounds or to re-arrange them. I wanna therefore see how humans can find Oxygen, they rather have to find it with chemical methods.
2007-06-21 11:04:06
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6497|California

Stormscythe wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

Uhm, i don't wanna switch sides but basically you only find oxygen in molecules. There's no such thing as 'elementary' Oxygen although it's an element. You can of course produce an uneven number of oxygen in chemical processes so that one atom would be left, but until you literally 'find' it, it will have reacted with something else
Well thats cool, but guess what. Those molecules are ON Earth, hence, "found on Earth". Furthermore, an element is a type of atom that is defined by its atomic number; that is, by the number of protons in its nucleus. The term is also used to refer to a pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons.
Sorry for the delay, had been partying...

I think this could possibly be a language barrier, but what about O2. That's elementary Oxygen (but not literally 'elementary' as C for Diamond or Ag for pure silver), yet a molecule and not one single element. Of course, Oxygen is an element known to mankind and also available on earth - but you'll find it only in compounds You can, in a reaction, quite naturally use a single Oxygen to solve an equation, but you always have to split it off with some catalyst as Oxygen is nasty enough to replace other elements in compounds or to re-arrange them. I wanna therefore see how humans can find Oxygen, they rather have to find it with chemical methods.
Yes but finding oxygen and finding oxygen alone is still finding oxygen. In a sense it is an element (the chemical element definition: an element is a type of atom that is defined by its atomic number; that is, by the number of protons in its nucleus.) If I'm on a desert island, am looking for water, and approach the ocean, I have still found water. UNDRINKABLE water (in a sense) but water nonetheless.

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2007-06-21 11:04:43)

2007-06-21 11:21:30
topal63
. . .
+533|6872

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
Technically speaking oxygen is not actually an element at all. It is actually a label, a metaphor, a symbolic point of reference pointing to something else, that being a definition of an element (a definition being: a set of other metaphors, symbols, concepts, etc, attempting to define something). So it is actually a label for a definition of an element - and not actually the element.
2007-06-21 21:45:55
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6497|California

topal63 wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
Technically speaking oxygen is not actually an element at all. It is actually a label, a metaphor, a symbolic point of reference pointing to something else, that being a definition of an element (a definition being: a set of other metaphors, symbols, concepts, etc, attempting to define something). So it is actually a label for a definition of an element - and not actually the element.
Read the f@%$ing post. Oxygen (a word in one or more human languages) is referred to as an element (a type of atom that is defined by its atomic number; that is, by the number of protons in its nucleus. The term is also used to refer to a pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons.) It is also not limited to being found on earth.

I still win. Don't give me this crap about it being a label. That's the fucking point of having a language (words to describe something else.). Thats like the fucking DEFINITION of a language.


My statement stands.
2007-06-21 21:48:23
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6724|Portland, OR, USA
My stats aren't updating.
2007-06-21 21:50:10
Criminal
yo shut the fuck up charles
+20|6791
either are mine.  and its making me mad. prove that wrong
2007-06-22 02:11:36
DUnlimited
got any popo lolo intersting?
+1,160|6617|cuntshitlake

xBlackPantherx wrote:

topal63 wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
Technically speaking oxygen is not actually an element at all. It is actually a label, a metaphor, a symbolic point of reference pointing to something else, that being a definition of an element (a definition being: a set of other metaphors, symbols, concepts, etc, attempting to define something). So it is actually a label for a definition of an element - and not actually the element.
Read the f@%$ing post. Oxygen (a word in one or more human languages) is referred to as an element (a type of atom that is defined by its atomic number; that is, by the number of protons in its nucleus. The term is also used to refer to a pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons.) It is also not limited to being found on earth.

I still win. Don't give me this crap about it being a label. That's the fucking point of having a language (words to describe something else.). Thats like the fucking DEFINITION of a language.


My statement stands.
As stated in the rules of this thread (in the first post), We will prove the first claim wrong, not the edits you might make to it. That will make this possible to us. If you could edit your claim every time we win, this would be overcluttered. Topal's post proves your first claim wrong. Accept it or continue whining, it's your choose.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

My stats aren't updating.
Yes your stats are updating, for example your karma stats on the forums etc..

Criminal wrote:

either are mine.  and its making me mad. prove that wrong
Your karma stats are updating too, and karma makes no one mad.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
2007-06-22 02:15:27
suomalainen_äijä
Member
+64|6319
you can't speak finnish

no joo, piste sulle
2007-06-22 08:48:00
namsdrawkcaB
Biggest n00blet around!
+35|6453

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Once in radius, it is absolutely impossible to escape a Supermassive blackhole

Noobest wrote:

You didn't say in radius of what. So if I'm in the radius of earth's gravity, I can easily escape your Supermassive blackhole.
I meant in sucking radius of the black hole..

Last edited by namsdrawkcaB (2007-06-22 08:49:52)

2007-06-22 08:49:50
topal63
. . .
+533|6872

xBlackPantherx wrote:

topal63 wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
Technically speaking oxygen is not actually an element at all. It is actually a label, a metaphor, a symbolic point of reference pointing to something else, that being a definition of an element (a definition being: a set of other metaphors, symbols, concepts, etc, attempting to define something). So it is actually a label for a definition of an element - and not actually the element.
Read the f@%$ing post. Oxygen (a word in one or more human languages) is referred to as an element (a type of atom that is defined by its atomic number; that is, by the number of protons in its nucleus. The term is also used to refer to a pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons.) It is also not limited to being found on earth.

I still win. Don't give me this crap about it being a label. That's the fucking point of having a language (words to describe something else.). Thats like the fucking DEFINITION of a language.

My statement stands.
No it doesn't. As far as I know extraterrestrial intelligences have yet to be f@%$ing discovered. And as far as know I oxygen as a label is limited to Earth - and human language (this includes all objective & subjective definitions of it as an element).

P.S. Lighten up sparky...

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-22 08:59:47)

2007-06-24 10:33:39
NooBesT
Pizzahitler
+873|6623

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Once in radius, it is absolutely impossible to escape a Supermassive blackhole

Noobest wrote:

You didn't say in radius of what. So if I'm in the radius of earth's gravity, I can easily escape your Supermassive blackhole.
I meant in sucking radius of the black hole..
It doesn't matter what you meant.
https://i.imgur.com/S9bg2.png
2007-06-24 10:38:28
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6724|Portland, OR, USA

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Once in radius, it is absolutely impossible to escape a Supermassive blackhole

Noobest wrote:

You didn't say in radius of what. So if I'm in the radius of earth's gravity, I can easily escape your Supermassive blackhole.
I meant in sucking radius of the black hole..
actually, black holes create intense electromagnetic fields on which very small particles ride up on.  That's how they find black holes that have consumed everything in their radius.. I'm sure you've seen pictures of the large plumes coming from black holes.

http://content.answers.com/main/content … iagram.jpg
2007-06-25 00:25:09
lxlchaoslxl
Member
+0|6374
You, whoever is attempting to prove this statement wrong, have proved me wrong at any time past, present, or future.

Last edited by lxlchaoslxl (2007-06-25 00:26:43)

2007-06-25 06:05:10
NooBesT
Pizzahitler
+873|6623

lxlchaoslxl wrote:

You, whoever is attempting to prove this statement wrong, have proved me wrong at any time past, present, or future.
Actually I haven't.
https://i.imgur.com/S9bg2.png
2007-06-25 06:11:20
d4rkst4r
biggie smalls
+72|6607|Ontario, Canada
I have been proven wrong is this thread before.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
2007-06-25 08:24:44
daddyofdeath
A REAL Combat Engineer in the house
+187|6407|UK Bradford W,Yorks. Age 27
Garlic bread is the future...I've tasted it.
2007-06-25 09:57:47
citricacidx
Hooligan of War
+21|6659|Atlanta, GA
Here you go:

Marijuana should remain illegal.
2007-06-25 12:00:16
DUnlimited
got any popo lolo intersting?
+1,160|6617|cuntshitlake

d4rkst4r wrote:

I have been proven wrong is this thread before.
No you haven't. We have never proven YOU wrong. only your statements.

daddyofdeath wrote:

Garlic bread is the future...I've tasted it.
It is not the future. It's Garlic Bread.

citricacidx wrote:

Here you go:

Marijuana should remain illegal.
In whose opinion? Your maybe, but certainly everyone doesn't think so.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
2007-06-25 12:09:51
citricacidx
Hooligan of War
+21|6659|Atlanta, GA
(this isn't to be proved wrong, it's a statement) Marijuana remaining illegal is definately not my opinion.
2007-06-25 13:40:30
DUnlimited
got any popo lolo intersting?
+1,160|6617|cuntshitlake

citricacidx wrote:

(this isn't to be proved wrong, it's a statement) Marijuana remaining illegal is definately not my opinion.
We've got a pot smoker here, requesting police!!!

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

 

Pages: 1 … 65 66 67 68 69 … 93

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard