which q3w member is most likely to kill themself?...

[LawL]

strictly speaking, facts can't actually be refuted

Exactly.

[seremtan]

True. Po-boy thinks he's actually provided something that could be considered a fact. When he's actually provided nothing. i.e. "You haven't provided any "facts" to refute." Notice the "" around facts.

that doesn't make sense. by placing the word 'facts' in quote marks, you're implying that what LawL has provided thus far aren't actually facts, i.e. that they are non-facts, which means that your claim that he "hasn't provided any 'facts' to refute" translates as "he hasn't provided any non-facts to refute", i.e. that all of his claims thus far have been factual and therefore irrefutable - which is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. even if you remove the quotes ("he hasn't provided any facts to refute") the claim still doesn't make sense since, as i pointed out, facts can't be refuted, and therefore it would be impossible for him (as for anyone else) to provided facts capable of refutation

dumbass

[LawL]

I'm afraid your post is far too advanced for Gramps to comprehend.

[EtUL]

Lawl has such a great life that he can afford to spend all day on q3w slapfighting with anyone who gives him the tiniest bit of attention.

Yeah, I'm jealous.....lol

[seremtan]

having a postcount of 21,676 pretty much disqualifies you from deploying that old R&R classic: "you posted a few times, you must be on here all day"

[LawL]

Yeah, I'm jealous.....lol

As well you should be.

[EtUL]

having a postcount of 21,676 pretty much disqualifies you from deploying that old R&R classic: "you posted a few times, you must be on here all day"

Yeah but the majority of that number is from when I was a pathetic highschooler and this site was actually popular....what's the excuse now?

edit:...Lawls post timestamps back up the "you're on here all day..."

edit: oh lol I forgot about posts in the void too...double Lawl's count at least lol.

yeah I have like 3000 posts the last 4 or 5 years so....

[LawL]

You seem quite sensitive about the whole postcount thing.

[EtUL]

search.php?author_id=12553&sr=posts

lol..."double Lawl's postcount" was exactly right... 17651 posts in a time where theres only 20 active users. Lawl keeps this forum afloat.

[EtUL]

You seem quite sensitive about the whole postcount thing.

You were on here from 7:40 yesterday to 1:00 interacting with gramps...lol pathetic

[YourGrandpa]

that doesn't make sense. by placing the word 'facts' in quote marks, you're implying that what LawL has provided thus far aren't actually facts, i.e. that they are non-facts, which means that your claim that he "hasn't provided any 'facts' to refute" translates as "he hasn't provided any non-facts to refute", i.e. that all of his claims thus far have been factual and therefore irrefutable - which is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. even if you remove the quotes ("he hasn't provided any facts to refute") the claim still doesn't make sense since, as i pointed out, facts can't be refuted, and therefore it would be impossible for him (as for anyone else) to provided facts capable of refutation

dumbass

So you're saying that it's not possible for him to perceive something as a fact, that isn't actually a fact? And when I put the quotes around the word fact, there is no way I could be sarcastically indicating that he had not posted any actual facts?

Analyze the inside of LawL ass. You'd be better served.

dumb ass.

[YourGrandpa]

You seem quite sensitive about the whole postcount thing.

You were on here from 7:40 yesterday to 1:00 interacting with gramps...lol pathetic

I'm on vacation this week and was board yesterday. But I actually left the house for several hours to do some shopping and have lunch. I'm sure LawL was frantically mashing the refresh button the entire time.

[LawL]

You seem quite sensitive about the whole postcount thing.

You were on here from 7:40 yesterday to 1:00 interacting with gramps...lol pathetic

No I wasn't.

[LawL]

I'm on vacation this week and was board yesterday. But I actually left the house for several hours to do some shopping and have lunch. I'm sure LawL was frantically mashing the refresh button the entire time.

bored

[YourGrandpa]

No board. Like a flat motionless plank. I didn't feel like doing, nor did I do much at all yesterday. But I got paid for it.

[LawL]

No you meant 'bored'.

[YourGrandpa]

When you get the last word does that calculate in you mind that you have somehow won?

[LawL]

your

[YourGrandpa]

When you get the last word does that calculate in your mind that you have somehow won?

[LawL]

You still trying to get in the last word there Brian?

[YourGrandpa]

Just asking a question that you seem to have trouble answering. Though I'm quite confident that I already know the answer and see you're working toward the confirmation.

[LawL]

Brian still seems to be trying desperately to get the last word in.

[seremtan]

http://www.quake3world.com/forum/search.php?author_id=12553&sr=posts

lol..."double Lawl's postcount" was exactly right... 17651 posts in a time where theres only 20 active users. Lawl keeps this forum afloat.

lol, i have 30,172 posts counting qwfix and void

[seremtan]

So you're saying that it's not possible for him to perceive something as a fact, that isn't actually a fact? And when I put the quotes around the word fact, there is no way I could be sarcastically indicating that he had not posted any actual facts?

ok, let me break this down for you:

let's say that the term Facts (note capitalisation) denotes statements of truth, i.e. statements which are not open to refutation on account of their being true; furthermore -
let's say that the term facts (note lower-case) denotes statements which are asserted or believed by the speaker/poster to be true, but are not in fact true. this sense of the word corresponds with your sarcastic intention

now let's look at your original post:

You haven't provided any "facts" to refute.

if, as you say, you were here referring to facts (not Facts) then you're claiming that LawL hasn't posted any "statements which are asserted or believed by the speaker/poster to be true, but are not in fact true". the only logical possibilities here are that either a) LawL has made no posts at all in this thread (which we know is not the case), or b) that his posts do not contain any facts (which carries the implication that his posts contain Facts instead), thereby undermining your original assertion quoted above

if, on the other hand, your post had simply read:

You haven't provided any facts.

this would have expressed your point without the logical inconsistency introduced by both the unnecessary use of scare quotes and reference to refutation

you massive blockheaded tard

[seremtan]

I... was board yesterday