Re: which q3w member is most likely to kill themself?...
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:54 am
Exactly.seremtan wrote:strictly speaking, facts can't actually be refuted
Your world is waiting...
https://www.quake3world.com/forum/
Exactly.seremtan wrote:strictly speaking, facts can't actually be refuted
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 refutationYourGrandpa wrote: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.
As well you should be.EtUL wrote:Yeah, I'm jealous.....lol
seremtan wrote: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"
You were on here from 7:40 yesterday to 1:00 interacting with gramps...lol patheticLawL wrote:You seem quite sensitive about the whole postcount thing.
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?seremtan wrote: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
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.EtUL wrote:You were on here from 7:40 yesterday to 1:00 interacting with gramps...lol patheticLawL wrote:You seem quite sensitive about the whole postcount thing.
No I wasn't.EtUL wrote:You were on here from 7:40 yesterday to 1:00 interacting with gramps...lol patheticLawL wrote:You seem quite sensitive about the whole postcount thing.
boredYourGrandpa wrote: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.
YourGrandpa wrote:When you get the last word does that calculate in your mind that you have somehow won?
lol, i have 30,172 posts counting qwfix and voidEtUL wrote: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.
ok, let me break this down for you:YourGrandpa wrote: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?
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 aboveYourGrandpa wrote:You haven't provided any "facts" to refute.
this would have expressed your point without the logical inconsistency introduced by both the unnecessary use of scare quotes and reference to refutationYourGrandpa wrote:You haven't provided any facts.
YourGrandpa wrote:I... was board yesterday