Originally posted by Peach
Do yourself a favor, and go refresh yourself on the scientific method.Obviously you missed yesterday where I said that someone taking a "I don't give a shit" attitude when it comes to being told they broke the rules is all but begging to get themselves kicked off KMC.
you dont need the comma. i wasnt aware of rules directly being broken. because there are no rules against what i posted. it was just an army like team trying to survive.
Originally posted by Burning thought
I have made bold what is important for you to note for yourself from your reply above. Because in the same rant on his errors you are making the exact same yourself 😉make sure you read through what you say before you post it girl or you are indeed a:
You have a history of stupidity (No offense). The fact that you agreed with SuperLuigi refreshes that attribute, because SuperLuigi based his statement on baseless conclusions and plain stupidity.
So even if you weren't before, you made yourself now. SuperLuigi was factually stupid in that post you agreed with.
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
i accept that concession happybdayit wasnt you i deemed kindergarTen, just the whole "i wasnt going to report you" bit
Stop being immature.
The whole "I wasn't going to report you" was if anything mature, as it was me respecting him for a possibly ignorant violation of the rules- which had me assuming he was not aware that he might've violated it.
The fact that I said that I wasn't going to report him, was simply to clarify that I didn't deem it reportable offense at first but that his rude behaviour led me to do so.
Originally posted by Rapidash
You have a history of stupidity (No offense). The fact that you agreed with SuperLuigi refreshes that attribute, because SuperLuigi based his statement on baseless conclusions and plain stupidity.So even if you weren't before, you made yourself now. SuperLuigi was factually stupid in that post you agreed with.
From your/other perception and conclusions, not based on fact, from my point of view and perception you all have a history of stupidity (No offense), I just reminded you of how far yours actually does go.
You proved he was correct as did I outline you proving it.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Typically something that is undeniably true. E.g. it is a fact that your current name on KMC is General Kaliero..A good example of what is not a fact however, is someones conclusions based on their perceptions. If I concluded you was an unintelligent idiot based on my conclusions, that does not make it fact or anything close.
Thats how you are wrong, re-read how rapidash is wrong on many levels based on hypocrisy and her own post in my quote of it.
And to be technical my name here is a string of digital data, which you perceive to be the words "General Kaliero" when viewing your computer monitor.
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
you dont need the comma. i wasnt aware of rules directly being broken. because there are no rules against what i posted. it was just an army like team trying to survive.
It is not completely necessary but nor is it incorrect to place a comma there. It's known as the "Oxford comma" and that is how I was taught.
The rules clearly state that army-like teams MUST be stated as such, else it is considered to not be so and is against the rules.
Originally posted by Burning thought
It would seem you are the one in need of refreshing yourself on it.
Nope. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as cold hard facts. What is considered to be fact is simply observed evidence based on a hypothesis. If the evidence appears to support the hypothesis it is considered a theory; theories that have an overwhelming amount of evidence behind them are considered to be fact. There is, however, still a possibility that it could happen otherwise.
And if we want to go by a dictionary definition, you're still not quite correct. There are very, very few things that can be called or considered "undeniably true", and 99% percent of it is up to individual perception.
Or have you never heard of the quote "history is written by the winners"?
Originally posted by Rapidash
You have a history of stupidity (No offense). The fact that you agreed with SuperLuigi refreshes that attribute, because SuperLuigi based his statement on baseless conclusions and plain stupidity.So even if you weren't before, you made yourself now. SuperLuigi was factually stupid in that post you agreed with.
Stop being immature.
The whole "I wasn't going to report you" was if anything mature, as it was me respecting him for a possibly ignorant violation of the rules- which had me assuming he was not aware that he might've violated it.
The fact that I said that I wasn't going to report you, was simply to clarify that I didn't deem it reportable offense at first but that his rude behaviour led me to do so.
you cant factually call someone stupid and not have any proof. silly child blunder 6 part 3 because this is like the 3rd time you proved yourself to be a hypocrite in a matter of minutes.
and of course if these moderators did their jobs instead of being biased to one side of an argument then you would be ban or at least warned for bashing.
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
you cant factually call someone stupid and not have any proof. silly child blunder 6 part 3 because this is like the 3rd time you proved yourself to be a hypocrite in a matter of minutes.and of course if these moderators did their jobs instead of being biased to one side of an argument then you would be ban or at least warned for bashing.
Saying someone has a history of acting stupid is 1) an opinion based on their perceptions of the person in question, 2) NOT the same as factually stating they are stupid, and 3) not bashing.
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
you only listed 2 items so no comma is needed.florida, georgia, and south carolina.
florida, georgia and south carolina. the examples
My bad, the Oxford comma only refers to one placed after the second (or third, etc.) item.
However, it's still not incorrect placement where I used it.
Not that there's really such a thing as "correct" English, but even so. I was always taught that it is allowable to place a comma before a conjunction when it is used to combine two phrases.
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
you only say that so you dont have to ban your beloved canary.
No, I'm saying it because it's true. "You've acted stupidly before" is not the same as "You're a flaming idiot".
Originally posted by Peach
Nope. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as cold hard facts. What is considered to be fact is simply observed evidence based on a hypothesis. If the evidence appears to support the hypothesis it is considered a theory; theories that have an overwhelming amount of evidence behind them are considered to be fact. There is, however, still a possibility that it could happen otherwise.And if we want to go by a dictionary definition, you're still not quite correct. There are very, very few things that can be called or considered "undeniably true", and 99% percent of it is up to individual perception.
Or have you never heard of the quote "history is written by the winners"?
The fact they do not exist in truth does not mean they do not exist from the understanding of this argument. The word fact and its meaning are quite clear even if fact does not exist, based on this you are only damaging Rapidash' argument by claiming her deductions are a load of rubbish as her basing something on fact is still not a fact, on the other hand I am talking theoretically.
I am still correct, because the word fact is used for something undeniably true still.....even if it is not a fact that its a fact 😉
Originally posted by General Kaliero
All scientific fact is man's conclusion based on perception of evidence in an event or constant. If the same thing happens enough times it's accepted as fact, but that does not bar the possibility of something else happening.And to be technical my name here is a string of digital data, which you perceive to be the words "General Kaliero" when viewing your computer monitor.
Scientific fact is based on variables that are also usually considered fact themselves and this is done by qualified people on subjects that can have fact. An evaluation of a person is almost never a fact, especially basing it on their personality as well.
You just changed my apparent fact, you've not actually countered it. You have outlined how my perception was factually wrong in truth, what is a fact, is that my perception deducts that you are "General Kaliero".
Originally posted by Peach
No, I'm saying it because it's true. "You've acted stupidly before" is not the same as "You're a flaming idiot".
Its a blatent and offensive bait and possibly an attack, and she stated "you have a history" which is a statement. Its like me saying "you have a history of being a sad pathetic w****" and not expecting ot be banned for it.
Originally posted by SuperLuigi
you cant factually call someone stupid and not have any proof. silly child blunder 6 part 3 because this is like the 3rd time you proved yourself to be a hypocrite in a matter of minutes.and of course if these moderators did their jobs instead of being biased to one side of an argument then you would be ban or at least warned for bashing.
Within minutes? I made three posts evenly spread during that hour. One of those posts consisted of me admitting being a hypocrite. I don't think "within minutes" is the same as "in the same hour"
On top of that, I've said nothing that could from an objective perspective be interpreted as bashing. I know you're trying to retaliate, but you're failing, so avert from that path before you make too much a fool out of yourself.
So according to you as long as I say "you have a history of" at the beginning and put "(No Offense)" on the end I can say whatever obscene, hateful and insulting comment I can think of and it will be nothing but an acceptable "opinion"?
Don't be daft....
And now I am feeling the irony misses "retaliate", "failing" and "fool" as he has retaliated already and you have helped him, why would he want to do so again?
Originally posted by Burning thought
The fact they do not exist in truth does not mean they do not exist from the understanding of this argument. The word fact and its meaning are quite clear even if fact does not exist, based on this you are only damaging Rapidash' argument by claiming her deductions are a load of rubbish as her basing something on fact is still not a fact, on the other hand I am talking theoretically.I am still correct, because the word fact is used for something undeniably true still.....even if it is not a fact that its a fact 😉
Scientific fact is based on variables that are also usually considered fact themselves and this is done by qualified people on subjects that can have fact. An evaluation of a person is almost never a fact, especially basing it on their personality as well.
You just changed my apparent fact, you've not actually countered it. You have outlined how my perception was factually wrong in truth, what is a fact, is that my perception deducts that you are "General Kaliero".
Its a blatent and offensive bait and possibly an attack, and she stated "you have a history" which is a statement. Its like me saying "you have a history of being a sad pathetic w****" and not expecting ot be banned for it.
All she did was state her opinions based on how certain people here present themselves. If anything, the definitions that GK and I posted (the actual, real definitions), back up her perceptions that she posted more than harm them.
Also, I cannot believe you are trying to argue that you are right, and actual accepted dictionary and scientific definitions are not, to try and make it fit your argument.
Have you ever taken any sort of advanced science or English courses?
And you just don't get it. Saying "You have a history of being (insert whatever here)" is bashing, because you're stating that they are stupid, an idiot, whatever. Saying "You have a history of acting in a certain way" is very different, because that simply means that in their eyes you tend to act stupid, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are stupid.
Originally posted by Burning thought
So according to you as long as I say "you have a history of" at the beginning and put "(No Offense)" on the end I can say whatever obsene, hateful and insulting comment I can think of and it will be nothing but an acceptable "opinion"?Dont be daft....
That's not even close to what anyone is saying. It's very simple, I don't know why you're not understanding it.
Originally posted by Burning thought
So according to you as long as I say "you have a history of" at the beginning and put "(No Offense)" on the end I can say whatever obscene, hateful and insulting comment I can think of and it will be nothing but an acceptable "opinion"?Don't be daft....
And now I am feeling the irony misses "retaliate", "failing" and "fool" as he has retaliated already and you have helped him, why would he want to do so again?
You have a history of it. To be stupid is to have a poor ability to understand something or to profit from experience.
You constantly use fallacies and despite being informed of this, you continue to use them, only claiming that they aren't fallacies. I didn't say it with mean intent when I said what I did, but it's the truth.
You don't see it. You don't like it. That doesn't make it any less true. In fact, it makes it more.
That post of yours just now, the one I'm responding to, also makes it true, because you fall victim to the other definition of the word: Poor ability to understand something- this time being you having a poor ability to understand what the word stupid actually means.
The fact that you consider the word in itself an insult proves this even more.
Stupid is not first and foremost an insult, even though that's what people ignorantly use the word for.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Scientific fact is based on variables that are also usually considered fact themselves and this is done by qualified people on subjects that can have fact. An evaluation of a person is almost never a fact, especially basing it on their personality as well.You just changed my apparent fact, you've not actually countered it. You have outlined how my perception was factually wrong in truth, what is a fact, is that my perception deducts that you are "General Kaliero".
What you are missing here is that there is no "fact" that cannot be registered in any way except through one's perception. People are qualified when their personal perception aligns with the generally accepted perception of a subject. For example, education teaches one the generally accepted perception of various subjects (ranging from the fairly concrete, such as hard mathematics, to history, which is admittedly flawed), and when you understand the reasoning behind those accepted perceptions, you are considered educated.
To the point of people, that is the field of sociology and psychology, in which qualified individuals evaluate their perceptions of many people or individuals, respectively. That both of these are a science discredits your dismissal of being able to evaluate people in a valuable way.
Right now I'm arguing that all "fact" is based on perception. Not that anyone may be wrong at this time. This argument precludes that.