Slarti
-
Posts
3,453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Slarti
-
-
There is now. [emoji38]Is there no end to this?
-
More reverse psychology, it isn't as simple as a yes or no so you won't get one. As I have already said I am not interest in getting into the semantics of words with you, that won't change sorry. You'll probably now claim victory given you "expected" this. (see what I did there?)
However what I will do is again clarify my stance. The statement I made was fact. Lockdown has saved more than zero lives, people are alive today that wouldn't be had lockdown not happened in any sense. I do not feel it adds to an argument or is required to make "prove it" points, I think it's pedantic and it is a go to, ineffective argument style of yours that we have seen many times before. The claim is an obvious one, validation (IMO just like the dice example) is not required.
That's fine, plenty more fish in the sea as they say. You could have saved yourself so much time as I have been very clear and consistent that I won't lower myself to your needs on this pedantic point.
I will say goodbye to yet another contributor that feels the need to announce the ignore function lol. [emoji112]
There obviously is a yes or no answer. You either did or you didn't. As I expected, you avoid answering the question as you would either have to admit you were wrong (a yes) or obviously lie (a no).
I am not going to "claim victory" as that isn't important to me (even though you will claim that it "obviously is") but, irrespective of that, you lose. Not to me, but in front of everyone else on the forum as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in what is right or wrong, you are just interested in putting your opinion out as the right opinion, irrespective of the supporting evidence - you're basically a very bad spin doctor.
Your logic has been shown to be invalid, your arguments unsound and your command of basic English to be flawed.
I really should have known better to expect that you would have matured any in the four/five months since you were put on ignore.
I never "announced the ignore function", I just told you the ramifications of, once again, failing to answer a simple question. Before your flawed logic comes out again, I had to read your post to know that you never answered the question and I put you on ignore before posting this. -
Well, a lot of them definitely are.So COVID has dropped us into recession with a 20% drop in GDP, double what Germany and US are, we have the furlough scheme ending in a few months and of course the charge towards Brexit, which is more of a crawl now...……
We have Oldham, and various towns back in Lockdown, still millions going on holiday abroad and cramming beaches, busy pubs, and has anyone else realised.....…..
The Human race is FXXXING Stupid -
You know what, I could get into all this with answers but I would just be repeating myself again and I'm sure that others will be bored with it all.So "you know" and "you think" at the same time? Make your mind up. The fact that you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not says more about you than it does about me. You have already admitted that when you say "fact", you really mean your "opinion", so I'm continuing with that. I do want to know though, what word will you use when you mean "fact"?
Seemed like you really tried to let it go lol. Where are you quoting me saying "think" on this point? I imagine this will be a running theme but as I have said before, I have no interest in getting into the semantics of the word fact with you.
There is no point where it becomes pedantic to ask for validated evidence. If it is something obvious, e.g. gravity, all you have to do is say "Google it". As for your dice rolls, I will say it again, you obviously have no grasp of what probability demonstrates. What it doesn't demonstrate, unless the probability is exactly 1, is if something will definitely happen. It doesn't matter how close to 1 it is, if it isn't 1 then the event might not happen. Also, things that have a probability of almost zero happen regularly. As I previously said, you can pick any number you want, it doesn't matter. Your "view" on the matter has no bearing on the truth of it.
OK, show me where i was being "pedantic" under another username. Go on. Bet you don't.
And, it's "saw" not "seen". Maybe that demonstrates your ability in basic English perfectly, mind you.
This is a point of disagreement, I think when things are painstakingly obvious, people can use this approach to slow down, derail and hinder an argument or debate. You are one of these people, it's a technique you have used many times & is very ineffective as I have adequately highlighted in the dice roll example. This is my view and it is what will drive my approach to this argument, hence why I will not get into the semantics of words to pander to your pedantic nature. You also continue to get confused on my grasp of what you are saying vs me rejecting it as a valid way to have an argument.I'm not going to immediately pander to you and show where you were being pedantic under another username because it would likely take some time to check back but I'll give an example and we can see if you agree it happened (to save lots of time, get it yet?). Under your old username some months (maybe even over a year now that I think about it) you got hung up for weeks on the use of a word, the word itself escapes me but do you deny we had an argument on this? Side note reverse psychology used in this manner won't work on me.
English police.
I know I'm better than you, but I'm not Jesus.
If you do say so yourself...
You don’t need to simplify anything. The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry. Your example is flawed. I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed. There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about. Your example also was not analogous to your claim. Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example? The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time. It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws. That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed. The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing. Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it? FFS.
OK, you have no answer to any of the above, good of you to admit it.
Again reverse psychology wont work in such manners.
A simple, though drastic, third option, would be if I killed you. That is not a threat and I'm not wishing any ill will on you, just stating the most obvious other option (there are others which would take longer to type) that proves that those are not my only two options. I expect that you will argue about this and/or try and change the goalposts.
Lol it would be sweet relief at this point of such a consistently pedantic argument style. No you are right that would be a perfectly reasonable, sound and acceptable third option, you haven't yet again been pedantic at all.
Just answer one question. I expect you will obfuscate and try to avoid answering but, here goes:
Did you make a statement that, at the time of making it, you were unable to demonstrate the truth of and claim that statement as fact?
You either did or you didn't. No semantics or pedantry. A simple yes or no. No expansion required.
As I said, I expect you to avoid answering. This would not be you getting into the semantics of the use of a word as I specifically have said that no expansion on a yes or no answer is required.
If you do so however, I will put you on ignore and you will miss out on "this part of BAWA that [you] enjoy" (your words, not mine) and will need to find someone else to start a needless trivial debate with. -
Nobody would ever say that about mulch, you crazy person, you. [emoji38]Make the most of it before the new hate bill comes into effect.
Following the new bill you can expect such arguments as “ I disagree, I think the sky was overcast today to the south west rather than the south east” and “ I would say mulch is a far superior weed suppressant than bark”
we will all look back on the heady days when the forum was a place to vent your spleen with impunity
What we really need is a new Paranoid f**ker Bill for those that think everyone has a vendetta against them.
-
Yes they do....................
In the interest of being fair the same legal site also says I could/should have enquired, I didn't.
Who was foolish enough to think it was free?
As I've said, I won't be paying the bill, let's see how it plays out.
Don't know where your quote comes from but it says "should", not must. -
You couldn't understand the point of that graph. That was on you.
My mistake was thinking you would be capable of understanding the raft of caveats I attached to it.
You're making an arse of yourself on this plumber thing.
Do the decent thing and pick up the phone, negotiate a price and pay the man and stop behaving like a Karen with balls.
And next time don't be so fecking stupid.
Honestly, what kind of spangle doesn't ask for a full quote from a tradesman?[emoji28]
I knew to do that when I was 17 for christ's sake.
Leave me out of it.
-
Oh I, and everybody else, understood your graph.
It was the source of hilarity for fecking weeks.
You were the one who couldn't see the figures you produced were always going to be so far from the truth it was comedy gold.
Funny how much you've swivelled on the plumber thing, again, playing to the crowd.
I've already said I'll pay what I think is a fair price, are you l stupid?
Grow a pair, admit your graph was utter pish and man up.......................oh, can I have 25 toilet rolls please?
Oops. [emoji38] -
I would expect us to lose, so we should try and keep this rescheduled game to as late as possible so that, if the season is curtailed again before we play it, our points per game is higher.
-
On 8/10/2020 at 10:52 AM, bazil85 said:On 8/10/2020 at 2:01 AM, Slarti said:
You do??? Your arrogance appears to know no bounds. I'm obviously not very easy for you to read as you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not.
Yes I do, based on several other examples that to me has validated this as a go to for you. If a guy is caught cheating on his wife several times, does it become fact that he's a cheater? Please try to consider pedantry if you wish to address this analogy.
So "you know" and "you think" at the same time? Make your mind up. The fact that you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not says more about you than it does about me. You have already admitted that when you say "fact", you really mean your "opinion", so I'm continuing with that. I do want to know though, what word will you use when you mean "fact"?
You can call it pedantic all you want, it won't make it so. You obviously don't have a very strong command of the English language, I'll need to remember to make allowances for that. If something is a fact, it MUST have evidence to back it up. That you won't supply this evidence (that you indirectly claim to have by insisting that it is a fact) speaks volumes. It's not tedious at all, it's always refreshing to know that you are in the right, you should try it sometime. I know what it is that you will never do, supply evidence for your assertions.
At what point does it become pedantic to ask for validated evidence? 1 million dice rolls? A billion? A trillion? My view is it gets to a point that something is so obviously the case, demanding evidence becomes pedantic. That's what we seen from you when you joined this conversation. You also have previous. Again you will never change my mind on that, given I can literally show this is what you do over several topics (and at least a couple of usernames)
There is no point where it becomes pedantic to ask for validated evidence. If it is something obvious, e.g. gravity, all you have to do is say "Google it". As for your dice rolls, I will say it again, you obviously have no grasp of what probability demonstrates. What it doesn't demonstrate, unless the probability is exactly 1, is if something will definitely happen. It doesn't matter how close to 1 it is, if it isn't 1 then the event might not happen. Also, things that have a probability of almost zero happen regularly. As I previously said, you can pick any number you want, it doesn't matter. Your "view" on the matter has no bearing on the truth of it.
OK, show me where i was being "pedantic" under another username. Go on. Bet you don't.
And, it's "saw" not "seen". Maybe that demonstrates your ability in basic English perfectly, mind you.
No comment on this?
I have made all the comment I want on this, I made it very clear I wouldn't stoop down to your level on the semantics of words. For your awareness (again)
1. Let it go
2. Me continuing to tell you I have no interest in breaking down a pedantic point for your gratification.
Or this?
As above
Or this?
As above
The first part is NOT definitely true. It quite possibly is true, maybe even probably true, but not DEFINITELY true. How you can’t understand this is totally beyond me. FYI, I have not agreed with Andy, I have even told him that he talks pish. You can call it pedantry all you want, it won’t make it true. Just because you have no interest in accuracy, it doesn’t make someone else a pedant.
This is also covered by the above. 1 or 2 again.
I have no issue with anyone (even you) believing anything, the problems arise when people act on beliefs which aren’t true or when one false belief results in other false beliefs. The future analysis is all that matters, that is when the probability will be determined about whether or not lockdown has saved lives. What it will not do is show definitely whether anyone still alive would have died as a result on contracting the virus if not for lockdown. Also, any reliable analysis will not be available for years to come as the knock-on effect of reduced NHS services becomes transparent.
Jesus let it go lol.
I know I'm better than you, but I'm not Jesus.
You don’t need to simplify anything. The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry. Your example is flawed. I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed. There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about. Your example also was not analogous to your claim. Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example? The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time. It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws. That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed. The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing. Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it? FFS.
And again
OK, you have no answer to any of the above, good of you to admit it.
They are not the only two options, you can’t even get that right.
I don't see it, but I'm open to you trying to introduce a third option. It won't be me lowering myself to address your semantics.
A simple, though drastic, third option, would be if I killed you. That is not a threat and I'm not wishing any ill will on you, just stating the most obvious other option (there are others which would take longer to type) that proves that those are not my only two options. I expect that you will argue about this and/or try and change the goalposts.
-
Hence my assumption.I was hoping the emoji would have been a clue. -
NoAre dishwashers mandatory in all pubs? -
I'll assume you're just being silly.Match day 5. Do we play ourselves in a shootout to see who tops the group? [emoji1787] -
I agree.
The water in a dishwater is way more burny than the water in which hands can do dishes.
The virus would be killed.
Ya big girl. [emoji38] -
The Fergus?The stand alone building just above the crest, didn't that used to be a hotel before it was knocked down. -
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:1 hour ago, Slarti said:
So now you know what my aim was without me saying so? You a mind reader now? My aim was to see the information you used to ascertain your "facts", nothing more. You not being willing to provide that information is what has led this thread into a (mainly) pile of shit. Thanks for that, by the way.
Yes I do, mind reading capabilities not required. It was very obvious and it's something you have done often in the past. You're very easy to read.
You do??? Your arrogance appears to know no bounds. I'm obviously not very easy for you to read as you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not.
Correction, me not willing to bow down to your pedantic nature has had a knock on effect, you can't accept it and have become obsessed with trying to get me to do something that I NEVER will do. I won't stoop to your tedious level.
You can call it pedantic all you want, it won't make it so. You obviously don't have a very strong command of the English language, I'll need to remember to make allowances for that. If something is a fact, it MUST have evidence to back it up. That you won't supply this evidence (that you indirectly claim to have by insisting that it is a fact) speaks volumes. It's not tedious at all, it's always refreshing to know that you are in the right, you should try it sometime. I know what it is that you will never do, supply evidence for your assertions.
So we can proceed by knowing that when you say "fact" you mean "your view" then. Cool, let's get on with it then - what exactly is the point of the dice example supposed to be? You never previously said the event was in the past, are you changing the goalposts now? I'm not being pedantic, your example is flawed. For your past dice example to be anywhere near accurate you would need to not know if any sixes had come up in the 10,000 throws for it to be in any way analogous to lockdown saving lives. What you don't seem to get is that I would assume, before the event, that at least one six would come up in 10,000 throws, I would even put money on it, but it would still be a gamble, I could still lose. That is why it isn't a fact. Unless the dice had ::: on all sides (and discounting it landing on its edge) there is NO guarantee that a six will come up in any amount if throws - pick any number you want, it makes no difference, in that amount of throws there is NO guarantee of a six. I am also assuming that you are talking about fair dice, from a mathematical viewpoint.
No comment on this?
You do know that a fact has to be demonstrable, don't you? Something can be true, but it is only a fact if you can demonstrate it, e.g. via observation or experiment. "Fact" is not a synonym for "true". It is only a fact if it can be shown to be true. For example, if there is life on another planet then it is true that there is extra terrestrial life, but it's only a fact when it is shown to exist, until then, it is still true but not a fact.
Or this?
As I previously said, it may turn out that you are correct but that doesn't mean that what you are saying can be regarded as a fact at this time.
Or this?
I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by lockdown has saved more than zero lives. Do you mean that there is at least one person alive that would have contracted and died due to the virus if not for lockdown, or do you mean that, in total, there are more people alive than there would have been if there hadn't been a lockdown? The first part is definitely true & was the origination of your pedantry (Andy saying it has saved zero people) although if you have misunderstood my view it is understandable and we can chalk this one down to experience?
The first part is NOT definitely true. It quite possibly is true, maybe even probably true, but not DEFINITELY true. How you can’t understand this is totally beyond me. FYI, I have not agreed with Andy, I have even told him that he talks pish. You can call it pedantry all you want, it won’t make it true. Just because you have no interest in accuracy, it doesn’t make someone else a pedant.
Right now my belief is the second part is true as of today but not what I have been saying is fact. There's the third point regarding future state which I also think will show lockdown saved lives overall but that's probably a while away to validate and know the extent.
I have no issue with anyone (even you) believing anything, the problems arise when people act on beliefs which aren’t true or when one false belief results in other false beliefs. The future analysis is all that matters, that is when the probability will be determined about whether or not lockdown has saved lives. What it will not do is show definitely whether anyone still alive would have died as a result on contracting the virus if not for lockdown. Also, any reliable analysis will not be available for years to come as the knock-on effect of reduced NHS services becomes transparent.
I'll try simplify the reason for the example further. The dice throw was to highlight a point to show how pedantic you were being. You jumping in saying pretty much "prove it" to something like this isn't needed. If I had said something like "lockdown has factually saved millions of UK lives" sure go nuts, that is a claim that would b perfectly reasonably to question. But like the point I made, if someone rolled a dice 10,000 times (or was about to) and I said "Some of those would/ will have been a 6 fact" There is no need to go and "prove" that or for someone to get hung-up on the semantics of that sentence. It's something that would be completely rational to accept given the odds to the contrary. It's a solid analogy for the lockdown point and it highlights what many of us have seen (although probably won't admit because of yours truly) about how you argue.
You don’t need to simplify anything. The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry. Your example is flawed. I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed. There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about. Your example also was not analogous to your claim. Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example? The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time. It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws. That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed. The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing. Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it? FFS.
You then ramble more about the pedantic nature that I have told you several times I wont engage in. I'm afraid your only options are
1. let it go
2. Me continuing to tell you I have no interest in breaking down a pedantic point for your gratification.
They are not the only two options, you can’t even get that right.
-
That's not today - there's no cones "managing" the traffic to the entrance to the recycling centre. [emoji38]Approx same view today
-
Because it is a discussion forum, points being made progress as the forum does. The point is fact though, his aim was to lower it down to a very pedantic level and he succeeded.
So now you know what my aim was without me saying so? You a mind reader now? My aim was to see the information you used to ascertain your "facts", nothing more. You not being willing to provide that information is what has led this thread into a (mainly) pile of shit. Thanks for that, by the way.
Again you double down on your pedantic argument, I have said I have no interest in getting into a debate on the semantics of the word "fact" I won't change my view on this because lockdown has saved people's lives. You got what you wanted out of your engagement which is an argument and I am willing to continue that with you but regarding your desperation to debate if it's a point of fact or otherwise, I won't be going into that with you. My view will remain the below. If we again take the dice example, if the event is in the past, I don't need to see a validation study to know it'll be fact that at least one six was rolled lol. That's where you can't grasp you are being pedantic.Lockdown has saved more than zero lives in the UK, fact. No amount of moon howling will get me to move on that view.
So we can proceed by knowing that when you say "fact" you mean "your view" then. Cool, let's get on with it then - what exactly is the point of the dice example supposed to be? You never previously said the event was in the past, are you changing the goalposts now? I'm not being pedantic, your example is flawed. For your past dice example to be anywhere near accurate you would need to not know if any sixes had come up in the 10,000 throws for it to be in any way analogous to lockdown saving lives. What you don't seem to get is that I would assume, before the event, that at least one six would come up in 10,000 throws, I would even put money on it, but it would still be a gamble, I could still lose. That is why it isn't a fact. Unless the dice had ::: on all sides (and discounting it landing on its edge) there is NO guarantee that a six will come up in any amount if throws - pick any number you want, it makes no difference, in that amount of throws there is NO guarantee of a six. I am also assuming that you are talking about fair dice, from a mathematical viewpoint.
You do know that a fact has to be demonstrable, don't you? Something can be true, but it is only a fact if you can demonstrate it, e.g. via observation or experiment. "Fact" is not a synonym for "true". It is only a fact if it can be shown to be true. For example, if there is life on another planet then it is true that there is extra terrestrial life, but it's only a fact when it is shown to exist, until then, it is still true but not a fact.
As I previously said, it may turn out that you are correct but that doesn't mean that what you are saying can be regarded as a fact at this time.
I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by lockdown has saved more than zero lives. Do you mean that there is at least one person alive that would have contracted and died due to the virus if not for lockdown, or do you mean that, in total, there are more people alive than there would have been if there hadn't been a lockdown?
-
Almost right.Aye, but someone will claim to have found a bible/qur'an that hasn't been destroyed in the explosion and claim that god saved it. f**k the people who died, just save the book of fairytales.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-53696936/beirut-explosion-video-of-church-altar-s-survival-brings-hope
-
That depends on what you consider a language and what you consider a dialect.English , do you speak it ?[emoji38]lol -
I don't care about what someone's personal choice of pronoun is either, I'll still call them he or she as I see it, same with Sevco, even if they want to be called Rangers, even if "those in authority" tell me different. Just my opinion, I'm not trying to force anyone to comply but I may point out their mistake now and again.I think you’re missing my point Slarti me old chum. I don’t disagree with you in the slightest.
My point is that f**k all will change, Rangers still have all their honours and they are still regarded by everyone in the “football world” as Rangers. No amount of bleating like big spoilt weans is going to change any of that, so let’s just shut the f**k up and get on with it. Hopefully next time they will f**k themselves beyond all repair.
-
They well known fascists? [emoji38]Do you remember Stalin ,Mao and Pol pot[emoji16] -
On this matter, I am 100% in agreement with Antrin, and here's why (just my tuppence worth):Antrin,
i know from your posts and your history back to the old Saints Online Guestbook that you are like myself, a man of mature years. I think you are probably even more “mature” than me.
i will also confess to be a fan of most of your work on this forum. I think we share a lot of similar views.
How is it therefore, that every post you make on the subject of “The Rangers” (or as those of us who live in the real world call them, Rangers), sounds like it’s coming from a petulant child who refuses to accept the fact that despite their view being the actual reality, no one else believes it. Rangers football club don’t believe it, Rangers fans don’t believe it and most importantly Scottish Football doesn’t believe it, otherwise they’d have been stripped of all their titles.
you stamping your feet like a spoilt brat won’t change a thing.
I grew up in a Protestant family, but very much a St. Mirren family. Despite being Protestant, to a man we were incredibly anti Rangers. Perhaps even more so than Celtic. I have no idea why that was, but let’s just say I am far from an apologist for Rangers.. I probably despise the f**kers as much as you do, but I’m here to tell you one thing. They are still Rangers. They still have all their honours and they always will have.
When Rangers (the company) went into administration, Rangers (the club) accepted the points deduction without any "different entities" talk. To me, this amounts to an acceptance that they were one and the same thing. The only time the "different entities" stuff came up was when they were looking for an excuse that their club wasn't dead. The new company were transfered the "share" in the SPL/League that the old company held and bought the ground etc from the old company. The club wasn't exactly sold as a going concern, i.e. a business that is operating and making a profit. Just because a team called Rangers was allowed in (bypassing other more deserving teams who had been adhering to the rules for years waiting to get in) is irrelevant to the matter. Whether the SPL/League/SFA/SPFL/UEFA/FIFA agree(d) or not, IMO, this is a different club. Just because someone else says that something is the case, it doesn't mean that I have to accept that their opinion is correct.
Airdrie Utd/Airdrieonians only started claiming the old Airdrieonians history after Rangers/Sevco got away with what they did. IMO, it's made a total mockery of our national game.
Let's face it, if it hadn't been one of the two arsecheeks, there wouldn't be any argument about whether or not they were dead, they would just be dead. -
Ah, you see, it wasn't pointless. [emoji38]Thanks for that pointless interjection.
Bazil...........[emoji23]
Coronavirus
in General Nonsense
Posted