Report, edit, etc...Posted by SuperToast on 2005-08-12 at 16:56:43
Devilisk, what is a flammer?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-12 at 16:57:32
IhateTT, we were talking about you, and you reminded us of an abortion, or something.
Uhh...PM's supertoast?
Uhh...PM's supertoast?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The Blood Angel on 2005-08-12 at 16:57:56
I believe it's something like this.
Flammer?
Flammer?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by wesmic da pimp on 2005-08-12 at 16:58:10
This is so funny.
Deathknight was proven wrong countless times. Ihatett even said mentioned earlier that this "buffer overflow" was possible. Turns out he was right about that too. DK mentioned that "only 2 patches corrupted replays" which was also false. Furthermore, DK avoids further questions and discussion about this, because he was so wrong in so many situations and can't step up to the plate. First he was just being sarcastic to avoid the discussion and be go so off topic to push ihattet's and everyone else's posts about this back, then he has more people spam about an off-topic matter. I sure would have expected more maturity from DK of all people, but I guess not. He just ran from all matters of this situation. I would have expected this from some, but... not DK.
Deathknight was proven wrong countless times. Ihatett even said mentioned earlier that this "buffer overflow" was possible. Turns out he was right about that too. DK mentioned that "only 2 patches corrupted replays" which was also false. Furthermore, DK avoids further questions and discussion about this, because he was so wrong in so many situations and can't step up to the plate. First he was just being sarcastic to avoid the discussion and be go so off topic to push ihattet's and everyone else's posts about this back, then he has more people spam about an off-topic matter. I sure would have expected more maturity from DK of all people, but I guess not. He just ran from all matters of this situation. I would have expected this from some, but... not DK.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 16:59:18
QUOTE(Deathknight @ Aug 12 2005, 04:56 PM)
That's the problem why arguments with two sides get nowhere. One side sais to prove it, the other side sais to disprove it, regardless if the object they're arguing over exists or not.
[right][snapback]286436[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286436[/snapback][/right]
That is why there is burden of proof, the person who is asserting something is the one that has to show proof. The reason why arguments go nowhere is because neither of them know how to debate.
So now that I have clearly shown that Tavrobel is wrong, this argument is over, even if he is too stubborn to realize it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by wesmic da pimp on 2005-08-12 at 16:59:21
Deathknight, I don't even expect a reply from you, you're just going to be sarcastic and say something like "ihatett was so right"...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by I-X-King-X-I on 2005-08-12 at 16:59:39
QUOTE(ihatett_da_hated @ Aug 12 2005, 02:56 PM)
how the hell did this turn into an abortion argument while I was gone?
[right][snapback]286437[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286437[/snapback][/right]
should of stayed to take care of it
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-08-12 at 16:59:49
Wesmic, stop getting off topic, jeez.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SuperToast on 2005-08-12 at 16:59:58
QUOTE(wesmic da pimp @ Aug 12 2005, 02:58 PM)
This is so funny.
Deathknight was proven wrong countless times. Ihatett even said mentioned earlier that this "buffer overflow" was possible. Turns out he was right about that too. DK mentioned that "only 2 patches corrupted replays" which was also false. Furthermore, DK avoids further questions and discussion about this, because he was so wrong in so many situations and can't step up to the plate. First he was just being sarcastic to avoid the discussion and be go so off topic to push ihattet's and everyone else's posts about this back, then he has more people spam about an off-topic matter. I sure would have expected more maturity from DK of all people, but I guess not. He just ran from all matters of this situation. I would have expected this from some, but... not DK.
[right][snapback]286441[/snapback][/right]
Deathknight was proven wrong countless times. Ihatett even said mentioned earlier that this "buffer overflow" was possible. Turns out he was right about that too. DK mentioned that "only 2 patches corrupted replays" which was also false. Furthermore, DK avoids further questions and discussion about this, because he was so wrong in so many situations and can't step up to the plate. First he was just being sarcastic to avoid the discussion and be go so off topic to push ihattet's and everyone else's posts about this back, then he has more people spam about an off-topic matter. I sure would have expected more maturity from DK of all people, but I guess not. He just ran from all matters of this situation. I would have expected this from some, but... not DK.
[right][snapback]286441[/snapback][/right]
So wait it is now about a personal grudge against DK instead of about the patches somehow ruining your melee?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-12 at 17:01:12
So deathknight, if you had a disease, would you sacrifice 3 babies to save you?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by wesmic da pimp on 2005-08-12 at 17:01:43
QUOTE(SuperToast @ Aug 12 2005, 03:59 PM)
So wait it is now about a personal grudge against DK instead of about the patches somehow ruining your melee?
[right][snapback]286446[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286446[/snapback][/right]
Holding a personal grudge?
Me and DK have been mutual friends on BNet for quite a while, not to mention that I never mentioned melee in that post. Just because someone is your friend doesn't mean you support them when they're wrong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by I-X-King-X-I on 2005-08-12 at 17:02:18
QUOTE(MrrLL @ Aug 12 2005, 03:01 PM)
So deathknight, if you had a disease, would you sacrifice 3 babies to save you?
[right][snapback]286448[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286448[/snapback][/right]
i would
they havnt lived their life, so they arent as important as me
Report, edit, etc...Posted by darth_ender on 2005-08-12 at 17:02:44
MrrLL is really funny.
Honestly, attacking the spiritual is attacking the unproven. To say fairies don't exist because I'VE never seen them falls under
doesn't it? To say God exists because you can't prove he doesn't and to say God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does...they are equally full of falacy. I challenge anyone to write an argument without the use of some falacy. Some assumptions must be made. You can't prove to a blind man (from birth) that the sky is blue. He has never experienced sight. Any argument you make to prove to him that YOU know the sky is blue will have falacy involved. But you can't shake the fact that you've SEEN the sky, and you know it's blue. To criticize someone because they've experienced God and you haven't is like someone who's never seen the sky condemning the man who has. I can't prove to you God exists. But I promise you that he's proved to me that he does. Stop knocking those who have faith. No one is saying you're ignorant for not believing something, though I could rummage up some interesting evidence. Unfortunately, any argument ever given for pro or con will contain what others could view as a fallacy.
Honestly, attacking the spiritual is attacking the unproven. To say fairies don't exist because I'VE never seen them falls under
QUOTE
QUOTE
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"
doesn't it? To say God exists because you can't prove he doesn't and to say God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does...they are equally full of falacy. I challenge anyone to write an argument without the use of some falacy. Some assumptions must be made. You can't prove to a blind man (from birth) that the sky is blue. He has never experienced sight. Any argument you make to prove to him that YOU know the sky is blue will have falacy involved. But you can't shake the fact that you've SEEN the sky, and you know it's blue. To criticize someone because they've experienced God and you haven't is like someone who's never seen the sky condemning the man who has. I can't prove to you God exists. But I promise you that he's proved to me that he does. Stop knocking those who have faith. No one is saying you're ignorant for not believing something, though I could rummage up some interesting evidence. Unfortunately, any argument ever given for pro or con will contain what others could view as a fallacy.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by T.s.u.k.a.s.a on 2005-08-12 at 17:02:44
QUOTE(DaMiNaToR @ Aug 11 2005, 09:08 PM)
None of you make sense, you're all crazy, and personally, I'm glad EUDs got whacked, 
it would have made map making way to complicated and made people's heads spin just thinking about map ideas...also I didn't want to have to spend hours learning how to do them. 
[right][snapback]285546[/snapback][/right]
it would have made map making way to complicated and made people's heads spin just thinking about map ideas...also I didn't want to have to spend hours learning how to do them. [right][snapback]285546[/snapback][/right]
Actually, you could do EUD triggers easily by downloading the latest version of uberation. Complicated? Not really. I've seen more complicated things done in normal maps.
I'm not happy about the removal of UED triggers, but I'll just have to go back to makeing normal maps. Then again, I wasn't happy about editing the extended players either, such as 161. I just wish Blizz would start fixing hacks instead of working on preventing Macs from crashing. At least players 13 and 14 still accelerate the game. Since Blizz has all rights to the source code and data, they can do whatever they want, right down to adding a unit that looks like a vibrator and has pleasure as an attack.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-12 at 17:02:50
What if the babies had AIDS?
EDIT: Full blown?
EDIT: Full blown?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tavrobel on 2005-08-12 at 17:03:00
QUOTE
That is why there is burden of proof, the person who is asserting something is the one that has to show proof. The reason why arguments go nowhere is because neither of them know how to debate.
So now that I have clearly shown that Tavrobel is wrong, this argument is over, even if he is too stubborn to realize it.
So now that I have clearly shown that Tavrobel is wrong, this argument is over, even if he is too stubborn to realize it.
You go ahead to think what you think, I'll go on thinking what I think. You know, life goes on, even if neither one of us r wrong or right devilesk. Geez.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by I-X-King-X-I on 2005-08-12 at 17:03:45
QUOTE(MrrLL @ Aug 12 2005, 03:02 PM)
What if the babies had AIDS?
[right][snapback]286454[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286454[/snapback][/right]
then it would defeat the purpose of eating htem
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 17:04:03
Actually not really, I will go on knowing that I am right, and you will just go on believing that you are right when you are truly wrong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ihatett_da_hated on 2005-08-12 at 17:04:37
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-08-12 at 17:04:42
QUOTE
So deathknight, if you had a disease, would you sacrifice 3 babies to save you?
Yes, anyone would. People don't usually sacrafice themselves to save many other lives. We're humans, greedy.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by I-X-King-X-I on 2005-08-12 at 17:05:38
QUOTE(Deathknight @ Aug 12 2005, 03:04 PM)
Yes, anyone would. People don't usually sacrafice themselves to save many other lives. We're humans, greedy.
[right][snapback]286459[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286459[/snapback][/right]
i agree....except i think its just the fact their babies...its like riding a a roler coaster to them
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tavrobel on 2005-08-12 at 17:06:27
QUOTE
Actually not really, I will go on knowing that I am right, and you will just go on believing that you are right when you are truly wrong.
But you don't absolutely know you're right. It's saddening really to see someone act so... childish, even if he has to get a valid point across. And don't insult what I think is true. I don't try to challenge your knowledge of the number two, now do I?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-12 at 17:07:24
Hmm, if you had to survive through watching a kitten being microwaved, Deathknight, Would you still research stem cell?
I would. I like radioactive kittens.
I would. I like radioactive kittens.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 17:07:45
How am I being childish? You are the one continuing to argue even though you have nothing more to offer in this argument. You are too stubborn to realize it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by darth_ender on 2005-08-12 at 17:08:10
QUOTE
Actually not really, I will go on knowing that I am right, and you will just go on believing that you are right when you are truly wrong.
You KNOW you're right, eh devilesk? Of all the ignorant things you've said today...