1. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    18 Nov '06 18:05
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Is this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint,
    you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?

    Shameful.

    Nemesio
    Surely, this is still preferable to the catastrophic alternative of admitting he is wrong, confused, or both.
  2. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    18 Nov '06 18:07
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Is this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint,
    you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?

    Shameful.

    Nemesio
    It sounds familiar, but I just can't place where you said this before. Ironically (but certainly not surprisingly), your loyalty always seems to be placed with those whose views are closer to your own. I guess fair play isn't a concept with which you are familiar. Go figure.
  3. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    18 Nov '06 18:08
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    It sounds familiar, but I just can't place where you said this before. Ironically (but certainly not surprisingly), your loyalty always seems to be placed with those whose views are closer to your own. I guess fair play isn't a concept with which you are familiar. Go figure.
    Is this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint, you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?

    Shameful.

    Pawny
  4. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    18 Nov '06 18:29
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Is this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint, you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?

    Shameful.

    Pawny
    Plagarist.
  5. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11479
    18 Nov '06 18:30
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Plagarist.
    plagiarist
  6. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    18 Nov '06 18:38
    Originally posted by Agerg
    plag[b]iarist[/b]
    Plagiarist.
  7. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    18 Nov '06 19:13
    Originally posted by Agerg
    plag[b]iarist[/b]
    Damn.
  8. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    18 Nov '06 19:13
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Plagiarist.
    Damn, damn.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    18 Nov '06 19:43
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Yes! That's the salient feature of the process governing the outcomes.

    In short, your first guess will be wrong with probability 2/3. That means the prize lies behind one of other two doors with probability 2/3. Eliminate one of those other two doors (an instance of arbitrarily repartitioning the outcomes as I was describing before) and the u ...[text shortened]... this then to see if you have any unresolved issues, and to see if Freaky remains an idiot.
    The only way you'd get a true 2/3 type of system is broaden the
    scope to a simple 1, >1, or 0. When we start digging into the what
    1 God, or which if not all >1 of gods there are do we run into issues
    where the views about each could be wrong. Defining the outcome of
    getting it right or wrong is also beyond the simple too, unless it is
    clearly spelled out on what we are talking about, then it is either right
    or wrong.
    Kelly
  10. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    18 Nov '06 19:47
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    The only way you'd get a true 2/3 type of system is broaden the
    scope to a simple 1, >1, or 0. When we start digging into the what
    1 God, or which if not all >1 of gods there are do we run into issues
    where the views about each could be wrong. Defining the outcome of
    getting it right or wrong is also beyond the simple too, unless it is
    clearly spelled out on what we are talking about, then it is either right
    or wrong.
    Kelly
    Don't confuse them with facts, though. They prefer to muddy all the waters.
  11. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    18 Nov '06 21:10
    After seamlessly explicating mechanistic materialism and the philosophy of Schopenhauer, Freaky is now going to teach us all something about probability?

    I would think the following conditional probability is high: P(He's laughing His ass off | God exists).
  12. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Nov '06 02:42
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    After seamlessly explicating mechanistic materialism and the philosophy of Schopenhauer, Freaky is now going to teach us all something about probability?

    I would think the following conditional probability is high: P(He's laughing His ass off | God exists).
    Hey, LJ: get your facts straight, will ya? Herr doctor is the self-proclaimed internationally-known expert of all experts on probability. If you don't believe him, just ask him. Chances are, you'll get a response of some kind.
  13. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    19 Nov '06 10:02
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Don't confuse them with facts, though. They prefer to muddy all the waters.
    Facts?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree