Actually yeah why not, let's ask a fourth time:
If you claim I am an idiot for not presenting "Inquirer evidence," which is not even verifiable, then I can apply the same logic to conclude that you are an idiot for not presenting "verifiable evidence."
How do you make your stance logically consistent?
It really isn't that difficult.
Do you want me to give you hints?
I've already explained my stance multiple times now.
Scenario 1: If we only accept scientific evidence then your list lacks proof and my list is irrelevant since you reject the "Inquirer evidence" it's based on. Burden of proof falls on you since you made the initial claim.
Scenario 2: If we accept "Inquirer evidence" then your list lacks proof and my list has proof. Burden of proof falls on you since you made the initial claim and has yet to provide a similar level of evidence/reasoning I gave.
Hallelujah, so your stance was "provide any evidence," no matter how bad/anecdotal/unverifiable it is.
If I provide *any* evidence, you will admit I've won, I take it? Let me just confirm your stance before I do.
Stop being retardedly literal. You keep trying to 'disprove' what I say by completely ignoring the actual context/meaning and instead obsessing about semantics.
Either provide scientific evidence (ie. what you push for) or present evidence/reasoning similar to what I gave you, backed with reasonable anecdotal or circumstantial evidence when called for.
What would be required to fit the bill of "reasonable" enough for you?
What would be required to fit the bill of "reasonable" enough for you?
Something similar to what I gave as my reasons. For example, if Ed had a reputation for being a Swedish kickboxer (just ask a few people and see what they think) then I'd accept that. It'd certainly wouldn't prove he's Swedish but it would make it reasonable to add him to a list of possible Swedes.
Why should I present "Inquirer evidence"? That's your stance (one which leads to fallacies), not mine.
I said almost from the start: "it's up to people to decide what they want to believe in." Information is subjective; we can only reach the same conclusion if we have access to the same information. This is just textbook Bayesian view which has been good enough for modern science. It also answers how to deal with anecdotal evidence.
It's even good enough to prove you wrong (that's three wins for me then): Even by information accessible to you (how many Swedes was that?), I've now proven you're back to at least 80% full of shit. And I still don't need to accept your "you're wrong, I'm right" BS evidence (as TC put it).
Neither of your "scenarios" describe my stance. You can choose to read my paper based on the information accessible to you, and then there's no need for scientific evidence. That's only needed if you argue for something universal or against Bayesian logic, as you do. Your problem, and the reason you're struggling, is that you refute the Bayesian view and stupidly try to sell your Inquirer evidence which I've already proven fallacious.
I would never argue for a universal "Legga" evidence, which relies on information you don't even have access to. I'd be arguing against common sense and basic logic.
If you don't have access to my information, then my stance is subjective, and arguing for its validity universally leads to all sorts of contradictions that could be used against me. You being an idiot by your own logic is just one example. Thus, I would never argue for something so logically flawed.
You know what I think, Inquirer? I think somewhere along the line you've already realized how stupid your "Inquirer evidence" argument is, and now you're just spending pages and pages trying your best not to admit it, which is hilarious.
I would say it's been fun, but it hasn't been. Really it's felt more like schooling an arrogant posh kid who belittles people but has nothing to show for it.
You seem confused. I've questioned your list of Swedes, not your "paper" or the probability of having 6 Swedes on the forum. Your attempt to retreat into the Bayesian logic of your paper doesn't work since that's not what we're debating.
I called your list stupid and requested better evidence. I then provided my list to both show you what kind of evidence/reasoning I asked for and how bad I thought your list was. What you've tried to do since is argue I contradicted myself, which is simply false. I've been extremely clear from the start what I've been debating and what level of evidence I've demanded of you.
If you reject my attempt to compare our lists by reasoning backed with anecdotal evidence and also reject the idea that you have to back up your own list at all, then why are you still debating this topic? Your list is now stupid given both my idea of evidence and yours.
First off, it is not "my idea of evidence." Like I said, I'm just following Bayesian logic. I'd say it's much stronger than some 20-something CS Swede logic which argues that everyone must adhere to "Inquirer evidence."
Secondly, you're misrepresenting your own stance and my own. You've clearly been debating my paper, so +1 to me (I can probably give you verifiable evidence for that if you like), and even if you didn't, it still wouldn't overrule the fact that I've clearly outlined my stance since the start (if you like I can give you verifiable evidence for that too).
I don't think my arguments are stupid in either scenario. And yes I would argue your stance is untenable as far as I've understood it. Your main argument now is essentially: "it is not." You can't even answer simple questions regarding your stance and refuse to define anything you say.
I don't think you have any problems understanding my arguments, which I've explained to you over so many pages already, in so many different ways. Consistently. You're just intentionally misunderstanding them.
Quoting your own words: You can admit defeat any time.
I'll ask you an extremely simple yes/no question that should leave no room for misunderstandings:
When you told me I need to provide you with evidence, did you mean that I should provide you with good evidence, or not? Yes/no will do.
I don't think you have any problems understanding my arguments, which I've explained to you over so many pages already, in so many different ways. Consistently. You're just intentionally misunderstanding them.
He's not doing this intentionally.
While many a cheeky snarker will purposefully miss points to further incite answers out of the other, Inquirer to me looks like he at least thinks that he's genuinely attempting (with excuses to not try as hard, but still), even if he is starting to enter his rigid and unwilling Bedrock Stonewalling stages. He is stubborn, especially when he's mistaken enough to think he's right, and that tends to slow down the process with him as he attempts to handwave it's continuation through unconscious ad hominems over why his opponents purely (not himself) are trying to keep it going (autism, trolling, "it's a game to them", "this is how they respond to losing", etc).
By keeping it about why they need to keep the verbal battle going, he doesn't have to actually listen to or take it seriously anymore other than through sheer reinforcement of the same points for a length of time that can span for weeks if not months. He always has a justification for how he's clearly the one winning in any duel I've seen him be a part of, and preparing for such a justification is likely why he "picks his opponents wisely". 
His username as time's gone on has seemed increasingly ironic to me.
Quoting your own words: You can admit defeat any time.
How much he actually can't is the funnier part.
You could do it if said admission turned out to be more practical/hilarious, or you could just disappear for a while and let it become forgotten, while he actually has believed stakes in this now through how much time and investment he's now already spent here (Sunken Cost Fallacy).
