MissCommunication said:But you're ignoring that Inq always claimed there was 6-7 users.
Inquirer said:I've said there's been a number of Swedes on the forum over the years but never that there are currently 6 Swedes on the forum. That's something Legga has made up himself.
MissCommunication said:But you're ignoring that Inq always claimed there was 6-7 users.Inquirer said:I've said there's been a number of Swedes on the forum over the years but never that there are currently 6 Swedes on the forum. That's something Legga has made up himself.
There's been around 6-7 Swedes in total over the years...
I thought you were trying to catch me on semantics and that's why I answered your yes/no question like that.But yes, I do agree I asked you to provide me with evidence/reasoning. Now what?
Ok, thank you. Then your stance is that I need to provide something that can convince you.
Do you agree that it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to reject information which I have no access to?
This thread is longer than last time. Who's winning now ?
This thread went something like this:
Me: "I like Bayesian view, here's a list of Swedes for you to use to evaluate my paper"
Inquirer: "Your view is shit, you need to give me evidence of people's nationalities."
Me: "I can't give evidence, that's practically untenable."
Inquirer: "Then you're an idiot, here's my list of Swedes."
Me: "Give evidence."
Inquirer: "I can't."
Me: "Then you're an idiot by your own logic."
And then it's about ~18 pages of Inquirer not admitting he screwed up, proving that his view is indeed practically untenable (nobody sane should spend 18 pages proving shit like this). His best moments so far have been "Now YOU need to give evidence, because I can't." And "I define my own evidence, which I don't need to justify but everyone has to adhere to. It's by definition unverifiable and only I can access my own evidence. Oh, and I'm 100% justified to call everyone who doesn't follow this new universal Inquirer definition an idiot."
Legga said:And then it's about ~18 pages of Inquirer not admitting he screwed up, proving that his view is indeed practically untenable (nobody sane should spend 18 pages proving shit like this). His best moments so far have been "Now YOU need to give evidence, because I can't." And "I define my own evidence, which I don't need to justify but everyone has to adhere to. It's by definition unverifiable and only I can access my own evidence. Oh, and I'm 100% justified to call everyone who doesn't follow this new universal Inquirer definition an idiot."
Yeah... he's still at it as of the bottom of page 22, trying to peddle his anecdotal evidence as fact. He's at least moved onto alluding to being able to prove his claims... but he seems wounded even before the fact about how seriously you're liable to not take his effort:
Inquirer said:I am not however going to dig up all that verifiable evidence (yet anecdotal and circumstantial) unless Legga shows he's willing to work with it. So far everything's pointing to him rejecting it out of hand because it's not stringent enough for his taste.
"Wah wah he's not going to take my findings seriously just like I didn't for him, and I won't prove it unless he believes me before I've even shown anything."
FYI Inquirer, it doesn't work that way. If you want to be taken seriously (over actual merits and not hype), then you need to earn it, not disclaimer in a pre-defeatist way how it's a waste of your precious time (something contradicted by your time spent otherwise). If you can prove your list and it's still not accepted by him, you still have yourself and your peers that you're proving yourself to and your effort spent proving it'll be established on here, meaning you won't have to do it again. Your group think heft would actually have some justification if his reason for turning it down isn't reasonable, as at that point it's no longer about reputation but instead about actions.
Inquirer said:I have proven my list is superior to Legga's when it comes to reasoning (simply because Legga didn't specify any).
I could list like 10 random people and make up anecdotal shit on the fly, and that would not make it any more valuable than pressing random keys or saying nothing at all.
As things are, the things you've said are just words backed up by nothing but your reputation. Until there is actual proof in front of us there is no reason to take you any more seriously than lorem ipsum.
MissCommunication said:If you're saying (and you are) that his evidence is not beyond a reasonable doubt then that falls on you to show how.
And, the moment you provide reasons why it is not beyond a reasonable doubt you will inevitably end up negating Legga's entire 'paper' in the process. haha
Do you see how that works?
Inquirer said:I am not however going to dig up all that verifiable evidence (yet anecdotal and circumstantial) unless Legga shows he's willing to work with it. So far everything's pointing to him rejecting it out of hand because it's not stringent enough for his taste.
I've been very clear with my stance, and he's been corrected on this several times already.
Inquirer, you said:
The people on your list need to have consistently spoken Swedish and claimed they were Swedish. You argued that it is worth nothing if someone simply speaks Swedish or claims they're Swedish for a short period of time; even you yourself said this doesn't count as good evidence.
Saying "(..) he will reject it out of hand because it's not stringent enough for his taste" is hypocritical as hell.
I didn't tell you to post a list that can't be verified, to spit out arguments you can't back up or to make your stance subjective, you did that to yourself.
Let's say I will find evidence of each person on the list having been Swedish consistently (over let's say a handful of topics and period of ~4 months) good enough proof.
So there, now I've clearly stated what I want, as I have several times already. Stop saying I haven't.
FYI Inquirer, it doesn't work that way. If you want to be taken seriously (over actual merits and not hype), then you need to earn it, not disclaimer in a pre-defeatist way how it's a waste of your precious time (something contradicted by your time spent otherwise). If you can prove your list and it's still not accepted by him, you still have yourself and your peers that you're proving yourself to and your effort spent proving it'll be established on here, meaning you won't have to do it again. Your group think heft would actually have some justification if his reason for turning it down isn't reasonable, as at that point it's no longer about reputation but instead about actions.
I already did put in effort once by doing the call with him and Sensy. A call which he proposed, then stalled, then refused to talk in and ultimately rejected as evidence for anything. In light of that it's entirely reasonable of me to be wary of wasting time by finding evidence likely to be rejected just as quickly, especially considering he continually refused to answer my questions about what evidence he'd actually accept.
You're basically arguing that even if Legga is unreasonable it's still worth it to prove myself to the audience. I'm not really interested in that though. Are you sure you're not projecting when you claim I'm doing these debates for my image? ~
I could list like 10 random people and make up anecdotal shit on the fly, and that would not make it any more valuable than pressing random keys or saying nothing at all.
As things are, the things you've said are just words backed up by nothing but your reputation. Until there is actual proof in front of us there is no reason to take you any more seriously than lorem ipsum.
It's not just words backed up by reputation. I've made claims and have explained how well and in what way I think I can back them up with evidence. Surely you're capable of eye-balling which list is more reasonable based off that and your own general knowledge? I've never claimed my list has been proved with evidence, just that it's more reasonable than Legga's.
And again, whether I can prove my list or not depends entirely on whether the limited evidence I believe I can produce is accepted as enough.
