Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

MissCommunication said: 

Sweet Jesus, there's so many holes in Legga's argument it hurts the brain lol

Like what? 

Can you really not see them?

Focusing on just the lists...lol you guise are desperately trying to argue Legga's list and Inq's list are equally valid. They're clearly not.

>Legga's list: 
There's 7 now: Inqy, Sensy, Fake Sensy, Missy, MissC, Edvard, you

Inq = Swede
Sensy= Swede
Fake Sensy = puppet that never said it was Swedish
Missy = Swede
MissC = I'm Canadian. I've always said so and I lived in Cali. for a while. 
Edvard = Never said he was Swede and denies it. 
User = Not a Swede 

Legga's list was cr*p from the start. I'm not a Swede. Short of a dox, you have to take my word for it, (but you won't lol. This part ties into the theory in Legga's 'paper' and how he refutes it himself.)  

Inq's list:

• Inquirer = speaks Swedish, says he's a Swede. Has shown knowledge of Swedish culture, politics and geography.
• SensitiveSoul = speaks Swedish, says she's a Swede. Has shown knowledge of Swedish culture, talks often about Stockholm, the train system etc. 
• Missy = speaks Swedish, says she's a Swede (first years on the forum was learning English and she often spoke Swedish in chat) Has shown knowledge of Swedish culture and lifestyle and geography. 
• Cadaver = speaks Swedish, says he's a Swede. Had a cam-relationship wth Crave and was doxed proving he is a Swede. 
• Animerat = speaks Swedish, said he's a Swede. Animerat is not Cadaver. Animerat was in Chet's skype group with Tryp, syst, Inq, blanc, fae, TPG, TFI, Colin and me (the group she wouldn't let TC join because some people thought he was a snake lol). 
• Deliciae - speaks Swedish, said he is a Swede. Deliciae was on the forum for months mostly in chat from what I remember and he often spoke Swedish.  
• MangoTiddies - I saw it chat in Swedish. 
• Obsidian - don't know

Inq's list can be said to only have anecdotal evidence, although Cad's dox is verifiable. His list, at the very least, has evidence. Unlike Legga's list, which was wrong from the start. 

(Tc says Legga's list is irrelevant anyway cos he never believed any of it was true. That might have been plausible had Legga not slipped up and started defending his list by arguing both Ed and I are Swedes but w/e. This part is irrelevant except to show the level of BS at play lol)

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

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...

A timeframe introduces another element into this debate. Something you'd think a serious statistician would take into consideration lol 

Legga said:

You are trying to argue that 1 in 5 or 6 users on every forum is Swedish? Please. Here are some statistics on let's say Reddit:

Your claim is blatantly wrong, Sweden doesn't even register. Even if I assume 10% of all e-users on average are Swedish it still won't be enough -- I did the calculation.

I already gave a very lenient range -- anywhere between one in 20 and the real expected numbers.

Legga has provided no evidence for his list and dodged all questions pertaining to doing so, yet he demands Inq provide evidence that is most certainly impossible to find. 

So let's examine the evidence Legga used to verify his paper (the one where he bastardized stats in a most hilarious way) Let's see if Legga can explain the 'data' he used.

Legga;

How many users are on SC?

What number did you use to calculate SC's userbase to get to a statistically valid number of Swedish users?

 Can you provide the list of users you used to calculate your theory?

Also, how do you define a 'user'?

Oh, and what timeframe did you use to calculate the number of users you came up with?

MissCommunication said: 

Focusing on just the lists...

You said his argument, not his list.

His arguments are sound and based around logic, and he's even taken pity and reduced the requirements multiple times. 

lol you guise are desperately trying to argue Legga's list and Inq's list are equally valid. They're clearly not.

Then prove his list beyond just his word. Legga and I don't have access to his information, so as is all we could do is put it on faith. 

Inq's list can be said to only have anecdotal evidence, although Cad's dox is verifiable.

I haven't seen it so it's just hearsay at the moment. 

His list, at the very least, has evidence.

All we've been told is that said proof supposedly exists. Even by the current criteria only three names you listed fall into Legga's currently unbiased and neutral requirements, and they do so without being proven beyond your word. 

Unlike Legga's list, which was wrong from the start. 

(Tc says Legga's list is irrelevant anyway cos he never believed any of it was true. That might have been plausible had Legga not slipped up and started defending his list by arguing both Ed and I are Swedes but w/e. This part is irrelevant except to show the level of BS at play lol)

Where did he defend that you were a Swede?

All he's said is that he's "quite certain", which he later changed to "pretty certain", conjecture that he saw was not worth defending the minute that Inquirer stated that you were Canadian, and from the start he never took that burden on himself (Bayesian). He even revised his supposed list of people he believed Inquirer believed to be Swedes at the top of page 3 to no longer involve you, shifting towards Edvard who he actually did bother going at length about. He has from the start reflected an evolving perspective based on logical processes, while Inquirer's still on "Inquirer Evidence", a case where, in it's current form, both you and I could be said to be Swedish. 

His paper claims the theory that there's only two to three Swedes on this forum overall, not that he knows who those people are, and from the names he listed he's only gone at length about three of them: Inquirer, Sensitive Soul, and Edvard, two out of three names that are otherwise mutual to both lists and still enough to fit his thesis. By adding additional names proven Legga's paper will be given the room to adapt even further, and if at least six names can be proven then his paper can be thrown out entirely. 
 

Legga has provided no evidence for his list and dodged all questions pertaining to doing so, yet he demands Inq provide evidence that is most certainly impossible to find. 

So let's examine the evidence Legga used to verify his paper (the one where he bastardized stats in a most hilarious way) Let's see if Legga can explain the 'data' he used.

He said he used Reddit as a comparison. That statement of his wasn't about SC evidence, it was about comparative odds. 

Also, how do you define a 'user'?

For myself anyway, someone who's not a puppet and was around long enough to be more than a cameo? 

Having not heard their voices, three of those names could be alternate aliases of others on the list (Animerat, Deliciae, Mango). From both Legga and Inq not counting Mango I think we can cross it off the list though. 

(the group she wouldn't let TC join because some people thought he was a snake lol).

Chet calling me "The shadiest person she knows" was quite the title, considering who she's dealt with in the past. 

Turncoat said:(the group she wouldn't let TC join because some people thought he was a snake lol).

Chet calling me "The shadiest person she knows" was quite the title, considering who she's dealt with in the past. 

It really says a lot doesn't it. Congrats on winning the title. ;)

Legga said: 

Inquirer said: 

How do you get 2 active people (3 in total if you count Missy) to be 80%?

 I literally just said this:

Legga said:

1 Sensy, 2 Fake Sensy, 3 Missy, 4 Ed and 5 you are all Swedish, that's enough to reach 80%.

MissC is pretty sure to be Swedish, which would make that number 6, getting you back to 95%.

Inquirer said: 

Legga said: 

 I'm quite certain MissC is Swedish too.

Legga said: 

Inquirer, seven: Inqy, Sensy, Fake Sensy, Missy, MissC, Edvard, user/V for Vendetta

Am I the only one seeing you mention MissC in there?

Turncoat said: 

MissCommunication said: 

Focusing on just the lists...

You said his argument, not his list.

His arguments are sound and based around logic, and he's even taken pity and reduced the requirements multiple times. 

lol He's repeatedly dodged every request to explain his reasoning for his list. If you say otherwise, you're just showing how intellectually dishonest you are. 

lol you guise are desperately trying to argue Legga's list and Inq's list are equally valid. They're clearly not.

Then prove his list beyond just his word. Legga and I don't have access to his information, so as is all we could do is put it on faith. 

You're saying the lists are equally valid. I've disproven Legga's list by virtue of me not being a Swede. Do the same and disprove Inq's list. 

 

Inq's list can be said to only have anecdotal evidence, although Cad's dox is verifiable.

I haven't seen it so it's just hearsay at the moment. 

It was quite the show for months and given how obsessed you've shown yourself to be with SC, I find it hard to believe you never saw it but if that's true you can go look for it and prove it wrong if'd you like.

 

His list, at the very least, has evidence.

All we've been told is that said proof supposedly exists. Even by the current criteria only three names you listed fall into Legga's currently unbiased and neutral requirements, and they do so without being proven beyond your word. 

Unlike Legga's list, which was wrong from the start. 

(Tc says Legga's list is irrelevant anyway cos he never believed any of it was true. That might have been plausible had Legga not slipped up and started defending his list by arguing both Ed and I are Swedes but w/e. This part is irrelevant except to show the level of BS at play lol)

Where did he defend that you were a Swede?

All he's said is that he's "quite certain", which he later changed to "pretty certain", conjecture that he saw was not worth defending the minute that Inquirer stated that you were Canadian, and from the start he never took that burden on himself (Bayesian). He even revised his supposed list of people he believed Inquirer believed to be Swedes at the top of page 3 to no longer involve you, shifting towards Edvard who he actually did bother going at length about. He has from the start reflected an evolving perspective based on logical processes, while Inquirer's still on "Inquirer Evidence", a case where, in it's current form, both you and I could be said to be Swedish.

 

God lol, you're reaching sooo hard. Using bad google translate is not the same as conversing in Swedish in real time as the people I accounted for did. And you know the difference. lol this is getting funnier by the minute.

Legga has provided no evidence for his list and dodged all questions pertaining to doing so, yet he demands Inq provide evidence that is most certainly impossible to find. 

So let's examine the evidence Legga used to verify his paper (the one where he bastardized stats in a most hilarious way) Let's see if Legga can explain the 'data' he used.

He said he used Reddit as a comparison. That statement of his wasn't about SC evidence, it was about comparative odds. 

He has to have a number for the userbase to calculate those odds down to 2-3 users. 

If you haven't noticed, Legga is prone to very purposeful word choices... and here he said "would" and his posts following confirm his purposeful use of it. He poses what it'd do to the math but then continues to not apply it beyond what adding you to the list would do from posing that he's sure that you ought to apply, but his conclusion never actually applied you to the equation following Inquirer saying you're Canadian from Legga's own beliefs being independent of the figures he was compiling at the time. 

He then further qualifies his claim of Inq's claim of 80% while still on page three: 

Legga said:

lmfao.

I didn't include MissC above.

Why would he say this if you were a part of the equation at that point? Sure he doesn't correct Inq's misinterpretation immediately (saying you can misinterpret all you want at the time), but he does confirm his 80% consistency two more times on page four, once through quoting himself from page three for emphasis and then a post-explanation to make his victories more clear: 

Legga said:

Inquirer, I made a joke at your expense because your main argument was that MissC and User are not Swedish, which would make you from 99% full of shit to 80% full of shit (victory lmao). You have to admit that is kind of funny.

The above further confirms that he was just posting an "if" statement about you instead of continuing to insist on your Swedish heritage. While he did say his beliefs on your background, since that isn't contingent on his paper at all he disregards his own opinion in favor of Inquirer's for the sake of the numbers, as from the start it was about figuring out the percentage odds of Inquirer being full of shit. He's even stated more than once that he's able to accomplish his paper merely with Inquirer's "insane" beliefs from how his own isn't contingent upon his theory and from his own list not being the same. 

To repeat: He was never trying to prove that list itself as true beyond a smattering of names that does not stretch beyond his initial claim in number, he was just using that list as a starting point for Inquirer. Legga's belief was that Inquirer thinks there's six users here (and was wrong... he lists eight and regards seven of them), so he listed six possible ones he thinks Inquirer may believe, not six people Legga does believe. 

MissCommunication said:

You're saying the lists are equally valid. I've disproven Legga's list by virtue of me not being a Swede. Do the same and disprove Inq's list.

His list was never proven, just backed up by your word being expressed through another list of claims. All this means is that at least one more person believes his list more than Legga's, not that either list is more right than the other based purely on what's been presented here.

A name without proof has just as much value as an incorrect guess when it comes to objectivity, and Legga stopped regarding you as a potential Swede very early. 

Turncoat said: 

If you haven't noticed, Legga is prone to very purposeful word choices... and here he said "would" and his posts following confirm his purposeful use of it. He poses what it'd do to the math but then continues to not apply it beyond what adding you to the list would do from posing that he's sure that you ought to apply, but his conclusion never actually applied you to the equation following Inquirer saying you're Canadian from Legga's own beliefs being independent of the figures he was compiling at the time. 

He then further qualifies his claim of Inq's claim of 80% while still on page three: 

Legga said:

lmfao.

I didn't include MissC above.

Why would he say this if you were a part of the equation at that point? Sure he doesn't correct Inq's misinterpretation immediately (saying you can misinterpret all you want at the time), but he does confirm his 80% consistency two more times on page four, once through quoting himself from page three for emphasis and then a post-explanation to make his victories more clear: 

Legga said:

Inquirer, I made a joke at your expense because your main argument was that MissC and User are not Swedish, which would make you from 99% full of shit to 80% full of shit (victory lmao). You have to admit that is kind of funny.

The above further confirms that he was just posting an "if" statement about you instead of continuing to insist on your Swedish heritage. While he did say his beliefs on your background, since that isn't contingent on his paper at all he disregards his own opinion in favor of Inquirer's for the sake of the numbers, as from the start it was about figuring out the percentage odds of Inquirer being full of shit. He's even stated more than once that he's able to accomplish his paper merely with Inquirer's "insane" beliefs from how his own isn't contingent upon his theory and from his own list not being the same. 

To repeat: He was never trying to prove that list itself as true beyond a smattering of names that does not stretch beyond his initial claim in number, he was just using that list as a starting point for Inquirer. Legga's belief was that Inquirer thinks there's six users here (and was wrong... he lists eight and regards seven of them), so he listed six possible ones he thinks Inquirer may believe, not six people Legga does believe. 

 None of this matters to the point at hand, because you both have been claiming the lists are equally valid. By your own admission, you've just admitted you don't think they are. At least you're almost being honest now.