Sociopath Community

MissCommunication said: 

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. 

As I edited into the reply prior to this to respond to you further, they both have an equal amount of verifiable proof. 

All your contribution has done here is add a second head to Inq's head count for who believes him more in depth. We can't actually use your list for anything useful unless you can actually prove the names. 

If you still have any Skype records that might really help Inquirer out. 

Turncoat said:

If you still have any Skype records that might really help Inquirer out. 

 

 Inq doesn't need help. If he did, you're doing all the work for him at this point. It's also on you to prove his list is wrong. Can you do it? Or is that too much work for you? 

What skype records are you interested in?

Turncoat said:
All your contribution has done here is add a second head to Inq's head count for who believes him more in depth. 

 

lol I don't think anyone cares about this thread anymore except those of us participating. But judging from a read through of the entire thread, I'd say more people believe Inq (I mean the title of the thread alone says it all).

All Legga has really done is show how little he knows SC and its users.   

Turncoat said:

As I edited into the reply prior to this to respond to you further, they both have an equal amount of verifiable proof. 

 

I've now proven Legga's list is incorrect, which invalidates it. That is if you accept I'm Canadian and not Swedish, which I'm sure you'll dispute. 

You have not proven Inq's list is wrong. Can you do it?

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said:

If you still have any Skype records that might really help Inquirer out. 

Inq doesn't need help. If he did, you're doing all the work for him at this point. It's also on you to prove his list is wrong. Can you do it? Or is that too much work for you? 

The burden of proof isn't on me though, it's on him as it's his list. Just because you can disprove portions of Legga's list does not immediately mean an otherwise still unproven list is still correct, as the right vs wrong's proof is absent from his answers beyond conjecture. Legga's list being wrong wouldn't suddenly make a list of 10 random names from me more correct, it just makes his verifiably incorrect. We can prove answers wrong with Legga's list, but answers we can't or have yet to prove aren't by their nature of being buried information superior. 

This is like when a Christian walks up to an Atheist and insists that they disprove God. "For fucks sake man, you're the one who believes this, not me, so the burden of proof is on you." As Legga stated earlier in this topic, that is a debate fallacy literally known as "The Burden Of Proof Fallacy". 

Also, you saying that "Legga's list is wrong because I'm not a Swede", purely on it's own, makes about as much sense as "Inquirer's list is wrong because Mango is not a Swede", as both disregarded said people from their lists despite having listed them prior, and the rest of the names on the list, ignoring other posts at least, are otherwise unaddressed from these statements. Your logic is structurally off, but it comes from a basis of otherwise empirical contexts that we can otherwise observe that otherwise show his list to be incorrect without your name as a basis. 

TLDR; Unproven points are just as valid as incorrect ones. 

What skype records are you interested in?

Anything that'd prove names on Inquirer's list by the terms that Legga has provided (the recent post about trying to be neutral and unbiased) or beyond (Empirical evidence like you and Inq claim exists for Cadaver). Even if you could only snag snippets of them speaking or a few passages of them typing to each other in Swedish you'd be that much closer to getting Inquirer's list towards the proven six required to disregard Legga's paper and upgrade the circumstances from Bayesian Inference vs Inquirer Evidence towards something a little more Empirical. 

I prefer Empirical personally, but while neither of them are presenting me with that at least Legga's logic and structure is more sound than Inquirer's... situation here. 

All Legga has really done is show how little he knows SC and its users.

No one ever contested that within this topic, as Legga's been sticking to odds. 

Turncoat said: 

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said:

If you still have any Skype records that might really help Inquirer out. 

Inq doesn't need help. If he did, you're doing all the work for him at this point. It's also on you to prove his list is wrong. Can you do it? Or is that too much work for you? 

The burden of proof isn't on me though, it's on him as it's his list. Just because you can disprove portions of Legga's list does not immediately mean an otherwise still unproven list is still correct, as the right vs wrong's proof is absent from his answers beyond conjecture. Legga's list being wrong wouldn't suddenly make a list of 10 random names from me more correct, it just makes his verifiably incorrect. We can prove answers wrong with Legga's list, but answers we can't or have yet to prove aren't by their nature of being buried information superior. 

This is like when a Christian walks up to an Atheist and insists that they disprove God. "For fucks sake man, you're the one who believes this, not me, so the burden of proof is on you.". As Legga stated earlier in this topic, that is a debate fallacy literally known as "The Burden Of Proof Fallacy". 

Also, you saying that "Legga's list is wrong because I'm not a Swede", purely on it's own, makes about as much sense as "Inquirer's list is wrong because Mango is not a Swede", as both disregarded said people from their lists despite having listed them prior, and the rest of the names on the list, ignoring other posts at least, are otherwise unaddressed from these statements. Your logic is structurally off, but it comes from a basis of otherwise empirical contexts that we can otherwise observe that otherwise show his list to be incorrect without your name as a basis. 

TLDR; Unproven points are just as valid as incorrect ones. 

What skype records are you interested in?

Anything that'd prove names on Inquirer's list by the terms that Legga has provided (the recent post about trying to be neutral and unbiased). Even if you could only snag snippets of them speaking or a few passages of them typing to each other in Swedish you'd be that much closer to getting Inquirer's list towards the proven six required to disregard Legga's paper and upgrade the circumstances from Bayesian Inference vs Inquirer Evidence towards something a little more Empirical. 

I prefer Empirical personally, but while neither of them are presenting me with that at least Legga's logic and structure is more sound than Inquirer's... situation here. 

All Legga has really done is show how little he knows SC and its users.

No one ever contested that within this topic, as Legga's been sticking to odds. 

lol You're equating making a list with 10 random names to his.  If you listed 10 random names you'd need to provide reasoning for them to have any merit. 

And no, in fact the burden of disproving his list is on you. Inq provided reasoning for his list. If you don't accept that reasoning it's on you. You need to show why the members on his list aren't Swedes if you want to be taken seriously and disprove him. That's a generally established practice in debates (and in court). 

And lol at you throwing around Bayesian inference and his paper like it means something. He hilariously bastardized stats and it's actually funny. 

Sensy provided good reasoning for the number of Swedes on SC in one of her posts. Did he upgrade the "circumstances from Bayesian Inference" to account for it. Nah, lol he ignored it as he has with basically all counter points made in this thread. 

I mean c'mon, dude did a call with both sensy and inq, and still claimed they're the same person.

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said: 

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said:

If you still have any Skype records that might really help Inquirer out. 

Inq doesn't need help. If he did, you're doing all the work for him at this point. It's also on you to prove his list is wrong. Can you do it? Or is that too much work for you? 

The burden of proof isn't on me though, it's on him as it's his list. Just because you can disprove portions of Legga's list does not immediately mean an otherwise still unproven list is still correct, as the right vs wrong's proof is absent from his answers beyond conjecture. Legga's list being wrong wouldn't suddenly make a list of 10 random names from me more correct, it just makes his verifiably incorrect. We can prove answers wrong with Legga's list, but answers we can't or have yet to prove aren't by their nature of being buried information superior. 

This is like when a Christian walks up to an Atheist and insists that they disprove God. "For fucks sake man, you're the one who believes this, not me, so the burden of proof is on you.". As Legga stated earlier in this topic, that is a debate fallacy literally known as "The Burden Of Proof Fallacy".

Also, you saying that "Legga's list is wrong because I'm not a Swede", purely on it's own, makes about as much sense as "Inquirer's list is wrong because Mango is not a Swede", as both disregarded said people from their lists despite having listed them prior, and the rest of the names on the list, ignoring other posts at least, are otherwise unaddressed from these statements. Your logic is structurally off, but it comes from a basis of otherwise empirical contexts that we can otherwise observe that otherwise show his list to be incorrect without your name as a basis. 

TLDR; Unproven points are just as valid as incorrect ones. 

What skype records are you interested in?

Anything that'd prove names on Inquirer's list by the terms that Legga has provided (the recent post about trying to be neutral and unbiased). Even if you could only snag snippets of them speaking or a few passages of them typing to each other in Swedish you'd be that much closer to getting Inquirer's list towards the proven six required to disregard Legga's paper and upgrade the circumstances from Bayesian Inference vs Inquirer Evidence towards something a little more Empirical. 

I prefer Empirical personally, but while neither of them are presenting me with that at least Legga's logic and structure is more sound than Inquirer's... situation here. 

All Legga has really done is show how little he knows SC and its users.

No one ever contested that within this topic, as Legga's been sticking to odds. 

lol You're equating making a list with 10 random names to his.  If you listed 10 random names you'd need to provide reasoning for them to have any merit. 

Correct. This is why Inquirer's list is of equal merrit: All he's done is provide conjecture. As is I could throw something of identical validity at him, and even if my entire list of people ran in and proved they weren't Swedish I'd have just as much going for me as if none of them did beyond the room for my reputation and guile to budge people dishonestly. 

Logically speaking, as is there's no reason to take Inquirer's list seriously beyond rationalizing taking shortcuts. 

And no, in fact the burden of disproving his list is on you. Inq provided reasoning for his list.

That's not proof, that's just saying what he thinks from claims of evidence we've still yet to see. 

You... know how proving things works, right? Is this where we're having a discrepancy? 

If you don't accept that reasoning it's on you. You need to show why the members on his list aren't Swedes if you want to be taken seriously and disprove him.  

That is literally the fallacy I just linked you. 

For instance, Christians can reason that "The Bible says God is real, and it's His book, so He's real", and them doing that does not suddenly mean that I have to disprove The Bible when it's legitimacy as a "Work of the Divine" from my perspective could only be believed through taking it on faith, someone else's faith at that. I could as a Critic accuse the Christian of Circular Logic, accusing the reasoning of being rife with fallacy, and doing so does not put The Burden of Proof on me to rationalize The Bible as fiction. 

It's no different, and frankly insane to say that I'd need to present proof when all I've done is critique the merits of his structurally. I've never even presented myself as a "Swedes of SC Expert", instead listing that using what I know about that isn't good evidence at all and purely conjecture of my own, and otherwise instead presented as a critic of his supposed praxis. This isn't even about if he's right or wrong as a self-contained empirical, this is about how he's wrong and/or invalid logically. I think he could feasibly prove the legitimacy of his list if he'd actually try, but my belief of that has no actual bearing on this discussion and doesn't suddenly hand wave it's requirement off The Stack. 

And lol at you throwing around Bayesian inference and his paper like it means something. He hilariously bastardized stats and it's actually funny. 

Explain to me Bayesian Inference as you currently understand it (so in your own words without looking it up post-reading this request). 

MissCommunication said:

Sensy provided good reasoning for the number of Swedes on SC in one of her posts. Did he upgrade the "circumstances from Bayesian Inference" to account for it. Nah, lol he ignored it as he has with basically all counter points made in this thread.

I feel like this'll be yet more claims instead of proof... but quote? 

I mean c'mon, dude did a call with both sensy and inq, and still claimed they're the same person.

Turncoat said:

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. 

 Is someone who visits the site, reads threads, maybe never even posts a 'user'? Over the years there have been numerous one-time posters who ask a question and leave. They used the site, are they not users? What attracts certain people to stay is going to be more sociological/psychological and maybe cultural than just pure maths. 

For years, Luna used to post analytics that showed monthly traffic on SC, including page views, time spent on site/page and just hits. Those numbers were high - often in the tens of thousands. If the term 'userbase' is not clearly defined or known it can't be determined what numbers of a specific user category are statistically representative. 

Turncoat said: 

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said: 

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said:

If you still have any Skype records that might really help Inquirer out. 

Inq doesn't need help. If he did, you're doing all the work for him at this point. It's also on you to prove his list is wrong. Can you do it? Or is that too much work for you? 

The burden of proof isn't on me though, it's on him as it's his list. Just because you can disprove portions of Legga's list does not immediately mean an otherwise still unproven list is still correct, as the right vs wrong's proof is absent from his answers beyond conjecture. Legga's list being wrong wouldn't suddenly make a list of 10 random names from me more correct, it just makes his verifiably incorrect. We can prove answers wrong with Legga's list, but answers we can't or have yet to prove aren't by their nature of being buried information superior. 

This is like when a Christian walks up to an Atheist and insists that they disprove God. "For fucks sake man, you're the one who believes this, not me, so the burden of proof is on you.". As Legga stated earlier in this topic, that is a debate fallacy literally known as "The Burden Of Proof Fallacy".

Also, you saying that "Legga's list is wrong because I'm not a Swede", purely on it's own, makes about as much sense as "Inquirer's list is wrong because Mango is not a Swede", as both disregarded said people from their lists despite having listed them prior, and the rest of the names on the list, ignoring other posts at least, are otherwise unaddressed from these statements. Your logic is structurally off, but it comes from a basis of otherwise empirical contexts that we can otherwise observe that otherwise show his list to be incorrect without your name as a basis. 

TLDR; Unproven points are just as valid as incorrect ones. 

What skype records are you interested in?

Anything that'd prove names on Inquirer's list by the terms that Legga has provided (the recent post about trying to be neutral and unbiased). Even if you could only snag snippets of them speaking or a few passages of them typing to each other in Swedish you'd be that much closer to getting Inquirer's list towards the proven six required to disregard Legga's paper and upgrade the circumstances from Bayesian Inference vs Inquirer Evidence towards something a little more Empirical. 

I prefer Empirical personally, but while neither of them are presenting me with that at least Legga's logic and structure is more sound than Inquirer's... situation here. 

All Legga has really done is show how little he knows SC and its users.

No one ever contested that within this topic, as Legga's been sticking to odds. 

lol You're equating making a list with 10 random names to his.  If you listed 10 random names you'd need to provide reasoning for them to have any merit. 

Correct. This is why Inquirer's list is of equal merrit: All he's done is provide conjecture. As is I could throw something of identical validity at him, and even if my entire list of people ran in and proved they weren't Swedish I'd have just as much going for me as if none of them did beyond the room for my reputation and guile to budge people dishonestly. 

Logically speaking, as is there's no reason to take Inquirer's list seriously beyond rationalizing taking shortcuts. 

Sigh. His list wasn't random names. It was people who claimed to be Swedes and overtime showed they were. If you want to equate that with just pulling names and making up reasons then you are again being intellectually dishonest.

And no, in fact the burden of disproving his list is on you. Inq provided reasoning for his list.

That's not proof, that's just saying what he thinks from claims of evidence we've still yet to see. 

You... know how proving things works, right? Is this where we're having a discrepancy? 

You know how debates work right? One person makes a reasonable claim. The opponent discredits it with counter reasoning., like Inq did with Legga's list. The opponent doesn't just say "I don't believe you - prove it." It's on you to show why his list is wrong.

If you don't accept that reasoning it's on you. You need to show why the members on his list aren't Swedes if you want to be taken seriously and disprove him.  

That is literally the fallacy I just linked you. 

For instance, Christians can reason that "The Bible says God is real, and it's His book, so He's real", and them doing that does not suddenly mean that I have to disprove The Bible when it's legitimacy as a "Work of the Divine" from my perspective could only be believed through taking it on faith, someone else's faith at that. 

lol You're using false equivalencies again and you keep doing it. It's almost like you can't handle this honestly.

If a Christian walks up to a an atheist and provides reasoning for a belief in God the atheist has something to work with to discredit that person's reasoning. You're suggesting Inq didn't provide reasoning for his list. That was Legga. :)