Because of course she did.
And how is this different from you voting for legga?
I Took The Liberty Of Fertilizing Your Caviar.
Does that sounds right?
Lets split this apart.
I would like to understand , I was hopping in and out so I only caught snippets.
Fair enough, you're admitting to being an uninformed witness from the start.
The initial debate was over the Swedish population of this site.
Yes.
Legga used Bayesian methods to infer the Swedish population of the site and then Inq came a long and argued against the validity of the inferred population.
Yes, this covers the first two pages or so.
The thread then became a debate over methods in which this population could be inferred and then later dissolved into an argument about what constitutes ‘evidence’.
At this point, Inq's appealing to 'reason' led to him attacking Legga's character, which spurred Legga to take the debate more seriously in a legalistic fashion.
When Inq has been pressed for details it has remained a struggle. Back then, he would simply repeat himself and claim he was unheard, but with today's discussion however, with the help of a mediator, he instead seemingly didn't remember express details of the discussion and instead of playing coy openly admitted to it, allowing the discussion to continue instead of filibuster.
I'd argue from the combination of the thread debate and the chat debate that Inq is mostly pushing forward as a matter of pride, in spite of his lack of memory over what he's even talking about beyond said repetition. Legga by contrast is questioning the structure of it, the logic of it, which in turn has Inquirer respond with how his implications were perfectly clear, that Legga should be able to read his mind, that they should, effectively, be able to 'just wing it' (despite evidence of the contrary), and that Legga must be playing dumb on purpose.
As a matter of appraisal for choices of logic across both fields of battle, it's hard to not side with the one who's actually using it versus the guy who's appealing to shortcuts and faulty heuristics.
and then later dissolved into an argument about what constitutes ‘evidence’.
It was around this point that Inq in the original topic started becoming confused, and is what they're otherwise working on untangling now.
The above large text is the point of focus, it's where things started to get muddy until it became pages and pages of treading through tar.
Here after the fact Legga claims that Inq consistently moved the goal post for what constitutes evidence while Inq claims his idea of evidence has remained consistent.
It hasn't if you read the entire topic anyway. He was somewhat more consistent in chat today, but in that topic he was more blatantly floundering. He would even agree to new, legalistic terms with Legga only to see Legga show what was wrong with them, and all Inq could even reply with was over how this "isn't fair" effectively.
Inq is conflating Legga being difficult with being disingenuous, when really, Legga's established a very clear timeline with points of raw logic sewn throughout while Inq insists that, because he represents 'the truth', that he doesn't have to otherwise work as hard.
It's as if he thinks the merits of merely being 'right' automatically award him victory, and that it remains that way as long as he personally feels unconvinced. If this were over the matter of formal debate there's people assigned to argue over cases they don't even agree with, and through that sort of filter Inquirer's been lazy on almost all fronts other than sheer reinforcement.
To prove Inqs inconsistencies Legga is attempting to again use Bayesian methods while Inq is deploying reason. In reality it was merely a game of semantics?
The semantics are everything, literally everything, about their discussion. They can't be ignored, as the discussion became about what they'd agree and not agree on over component terms.
Legga would propose structural changes and ask if Inquirer would agree to them, while Inquirer was changing goals without seemingly noticing, leading to Legga (and myself) to go 'Wtf?'. As a matter of debate etiquette and an awareness of logical fallacies, Legga was legalistically aware of them while Inquirer was frustrated over how noting his blunders serves to 'distract' from it.
I mean ffs, did you even see what constitutes "Inquirer Evidence"?
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
9/27/2020 7:58:44 PM
Because of course she did.
And how is this different from you voting for legga?
You really don't see the difference? lol
No. Explain it to me.
Once again, that is what you have Inq for. I'm not responsible for your constant state of confusion.
No. Explain it to me.
Once again, that is what you have Inq for. I'm not responsible for your constant state of confusion.
Ah, I see. You're taking the cowards way again. I notice you throw out sardonic comments but never back them up or get too involved. That's playing it pretty safe. :D
I Took The Liberty Of Fertilizing Your Caviar.
No. Explain it to me.
Once again, that is what you have Inq for. I'm not responsible for your constant state of confusion.
Ah, I see. You're taking the cowards way again. I notice you throw out sardonic comments but never back them up or get too involved. That's playing it pretty safe. :D
And I notice how beyond bored you are of replying.
last edit on
9/27/2020 8:21:30 PM
No. Explain it to me.
Once again, that is what you have Inq for. I'm not responsible for your constant state of confusion.
Ah, I see. You're taking the cowards way again. I notice you throw out sardonic comments but never back them up or get too involved. That's playing it pretty safe. :D
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
No. Explain it to me.
Once again, that is what you have Inq for. I'm not responsible for your constant state of confusion.
Ah, I see. You're taking the cowards way again. I notice you throw out sardonic comments but never back them up or get too involved. That's playing it pretty safe. :D
And I notice how beyond bored you are of replying.~
Nice deflection (you still haven't explained your point).
And, I never said I was bored. You're trying to create a double-bind where if I don't reply it's cos you won something and if I do I'm not bored of you. (It was you that said I was bored in another thread btw, not me.)
I Took The Liberty Of Fertilizing Your Caviar.
last edit on
9/27/2020 8:31:41 PM
No. Explain it to me.
Once again, that is what you have Inq for. I'm not responsible for your constant state of confusion.
Ah, I see. You're taking the cowards way again. I notice you throw out sardonic comments but never back them up or get too involved. That's playing it pretty safe. :D
And I notice how beyond bored you are of replying.~
Nice deflection (you still haven't explained your point).
And, I never said I was bored. You're trying to create a double-bind where if I don't reply it's cos you won something and if I do I'm not bored of you. (It was you that said I was bored in another thread btw, not me.)
09/27/2020 17:05:21 MissCommunication: I sorta got bored lol