320.2! 301.5, 311.3, 65.4 - Page 141

Fyron · #**1401** July 21st, 2003, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Easy, Jack. You're starting to Fyronate.

bah

Jack Simth · #**1402** July 21st, 2003, 08:34 AM

IF - didn't you once say you would never post in this thread again? Oh, wait, that was in the Posts that dissapeared, wasn't it?

Fyron · #**1403** July 21st, 2003, 08:37 AM

Nope. Never said that.

Jack Simth · #**1404** July 21st, 2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Easy, Jack. You're starting to Fyronate.

I've reconsidered; this is the nonsense thread, so posting like Fyron is appropriet here.

[ July 21, 2003, 07:46: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron · #**1405** July 21st, 2003, 08:50 AM

Well, as I never post like nonsense (in any serious postings), that is quite insulting.

Jack Simth · #**1406** July 21st, 2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Well, as I never post like nonsense (in any serious postings), that is quite insulting.

Perhaps we are using slightly different definitions of nonsense; just recently, you got into an argument with Geo - you'd made a rather absolute statement that Geo took issue with; you later said something less absolute, but maintained that you had said the exact same thing with different wording the first time. To the best of my knoweledge, you never stated publicly that you might have overstated the first time. I consider that nonsense. You might not. I suppose differing definitions of nonsense might lead you to be insulted, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Fyron · #**1407** July 21st, 2003, 09:05 AM

Bah. My original statement said exactly what I meant it to say.

Jack Simth · #**1408** July 21st, 2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Bah. My original statement said exactly what I meant it to say.

Uh huh.

Quote:

Posted by Imperator Fyron:
Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat.

Paraphrase

Used correctly) AND Talisman => (Impossible to defeat)

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Obviously you are confused about my statements. Nothing I have said implies that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman.

"Nothing I have said implies that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman."
Paraphrase: (Playing well) AND talisman <> (impossible to defeat)

Compare that to the first paraphrase:
(Used correctly) AND Talisman => (Impossible to defeat)

Assuming that "Used correctly" is a subset of "Playing well", those two paraphrases are at odds with each other.

So, are we going to do this with real logic, where you walk through your reading and mine to find specific points of contention, or are you just going to contradict me and leave it at that?

For reference, the thread I pulled the Last two quotes from: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron

Or do you mean the one where you were incensed at my insulting you by "original statement"?

Edit: added a "paraphrase" that I had forgotten to make it clear that I'm repeating what I read Fyron's post as translated into a light Version of set notation, rather than saying something of my own.

Edit: changed "second" to "Last" for clairity on which two quotes I was referring to on the reference section.

Edit: changed "=" to "=>" for better set notation.

Edit: Notation explanation: A => B is A implies B; A <> B is A does not imply B

[ July 21, 2003, 09:35: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Loser · #**1409** July 21st, 2003, 06:51 PM

For anyone who hasn't yet been shown. Entertainment lies here.

geoschmo · #**1410** July 21st, 2003, 07:22 PM

Jack, I don't know if this thread is the place for it, but I do think your logic there is pretty solid. Fyron and I continued our conversation offline for sometime. He steadfastly refuses to conceed either that there was anything wrong with his initial statement, or that his two statements are in any way contradictory. He did come close to conceeding that for his initial statement to be correct it had to be assumed you were playing a game in which allied victory was an option. It is apparently his conviciotn that either that stipulation should be understood inherantly in the phrase "used correctly", or at least that the phrase "used correctly" is somehow vague enough as to cover any sort of optional game settings or victory conditions and not limited to in game performance as I reasonably took it to mean. Obviously I think that argument is equivalent to a substantial quanity of bat guano, but eh,whadaygonnado?

Geoschmo