This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Verbatim
Pages: 1 ... 142414251426 14271428 ... 1601
42751
« on: February 08, 2015, 09:13:23 PM »
i've been told that my voice is pleasantly deep
inb4titlechange
42752
« on: February 08, 2015, 08:26:54 PM »
Yeah, they're banned. Gotta be a real Pokémon. Good question, though.
42753
« on: February 08, 2015, 08:13:08 PM »
You'll have to contact TBlocks like you did with Alphy, Snake, and everyone else because both of the times that I had contacted him, he just ignored me ._.
Yeah, I don't know why I didn't in the first place. Consider it done.
42754
« on: February 08, 2015, 08:02:13 PM »
Actually make that three-and-a-half weekends. No. I won't. For example, if I can get a few games in before the end of the tournament, but not 16 and I get kicked out, does that affect anything? Would it be easier for you if I just backed out now? If you fail to fight everyone by the cut-off time, then everyone who hasn't fought you yet will simply gain two points; those matches will be forfeit.
42755
« on: February 08, 2015, 08:00:23 PM »
All right, because I blew it, and because Alphy quit, TBlocks and Aria must beat CK for anyone else to have a chance at 1st place. The rest of the Elite 4 is still up for grabs for pretty much anyone, though.
42757
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:15:03 PM »
Yeah, definitely. You're not bad. 
42758
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:07:25 PM »
42759
« on: February 08, 2015, 06:52:59 PM »
Exclusives create competition. Competition is good. False.
42760
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:48:15 PM »
I was under the impression that it was a weekend tournament. Sorry about that, but if that causes too much shit, I'll back out. It still can be, if you play your cards right. You have two-and-a-half weekends to work with left. Do you think you can get sixteen battles done during all that time? Maybe if you sneak in a few on the week days?
42761
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:44:18 PM »
nah I'm not... All right, I respect that. Alphy is out of the tournament.
42762
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:41:49 PM »
Good to hear.
42763
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:37:11 PM »
Can't you battle Orion right now since you're both online? I can do that.
Ummm. Sure, fuck it. Let's go.
42764
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:35:43 PM »
I would like to receive some correspondence with the following members: ✓ ✓ ✓ ESPECIALLY Alphy, because I don't even know if you have an account set up yet. <_< Are you still in? Simse and Ember, I challenged you both a few days ago and received no response whatsoever. Noodles, you still need to finish two matches (your situation is really kind of fucked up.) Byrne has already contacted me with regards to his being able to remain in the tournament, and we'll receive notice of his situation by... tomorrow, I reckon. Aria has also taken the liberty of telling us her situation--she has a new computer now, and is getting it situated as she juggles other things she's currently doing... We all have three weeks, so, yeah. Friendly reminder to get some battles done--some of you don't even have five.
42765
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:25:40 PM »
You think I haven't been trying? <_< I just said in the main thread that I have a battle scheduled with Iberian for 8:00 EST, so look forward to that. I'm also gonna do a role call of sorts for the most inactive members. someone of your skill level doesn't belong out of the top 4. aw, thanks
42766
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:20:58 PM »
42767
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:00:39 PM »
Super Mario World in twenty minutes.
42768
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:48:29 PM »
I'll be battling Iberian later tonight.
42769
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:47:13 PM »
It's as if my own lack of faith in it is evidence for its lack of veracity. lol
42770
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:46:03 PM »
Exclusives are dumb. Brand loyalty is even dumber.
42771
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:42:37 PM »
I guess I don't disagree, but something about it just rubs me the wrong way.
42772
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:39:45 PM »
If that were true, he'd be on the street sucking dick for heroin money. >implying he isn't
42773
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:36:12 PM »
The negation of a positive assertion necessarily entails some sort of negative evidence. Assuming that's right... I don't think it is, and I've never met any such concession, but assuming you're right, what would the negative evidence be for a deist god, if one denies the existence of any deist gods? I don't see that necessarily following.
42774
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:25:15 PM »
What's your name on showdown? I don't even know what type you are. All this information can be found within the OP.
42775
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:20:10 PM »
If there is, we put you in an asylum. And that's the argument? I'm not sure you're entirely seeing my point here.
42776
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:10:34 PM »
It's literally just a linguistic trick; "God exists" is the same as "God doesn't not exist". Negative assertions still have propositional content, and can be shown through absence of evidence despite attempted observation. "There is no milk in the bowl". I... don't like that. I see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work, because... I mean... When you say, "God doesn't not exist" (converting a poitive assertion into a negative assertion), when you boil the phrase down to its roots, you still get "god exists." You still have yourself a positive affirmation of the existence of god, and that is still subject to the burden of proof. How do you linguistically assert something's nonexistence without using negative terminology? "God exists not?" That's just... flipping the words around. When you boil the phrase down, you still have yourself a negative assertion on the existence of god. You can't boil it down further than "god doesn't exist." See what I mean? Now, you can redefine this velociraptor to the point where it has no empirical characteristics, and it becomes literally meaningless anyway. Meaningless to you, anyway. I might also claim to be the only one who can see it.
42777
« on: February 08, 2015, 12:27:36 PM »
I'm having trouble seeing how one can "prove" a negative, anyway. You use terms like "reasonable doubt," which is a good term, but the point of the adage is not to imply that anything else is provable--just that, fundamentally, there is nothing I can do (for example) to make a religious person concede to atheism just by using pure logic alone--Nothing. Which is unfortunate, but it's reality.
So instead of trying to show why there is no god by using logic, we just say, "you can't prove a negative"--because not only can't you prove a negative--it would be a waste of time to even attempt to do so. It's far easier for people to prove the existence of something rather than the nonexistence of something.
You're going to be hard-pressed to find proof that I don't have an invisible velociraptor in my garage, for example, but...
all I have to do to prove that I have eyes is post a picture of my eyes. You can say, "photoshop," but I mean... again, that's the function of the phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt."
tl;dr
we're pretty much saying the same shit, just in different ways
i like my way better, so neener neener
42778
« on: February 08, 2015, 12:12:46 PM »
...
That's supposed to be an insulin shot for diabetics. Never met anyone with diabetes, so, I wouldn't know.
42779
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:20:26 AM »
You do realize that "you" is the version of you that has gone through things that respond to things that you've gone through, right? Yes. That doesn't change anything, though.
42780
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:19:07 AM »
It can't. Of course you can.
So long as prove = evidence to a suitable degree. Since nothing is absolutely provable. Nothing's absolutely suitable, either.
Pages: 1 ... 142414251426 14271428 ... 1601
|
Show Posts