Back on topic, congrats to ICECOLD! for his achievement. In no way has my intent been to belittle him... solid player in his own right.
The Strategy Expert
offline
offline
Sir, your logic is absolutely inferior to mine. There's nothing you can say or do that will convince any highly intelligent or logical person to get them to agree with you after your posts here. You are an infant compared to my abilities in that department. I have very little respect for the quality of your logic or your ability to reason with me. I don't actually even think you are as dumb as you sound, I think you are letting a bias confuse you, but I'm judging you for what you say and operating under the assumption you meant what you said.
Edited by The Strategy Expert on Aug 27, 2009 15:38:19
The Strategy Expert
offline
offline
Originally posted by CTap
And I'm still waiting for empirical evidence to support your claim... no wait, actually, I'm not. Since I am well aware that no such evidence exists.
So are you asking for empirical date to support why ICECOLD! is the best WR? Well when you ASKED for that data, you quoted MY CLAIM THAT YOUR LOGIC WAS FLAWED, thus you are actually asking me to provide the empirical data on THAT COMMENT, no on the ICECOLD! being the greatest WR issue.
And don't try to play semantics and say you know all that, because after you make the request for me to prove that QUOTED claim, you are clearly tying in an argument against the numbers, so it's clear you are trying to get me to analyze that as the core of argument, but in your phrasing of your question it's only a question of whether you have flawed logic or not flawed logic. Thus, IF I WERE to try to prove that you were logically flawed, I DO NOT HAVE to use the WR stats thing to prove it, I could prove it through OTHER means and OTHER tests, with the ICECOLD! being the greatest WR claim as one way to do so, but not the only way to do so.
You are such a infant in logic, that you can't even fucking figure out how to phrase a question, let alone analyze one. I don't debate logic with inferior logicians....so get lost, you logical hack!
Oh and by the way, I highly doubt you are a good mathematician or physicist, because the best mathematicians and physicians are experts at logic as well, it can enhance their abilities quite a bit. Since your logic is fucked, that's not a very good indicator of your abilities in those respective areas.
And I'm still waiting for empirical evidence to support your claim... no wait, actually, I'm not. Since I am well aware that no such evidence exists.
So are you asking for empirical date to support why ICECOLD! is the best WR? Well when you ASKED for that data, you quoted MY CLAIM THAT YOUR LOGIC WAS FLAWED, thus you are actually asking me to provide the empirical data on THAT COMMENT, no on the ICECOLD! being the greatest WR issue.
And don't try to play semantics and say you know all that, because after you make the request for me to prove that QUOTED claim, you are clearly tying in an argument against the numbers, so it's clear you are trying to get me to analyze that as the core of argument, but in your phrasing of your question it's only a question of whether you have flawed logic or not flawed logic. Thus, IF I WERE to try to prove that you were logically flawed, I DO NOT HAVE to use the WR stats thing to prove it, I could prove it through OTHER means and OTHER tests, with the ICECOLD! being the greatest WR claim as one way to do so, but not the only way to do so.
You are such a infant in logic, that you can't even fucking figure out how to phrase a question, let alone analyze one. I don't debate logic with inferior logicians....so get lost, you logical hack!
Oh and by the way, I highly doubt you are a good mathematician or physicist, because the best mathematicians and physicians are experts at logic as well, it can enhance their abilities quite a bit. Since your logic is fucked, that's not a very good indicator of your abilities in those respective areas.
Mercaptopropyl
offline
offline
Originally posted by CTap
OMG I remember River Rivers from back in the old USA A days (or whatever league it was) when Gambler to Flash and Dravz to Rivers were the dominant tandems in the league... didn't know he was still around, as I had no idea who his agent was and never bothered to check...
<3 River Rivers
I honestly always planned to bring Rivers to the Kampers at some point after the Yell were no longer around. But to be honest we have such great WRs there's never been any room for him even at the bottom of the depth chart.
Plus I want to keep things fair for the other teams.
He's been touring various Pro Leagues since the Yell started re-building though.
OMG I remember River Rivers from back in the old USA A days (or whatever league it was) when Gambler to Flash and Dravz to Rivers were the dominant tandems in the league... didn't know he was still around, as I had no idea who his agent was and never bothered to check...
<3 River Rivers
I honestly always planned to bring Rivers to the Kampers at some point after the Yell were no longer around. But to be honest we have such great WRs there's never been any room for him even at the bottom of the depth chart.
Plus I want to keep things fair for the other teams.
He's been touring various Pro Leagues since the Yell started re-building though.
The Strategy Expert
offline
offline
Well at most we would have 5 WRs and we only have 4 right now. So if you still want to play on DDL next year you would have a spot, but also the other 3 guys are up on contract this year and I have no idea if they would be interested in re-signing next year, so it's possible that you could be much higher than the 5th spot.
CTap
offline
offline
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
So are you asking for empirical date to support why ICECOLD! is the best WR? Well when you ASKED for that data, you quoted MY CLAIM THAT YOUR LOGIC WAS FLAWED, thus you are actually asking me to provide the empirical data on THAT COMMENT, no on the ICECOLD! being the greatest WR issue.
And don't try to play semantics and say you know all that, because after you make the request for me to prove that QUOTED claim, you are clearly tying in an argument against the numbers, so it's clear you are trying to get me to analyze that as the core of argument, but in your phrasing of your question it's only a question of whether you have flawed logic or not flawed logic. Thus, IF I WERE to try to prove that you were logically flawed, I DO NOT HAVE to use the WR stats thing to prove it, I could prove it through OTHER means and OTHER tests, with the ICECOLD! being the greatest WR claim as one way to do so, but not the only way to do so.
You are such a infant in logic, that you can't even fucking figure out how to phrase a question, let alone analyze one. I don't debate logic with inferior logicians....so get lost, you logical hack!
Oh and by the way, I highly doubt you are a good mathematician or physicist, because the best mathematicians and physicians are experts at logic as well, it can enhance their abilities quite a bit. Since your logic is fucked, that's not a very good indicator of your abilities in those respective areas.
I can't believe I am replying to your drivel. Your diatribe is embarrassing and your lack of both logic and reading comprehension is baffling. So here, I will spell it out for you like I would with a 10-year old...
Twice (ok spelling it out for you, this means that it was on two separation occasions, which is more than once) I asked you to provide empirical evidence to support the claim in quotes below. Said claim was provided by you, by the way. Also, to spell it out further, empirical evidence is often referred to (in the case of logic, math, or science) as formal evidence. This is evidence acquired via mathematical proof.
Here is your quote, including the claim that I have twice previously asked you to provide empirical evidence to support:
"Stats that reflect poorly on a player are compromised by other negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player."
Not once have I asked you to support any other claim. Doing so would be ridiculous as your opinion can not truly be substantiated, even if you subscribe to the True/False/Opinion methodology that although flawed is subscribed to by many logicians.
And NOTE: I am not arguing against any claim per se. I don't have a hypothesis to support, as it pertains to your claim above. I do, however, have empirical evidence that shows there is no direct correlation between an individual WR's reception% and his team's game results or his team's Chemistry. To spell it out for you again, you countered my claim that his reception% was lower than expected for what you claim to be an elite WR. You had no empirical evidence to counter the claim; you merely had the statement above that I have now asked you to provide evidence in support of on at least 3 occasions. That statement being:
"Stats that reflect poorly on a player are compromised by other negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player."
Now, we can logically assume that since this was your counter-argument to my reception% statement, that reception% is in fact that "stats that reflect poorly on a player" to which you are referring, given that this was the only stat introduced into the discussion by me. Are you still with me? Should I continue spelling things out? Assuming you still follow (which might well be a flawed assumption, given what we have thus far learned about you), I therefore asked you to provide me with formal evidence, acquire via mathematical proof, to support your claim that can only be interpreted to mean that ICECOLD!'s reception% was compromised by other negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player".
Your failure at both reading comprehension and in the application of logic (and for that matter, statistics) has led us to this point. Best for you if you just admit now that you don't have supporting evidence for your claim and move along. I would presume that you have an upcoming game to try not to win, correct?
So are you asking for empirical date to support why ICECOLD! is the best WR? Well when you ASKED for that data, you quoted MY CLAIM THAT YOUR LOGIC WAS FLAWED, thus you are actually asking me to provide the empirical data on THAT COMMENT, no on the ICECOLD! being the greatest WR issue.
And don't try to play semantics and say you know all that, because after you make the request for me to prove that QUOTED claim, you are clearly tying in an argument against the numbers, so it's clear you are trying to get me to analyze that as the core of argument, but in your phrasing of your question it's only a question of whether you have flawed logic or not flawed logic. Thus, IF I WERE to try to prove that you were logically flawed, I DO NOT HAVE to use the WR stats thing to prove it, I could prove it through OTHER means and OTHER tests, with the ICECOLD! being the greatest WR claim as one way to do so, but not the only way to do so.
You are such a infant in logic, that you can't even fucking figure out how to phrase a question, let alone analyze one. I don't debate logic with inferior logicians....so get lost, you logical hack!
Oh and by the way, I highly doubt you are a good mathematician or physicist, because the best mathematicians and physicians are experts at logic as well, it can enhance their abilities quite a bit. Since your logic is fucked, that's not a very good indicator of your abilities in those respective areas.
I can't believe I am replying to your drivel. Your diatribe is embarrassing and your lack of both logic and reading comprehension is baffling. So here, I will spell it out for you like I would with a 10-year old...
Twice (ok spelling it out for you, this means that it was on two separation occasions, which is more than once) I asked you to provide empirical evidence to support the claim in quotes below. Said claim was provided by you, by the way. Also, to spell it out further, empirical evidence is often referred to (in the case of logic, math, or science) as formal evidence. This is evidence acquired via mathematical proof.
Here is your quote, including the claim that I have twice previously asked you to provide empirical evidence to support:
"Stats that reflect poorly on a player are compromised by other negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player."
Not once have I asked you to support any other claim. Doing so would be ridiculous as your opinion can not truly be substantiated, even if you subscribe to the True/False/Opinion methodology that although flawed is subscribed to by many logicians.
And NOTE: I am not arguing against any claim per se. I don't have a hypothesis to support, as it pertains to your claim above. I do, however, have empirical evidence that shows there is no direct correlation between an individual WR's reception% and his team's game results or his team's Chemistry. To spell it out for you again, you countered my claim that his reception% was lower than expected for what you claim to be an elite WR. You had no empirical evidence to counter the claim; you merely had the statement above that I have now asked you to provide evidence in support of on at least 3 occasions. That statement being:
"Stats that reflect poorly on a player are compromised by other negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player."
Now, we can logically assume that since this was your counter-argument to my reception% statement, that reception% is in fact that "stats that reflect poorly on a player" to which you are referring, given that this was the only stat introduced into the discussion by me. Are you still with me? Should I continue spelling things out? Assuming you still follow (which might well be a flawed assumption, given what we have thus far learned about you), I therefore asked you to provide me with formal evidence, acquire via mathematical proof, to support your claim that can only be interpreted to mean that ICECOLD!'s reception% was compromised by other negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player".
Your failure at both reading comprehension and in the application of logic (and for that matter, statistics) has led us to this point. Best for you if you just admit now that you don't have supporting evidence for your claim and move along. I would presume that you have an upcoming game to try not to win, correct?
The Strategy Expert
offline
offline
I cannot reply in any other way but to say that your questions above and statements above have illogical and incorrect assumptions and premises built into everything you are saying and making an inquiry on. There would be no productivity in trying to reply to your garble.
Don't entangle yourself with so much garbage-logic within your inputs and then I might be able to provide an output. But if you keep wasting my time then I will just flat out ignore you if you keep up the same mistakes over and over and over again.
Don't entangle yourself with so much garbage-logic within your inputs and then I might be able to provide an output. But if you keep wasting my time then I will just flat out ignore you if you keep up the same mistakes over and over and over again.
Edited by The Strategy Expert on Aug 27, 2009 16:38:48
Edited by The Strategy Expert on Aug 27, 2009 16:38:31
CTap
offline
offline
Good job avoiding anything that would approximate a response. As I have said on multiple occasions, your failure to provide any empirical evidence to support your claim was telling enough. Your claim was outrageous and baseless. Just because you believe it to be true, does not necessarily make it so.
Anyway, no need for this discussion to continue. You made an outrageous claim that the facts simply do not support. It's okay, it happens to the best of us. Well, not really. But it can happen.
Back on topic, congrats again to ICECOLD!.
Anyway, no need for this discussion to continue. You made an outrageous claim that the facts simply do not support. It's okay, it happens to the best of us. Well, not really. But it can happen.
Back on topic, congrats again to ICECOLD!.
The Strategy Expert
offline
offline
You still don't even clearly identify what claim you are referring to as you have referred to MORE THAN ONE CLAIM. You are so logically fucked and confused. Bye bye.
Edited by The Strategy Expert on Aug 27, 2009 16:46:37
23yrwej
offline
offline
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by CTap
LOL at you acting like this has one iota of relevance. He is still not among the 5 best WRs in USAPL and your team just continues to pile up embarrassing loss after embarrassing loss whilst you you brag about your ability to click the Favorite Targets button. Wow, impressive.
LOL. Best WR in all of GLB hands down. He's #1, not 2, not 3, .....NUMERO UNO!
Go ahead and try to beat him in yards this year, you will fail, because I will it to be so. TSE WINS, all who oppose LOSE.
This is 100% incorrect.
Originally posted by CTap
LOL at you acting like this has one iota of relevance. He is still not among the 5 best WRs in USAPL and your team just continues to pile up embarrassing loss after embarrassing loss whilst you you brag about your ability to click the Favorite Targets button. Wow, impressive.
LOL. Best WR in all of GLB hands down. He's #1, not 2, not 3, .....NUMERO UNO!
Go ahead and try to beat him in yards this year, you will fail, because I will it to be so. TSE WINS, all who oppose LOSE.
This is 100% incorrect.
Mercaptopropyl
offline
offline
Rather than arguing about WR's I just want to know what degrees TSE has in comparison to CTap. May the most educated man win.
Edited by Mercaptopropyl on Aug 27, 2009 16:51:08
Bladnach
offline
offline
Originally posted by Mercaptopropyl
Rather than arguing about WR's I just want to know what degrees TSE has in comparison to CTap. May the most educated man win.
university of phoenix and degrees i pay to have mailed to me count?
Rather than arguing about WR's I just want to know what degrees TSE has in comparison to CTap. May the most educated man win.
university of phoenix and degrees i pay to have mailed to me count?
The Strategy Expert
offline
offline
Originally posted by Mercaptopropyl
Rather than arguing about WR's I just want to know what degrees TSE has in comparison to CTap. May the most educated man win.
Well I'm a certified genius and I have also had 2 logic professors themselves tell me that I was more logical than they are. My degree is a BBA from U of M. (Michigan, also rated #1 in the country for business schools 1 of the years I attended and they are often in the Top 5)
I also don't profess to be more educated than everybody in the world, nor am I the smartest. I'm not the smartest guy I have ever met either, not by a longshot. But I have never, ever in my life encountered a better master of logic. That's just one of my areas of extreme expertise. I don't know shit about physics. I mean I know a little, but only as much as I have learned from my physics roommate in college and what I have seen on the Discovery channel. I'm familiar with the basic elements of black holes including the event horizon and how a singularity works in lamens terms and what Hawking radiation is in terms of how a black hole can actually evaporate over time. But can I tell you how they work in scientific terms?? Helllz no. I'll let Stephen Hawking talk to you about black holes in depth, I'll just focus on logic since that's what I'm strong at. I'm also a business mastermind.
Rather than arguing about WR's I just want to know what degrees TSE has in comparison to CTap. May the most educated man win.
Well I'm a certified genius and I have also had 2 logic professors themselves tell me that I was more logical than they are. My degree is a BBA from U of M. (Michigan, also rated #1 in the country for business schools 1 of the years I attended and they are often in the Top 5)
I also don't profess to be more educated than everybody in the world, nor am I the smartest. I'm not the smartest guy I have ever met either, not by a longshot. But I have never, ever in my life encountered a better master of logic. That's just one of my areas of extreme expertise. I don't know shit about physics. I mean I know a little, but only as much as I have learned from my physics roommate in college and what I have seen on the Discovery channel. I'm familiar with the basic elements of black holes including the event horizon and how a singularity works in lamens terms and what Hawking radiation is in terms of how a black hole can actually evaporate over time. But can I tell you how they work in scientific terms?? Helllz no. I'll let Stephen Hawking talk to you about black holes in depth, I'll just focus on logic since that's what I'm strong at. I'm also a business mastermind.
Edited by The Strategy Expert on Aug 27, 2009 16:58:29
Edited by The Strategy Expert on Aug 27, 2009 16:56:56
remus7x
offline
offline
3rd in the league in drops, doesn't sound like the best receiver to me. Andre Johnson won most receiving yards in the NFL last year and he was by no means the best receiver. Have fun being wrong.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
