Great logic you got there.
Like one rule breaker, but not the other.
You are trying to say all crimes are equal?
Im not following you. They are both flagged.
And what has this to do with the price of PLEX.
If it cannot be proven, it cannot be held to be true.
It cannot be said that âAll PLEX is paid forâ.
We dont know that it is.
You have fundamentally misunderstood the onus of your tutors advice.
prove it.
You keep affirming it is, yet canât show me any proof of it.
On the opposite you validate posts of people who are clearly breaking the rules.
You keep spamming this forum with trolls, which is clearly against the rules, then say âthis has nothing to do with subjectâ. The fault is on you.
He understood âCCP created plexâ while you said âwe donât know wether CCP created plexâ
Hmm I didnt see you or he address any of my post about PLEX at all and when I shared a joke with Aaron Salvos wasnt a part of he decided to jump in.
But as you think its okay to use language like you did I dont care what you do or say. You have no authority of any kind to pass judgement on anyone else, mostly because you are a hypocritical racist.
Aaron pointed that out bluntly and I liked that.
You gonna troll on or get back to the topic?
Both committed the âsame crimeâ according to you, yet you âLikedâ ie:endorsed the other.
Nothing. Yet you keep trying to backpedal after you not only singled out one for favor with a Like, and not the other, and then hypocritically accused me of âsinglingâ one out.
On the last 20 or so posts in this thread, Ive posted multiple ontopic posts.
I have yet to see one from you.
Why is this thread still openâŚ
3 Likes
All PLEX is created by CCP.
That we know.
We dont know if all of that PLEX has been paid for by EVE clients, as is the claim.
As we dont know if that is the case, it cannot be pronounced true, and defaults to false until such time as it can he proven as true.
Given Ive made several this morning I can only assume you are ignoring them in favour of this continued attempt at⌠whatever you think you are achieving.
It cannot be held to be untrue either.
It can. You can say anything. Proving it is the difficult part.
Which is why you cannot conclude one way or the other.
No you. 
Your last even remotely ontopic post was @ 846. Ie: over 40 posts ago.
Thatâs called a discussion.
Yeah, another word you will learn today. My bad, actually I donât think you can learn anything from this forum.
What cannot be proven to be true, cannot be said to be true.
You can say it, but you cannot say it to be true.
We can conclude there is no current evidence it is true.
If I say pigs will fly tomorrow, it isnt true, until they do fly tomorrow.
Prove to me, that âAll PLEX is paid forâ is true.
Absence of evidence does not mean the assertion/hypothesis is true.
Nor untrue.
Nor untrue.
It is true or not true all along. Lack of evidence offers no support either way.
Again, something you claim to understand better than my professor and myself holds true here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You really do not understand this concept.
Once upon a time people believed the world was flat. Being unable to prove it was round did not make it flat. It was never flat. Absence of evidence of its roundness was never evidence that it was flat.
This is really basic level comprehension Salvos, not hard to grasp.
You are clearly not a man of science.
Which does not mean it is untrue.
Prove otherwise.
Nor untrue.
Well the good news is that what you are affirming and what he is affirming is the same exact thing : we canât affirm anything without proof.
And even better, you both use the same arguments to prove the same thing.
Just you donât realize your different formulation are actually the same thing.
- Salvos says âThe affirmation that all plex are paid for is falseâ because we canât prove âAll PLEX is paid forâ.
- You say âAll PLEX is paid forâ is not true nor untrue all along.
- Which is exactly the same thing as affirming âThe affirmation that all plex are paid for is falseâ.
1 Like
No. Salvos thinks the absence of counter evidence proves him right.
i.e. absence of evidence that the world is round makes it flat.
I think the absence of counter evidence does no such thing.
i.e. absence of evidence that the world is round means we donât know.
Very important difference.
Maybe he thinks so, but he does not say so.
You say âhe is wrong because there is no evidence of what he saysâ. Actually thatâs what he says. You are contradicting yourself.
He does, repeatedly.
where ?
Donât ever say someone is affirming something in an argument without a source. That is trolling. Your teacher never taught you that ?