You seriously misunderstood your tutors advice.
The point was exactly the opposite of how you understood it.
Its not a carte blanche to make claims that cannot be proven, as true.
The point is to understand that a hypothesis which has not yet been tested, can be, and that by that process eventually the truth will out.
You are, yourself. Reported.
You have it backwards. You did that, not me.
You appear to be reading my words then reversing their meaning, or just not reading them at all. I donât know if you have serious comprehension issues or what, but it shouldnât be possible to read clear coherent sentences and take nothing away from them but the polar opposite of what they are saying.
Iâve seen you do this to other people, and I think itâs just how you troll your way out of anything you canât really argue against. When you want to talk about what I actually said, let me know.
You cannot claim that âAll PLEX is paid forâ, as you lack proof.
Until such time that proof is provided, you cannot claim it as truth.
I make no such claims. That is exactly the essence of my point.
This is the equivalent of the new players in Rookie Help who ask âHow do I play this gameâ.
I am not here to hold your hand through this conversation. If you cannot keep up, keep out.
We dont know that âAll PLEX is paid forâ.
Without proof, we cannot claim so.
Good.
As we do not know it to be true that âAll PLEX is paid forâ, we cannot claim it as true.
I asked CCP directly. Lets see if they provide the answer to whether it is true, or not.
Same applies to you. If you canât quote the exact moment where he said so, you canât affirm he did.
If you cannot make the slightest effort of backing your affirmation, no point in starting to answer. You are wasting your time.
Wrong on all counts Salvos.
Now, I know you will do this back and forth for the next 60 posts if I continue to reply to you, as I have seen you do ad nauseam so many times before.
You can reverse what I have said, misrepresent it or manipulate it as much as you like. It wonât change anything. You can find what I think several comments back. Nothing has changed and you have said nothing of note to cause such a change.
So you go right ahead believing you are right without evidence as you always do. I know you think of this as some kind of silly âwinningâ on the internet thing but I am not here to play games with you.
Like I said, I am not here to hold your hand through the conversation. What you want is there for you to find. Do your own footwork.
Simple question:
Is it true that âAll PLEX is paid forâ?
Yes/No/Dont know.
If you dont know, you cannot say it to be true, and it defaults to false until such time it has been proven otherwise.
So we have to hypothesis that there is a set A of âplex that are paid forâ and a set B of âplex that are unpaid forâ and that the total of all plex is the union of set A and B now we have no prove if the union realy exists. That plex can be won by Project Discovery as pointed out by someone in the specific threads would point to the fact that the Union of A and B exist.
However there is the hypothesisn that CCP confiscated PLEX which we do not know if those were paid for are reseeded. Therefore we can not prove that the Union of set A and B exist.
So did I capture the essence of the discussion?
Correct.
We dont know if Buddy/Discovery/Event/Reward PLEX is sourced from confiscated PLEX (ie: paid).
Ergo, we cannot claim that âAll PLEX is paid forâ with any degree of veracity, certainly not enough to make the claim as absolute.
Hum I was suggesting that âsome PLEX are unpaidâ for is not provable. I did not go for âall plex are paid forâ set which might logically be an A excluding B set.
Some PLEX are certainly paid for, but we cannot claim all PLEX is paid for, until we have more data.
Buddy/Discovery/Event/Reward PLEX has been introduced.
The missing piece, is whether those are sourced from confiscated (ie:paid) PLEX, or not.
No. It doesnt.
I havent called anyone a ****head.
You did that. Not I.
'>.< swing and a miss lol
Describes your useless post, completely.
Nothing defaults to false until it has been proven otherwise.
At all.
Ever.
This is not how science works. The world was not flat before it was proven otherwise.
People just like you no doubt wandered around convinced of the very flatness of the planet they walked upon, but they were wrong all the same. Had they claimed, like you, that the world being round âdefaults to false until proven otherwiseâ they would still have been wrong all along, Salvos.
Throughout human history things believed to be false have been proven to be true and vice versa.
It is false when it is proven false. It is true when it is proven true. It is neither before one of those events occurs.
This is just a rule you have fabricated in order to claim that you are right about things without the burden of evidence to back up that claim. Itâs almost clever. Almost.
Believing in something without evidence is a matter of faith, Salvos, not science.
Ok. Yet I even offered to discuss in voice, which you refused.
Great. So much for normal, calm, informative, coherent conversation.