No hun, I’m sorry. Those have a very different meaning.
1 Like
They don’t in the context of logical inference.
They have the exact same meaning, in this particular case.
You don’t understand logic, and aren’t qualified to speak about logic. Let’s go back to the source I posted above, which you didn’t read. I think I overwhelmed you.
the usual mantra, “Correlation does not imply causation,” is true only in a trivial sense
What do you think about that? Are you guilty of applying this mantra in a trivial sense? Are you perhaps even a trivial person?
2 Likes
lol.
You have literally zero education in science.
You have literally zero education in logic, and even quote someone who says the opposite of what you claim.
I’m going to stop responding to you in this discussion. I can see that you are wilfully ignorant, as others such as Knowledgeminer have observed. I posted several links to articles written by scientists, discussing how it is pseudoscientific to dismiss correlation as evidence. You refused to read them. There’s really nothing more to say. You don’t know what you are talking about, and you are not a constructive participant in the discussion. You are just an ignorant child, who throws forum temper tantrums.
2 Likes
except they explicitly affirm that you are wrong.
I did read one, it literally says the opposite of your claim.
You literally affirm the opposite of one of the fundamentals of science, here :
Which is actually very clearly said to be false in your own quote :
You thus show very clearly that you have ZERO education in science.
Why haven’t you guys blocked that certain flag abuser yet? All they do is drag the discourse into the dirt with their narcissism.
1 Like
Great idea. Anderson is now blocked, because she is guilty of refusing to read scientific articles after framing her debate in terms of a scientific discussion. She chose her game, I played, and she lost. Game over.
3 Likes
Except you played, and showed yourself as the fool.
You claimed one thing and quoted someone who literally says the opposite of what you claim.
You also proved at the same time that you have literally zero scientific education, therefore giving very little credit to your claims of PhD.
You made a strawman about my affirmation of the existence of a causation.
You kept claiming that affirming things without the required knowledge is better than expressing one’s opinions as such, or than not expressing opinion.
You revealed yourself as an idiot, and a liar.
Dear Grud, save me from this thread.
I know Ive done wrong, but please end this.
Oh Grud, now Ive added to it.
Again.
5 Likes
Being a moderator is a thankless job that can do a number on your liver, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn they leave these threads up to laugh at them.
Yeah, I get that, I just think that it would be nice to collate all of that information together into a single source with a table of contents, index, and glossary. Of course, if someone did put all that work in then - in the true spirits of EvE - they should expect to be paid for it.
What is that from, Warhammer 40,000?
Okay, I guess I can…kinda understand that.
Thank you, this is very helpful.
Thank you for the explanation!
Hisec is secure, it’s just not perfectly safe.
Nah, it’s fine. High =/= perfect, after all.
Okay, that’s a little more graphic than necessary. I realize you don’t like gankers (spoiler: neither do I) but this post is taking it too far.
Has anyone ever managed to kill one of those? You guys have downright ludicrous amounts of resources to throw around, so I’d be surprised if someone actually accomplished it…
Precisely. This isn’t Minority Report (and thank god for that).
No, it’s like getting mugged in a well-patrolled area of a major city; the criminal either doesn’t care about getting caught or is just plain dumb, and the police are going to be after them rather quickly.
Can you explain what it was like back in the “old days” and how they differ?
Personally, I’d go with safer->unsafe->dangerous->highly dangerous, but yours is good too!
Not really, no. CODE. are funded by several nullsec blocs, including Goonswarm, the richest alliance in the game. They’re also so obnoxious about what they do people tend to cheer when they get dunked on, though this doesn’t seem to happen very often because they’re pretty good at what they do.
Nah, that seems unneccessary. I wouldn’t be averse to there being a hisec/medsec/lowsec division, but getting rid of hisec entirely seems like a bad idea.
What sort of newbro is going to have a spare billion ISK lying around to pay you?
Let’s face it, most people appear to have forgotten the meaning of the word - if they ever knew it in the first place - and just sling it at anyone they don’t like.
I’ve never understood why people are entertained by them (personal taste I guess), but I’ll definitely agree that they’re something new.
Yeah, that’s just poor gameplay. There ought to be a warning about that, like the old AURA’s mockery when you got podded for the first time.
And they say I’m the one who’s sick.
I’ll tell you something for nothing, the crazies are the ones with stethoscopes.
I wonder what the inside of a Koala looks like?
You don’t know what a strawman is, not after all this time of having used that crap to try to denigrate others, not after me giving you an article where you could learn what it is, not after me trying to make it easier for you to understand because you were unable to understand it yourself… And you have the bollocks to pretend it’s me who has comprehension issues and says stupid things…
For something to be a strawan, it has to be (1) a misrepresentation of the opponent’s argument, that is then (2) argued against, and (3) used as if refuting the misrepresentation was a refutal of the actual opponent’s argument as well when in fact it isn’t.
You’re trying to make it look like your definition and “understanding” of the term are “almost” the same as the actual thing by completely ignoring precisely what makes them plain wrong. The strawman does not have to be (and usually is not) something that the opponent meant or implied. And merely answering or replying to an argument by making reference to something that the opponent meant already doesn’t make it a strawman either. In fact, the very example you provided to illustrate your definition is, as described, not a strawman, nor are the cases in which you claimed I was making strawmans in this thread here and here, for example, which clearly shows you have no idea what you’re talking about when you use the term.
The really funny thing about all this nonsense is that it all happened as a result of the incorrect use of the term you made to refer to something I said, making a strawman yourself in the process, then making a big deal of an inconsequential mistake I made, which ironically all turned out to be a case of me acknowledging the mistake precisely because I know what a strawman is, whereas you keep making an incorrect use of the term and falsely accusing me of making strawmans without even being aware you’re doing it wrong, precisely because you have no idea what you’re talking about… 
LOL. That was sarcasm, which you clearly don’t get either, not even after me telling you what that was about in my previous post…
When I said “You’ve decided that 10 years is too much for it to remain valid and that’s all we should care about”, the only thing I was claiming that you had said or implied there was the “10 years is too much for it to remain valid” part, not the rest. The “that’s all we should care about” part was sarcasm aimed at the irrelevance of you pretending that CCP’s statement was invalidated by the fact that it was 10 years old.
That you need these things be explained to you, and not just once, but yet again and in such detail after having told you it was sarcasm in my previous post already, is truly amazing and says A LOT about your (in)ability to communicate with others…
Interestingly enough, you also completely dodged (again) in your reply what I was really claiming you had said and done and how you were contradicting yourself, by pretending at first that CCP’s statement being 10 years old invalidated it in any way, only to later say “I have no idea why you want the age of the declaration to be important”…
LOL. Every single time you’ve claimed I was wrong other than that mistake I acknowledged already, you simply dodged the issue after me proving you were the one that was wrong or outright lying. You could have easily seen that happening all the time if you hadn’t been abusing the system by systematically flagging all the replies to try to hide them for a while…
Look, this belonged to the beginning of the post, but I moved it here because it perfectly illustrates what I just said. It’s not just this one case, btw, you do crap like this that you then dodge and try to hide from view all the time:
You are the only one blatantly, repeatedly, lying here all the time. The sole reason there is no source is that you completely dodged the issue and frivolously flagged the post that was exposing your lie to make it more difficult for everyone, including yourself, to see.
It’s not that it gets “lost in al the blabbering”. It’s that you do everything you can to try to make that happen, including abusing the flagging system to hide the posts that expose your lies for as long as possible to make it all more difficult to read and follow.
Anyway, you asked for it, so here it is. Enjoy:
1 Like
It’s profitable and game mechanics and tags allow for it.
Sorry, am I stating the obvious? I hope so.
2 Likes
Learn to read.
The important word here is : “ELSE”
Something ELSE that it meant, is something that it did NOT mean.
So yeah, comprehension issues.
You can claim as much as you want that I dodge the issue : the fact is, every time you present an issue the issue comes from YOU.
Your mistakes, your issues.
And then you keep repeating your mistakes, making judgements onme based on your misunderstandings. Yeah, I call that blabbering.
Next time you think I am wrong (which happens often) explain clearly why this is wrong, and drop your personal attacks which only convey your lack of will to participate in a discussion - Otherwise, don’t complain when your stupid mistakes are called as such.
1 Like
It’s from Nemesis the Warlock, a 2000AD comic series; which is basically a suitably dark sci-fi Spanish Inquisition, told from the viewpoint of a fire breathing alien protagonist.
1 Like
To add to this, certain Minmatar ships have bonus to web range which is very convenient.
The downside is that the presence of these ships is a good sign they are being used to web freighters.
(It always amuses me to see freighters entering warp sideways)
IMHO, the eve-uni wiki is just that single source. That’s how I saw it as a new player and it was infinitely better than the CCP wiki.
And:
Everyone is welcome to contribute to the UniWiki!
2 Likes
Well, one of them certainly cried about it, but I think he got kicked out for being an ass.
Same here.
It kinda is, though? Unless someone mines the minerals needed to build ships, then there are no ships.
Okay, the loot drops argument makes sense, though I think the vast stockpiles you’re talking about would eventually run down until we were all flying around in frigates and little more.
Okay, rude!
YOU’RE NOT HELPING
1 Like
What, you don’t like harissa ? What a waste.
This doesn’t look right to me, but English isn’t my native language. Any native English speakers here may confirm whether this is correct? More specifically, and to put that in context in case it makes a difference, whether the following sentence means what she says it means?
Not that it makes a difference to the fact that she doesn’t know what a strawman is and makes an incorrect use of the term, even if she got that part right, but I’d like to know anyway…
See? This is what’s so funny about all your crap. You’re saying that in the very same post where you prove you dodge the issue every time I prove you wrong so you may pretend it never happened…
And you seem to believe that showing the utterly dishonest person you are every time you post makes you look smarter or something…
You behave as if you thought you get to choose what the reality about yourself is by merely stating it and you could make people ignore the facts by merely ignoring them yourself… It’s not the first time I see something like this, but it still amazes me every time I see it because it does no good to the people that do that, like yourself, but you still do it nonetheless…
You don’t see the problem with you repeatedly saying things like that in the very same posts where you dodge the very same proofs and explanations you’re asking for, do you?