Zak S wrote:Kaelik wrote:
No, you didn't counter literally any of the objections.
That is a lie.
Search this thread "Zak S" "youtube"
Okay, apparently I am going to explain this to you like the five year old you are, because this is like the 500th time you have said this stupid as fuck thing. I mean, surely as someone older than five you actually know this and are just arguing in bad faith, but it will be even funnier after you do it more after having this spelled out.
When someone says something, anything, about how you didn't counter their arguments/didn't propose a good ruling/didn't address their criticisms, they are not claiming that you never said anything vaguely about the subject. They are specifically claiming that your statements are not fucking satisfactory.
Now, I could go point by point through your objections, like how your solution to finding four random gamers is I find two and you find two, which makes no sense, because the point of finding random gamers is to reduce bias, not to fucking double down on both sides of the bias coin. Us each choosing two people is not going to be a sufficient random sampling to provide useful information.
See, I just adequately addressed how one of your many counterpoints was stupid as shit. But I really don't have to address every one of them in order to continue having a conversation, literally none of your fucking points are even close to meaningful, and I am not obligated to spend my time on this board addressing bullshit that I don't want to. In particular, I choose not to point/counterpoint your challenge because you specifically said nothing at all about the most important objection, which I did restate as will be talked about below.
So for god fucking sakes, can you stop saying "See X" like a petulant little child every time someone tells you something you don't want to hear? No one missed the asinine tripe you said, they just recognized it as asinine tripe.
Zak S wrote:
In fact you completely ignored the most important one, which is that if you admit that there is any test at all which could declare one method better than another,
I don't admit it, I propose it would support
your claim.
So you proposed the challenge in bad faith knowing that no matter what the outcome you would not believe it demonstrated anything. Good to know.
Zak S wrote:This is your claim: My way of doing things is worse. This is an explicit claim you have made.
If you believe this, and your belief is rational, then you must be able to propose a fact you could learn which would disprove it and a test that could discover it.
I can point to many things that might disprove my theory, for example, the sales numbers of games based on different theories, or statistically significant polls or studies with controls for everything but the system. Or even psychology studies that aren't specifically of gaming, but relate to human nature on issues that can be applied to gaming.
But hey, instead of proposing a bullshit epeen measuring contest why didn't you just ask that question? I say that question even thought you didn't ask a question this time either, which leads me to my next point.
Zak S wrote:Say what that is now, or else apologize for believing an irrational thing.
See, this again. This is another five year old thing. See, everyone knows you are an arrogant prick. And you might think that is because you claimed that you make 100% perfect rulings in seconds that never ever backfire, but you would be wrong. We all knew you were an arrogant prick long before that. It is really easy.
See, the thing is, every single time someone says you are wrong about something, you say, "You didn't understand what I said/meant* if you didn't understand, why didn't you ask clarifying questions, you should have asked questions."
Then, every time you want to tell someone they are wrong, you turn around and say this shit quoted above. You literally never ask questions, you never ask clarifying questions, you never even consider for a second that you might not know exactly what people meant.
Instead you make absurdly stupid sounding demands as if you have any authority at all, and you phrase them in the most baldfacedly arrogant manner that they could possibly be phrased.
On this page, page 16, you have used a question mark once so far. You used it to make a rhetorical question that didn't address K's argument. On the other hand you have demanded that people:
1) accept you challenge.
2) Reread your posts (you have made this demand in literally every single post on this page).
3) Seek professional (presumably psychiatric) help.
4) Stop speaking in public.
5) Make a statement of evidence or apologize.
6) Stop talking about something that the person in question never talked about.
7) Demand they ask clarifying questions.
and you made empirical statements about what people are allowed to do (which includes the statement that they are not allowed to disagree with you unless they present their arguments to you, something patently stupid and false).
It is the mind blowing hypocrisy of your method of "discussing" in which you demand from others extremely specific and often irrelevant responses instead of asking questions, but whine about how anyone who disagrees with what you plainly said or doesn't find your arguments compelling must ask an assortment of clarifying questions to narrow down your future goal post shifting before they can criticize what you said that indicates you are an arrogant prick.
So if you don't understand something, ask clarifying questions instead of making up bad faith challenges or demanding that someone say something. You shitfuck.
*You use these words as if they are the exact same thing, regularly saying that you said a whole bunch of qualifiers and downright contradictions of your previous statement that you did not in fact say, but may have meant. But they are not the same thing.
