Gong Sau Extravaganza 2013: Sirc vs. 3moose

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:19pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Once upon a time, there were two significant rule changes. No one seemed to notice, but Iif.

*Mind Blown.

**Sri Hanuman** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:26pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Once upon a time, there were two significant rule changes. No one seemed to notice, but Iif.

Yes, but did it cause a schism and result in a branching off of it's own Southern Shaoli...er.... Bullshido Forum, resulting in two distinct posting traditions? Did their sun-toi venerate the same progenitors?

**ChuckWepner** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:31pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

And "There exists no true proposition"..? Could that be true under any consistent Logistic framework?

That is a self-refuting proposition, but not an epistemically self-refuting one. You're whole argument is just a kindergarten Strawman/bait-and-switch. Propositions can also be self-refuting for formal or semantic reasons, and not fall into the category you're harping on at all. As you well know.

Yes, you are correct. It is. That falls into the first category I talked about. I mistakenly thought Omega might want an explanation that was clearer than what he got when he looked "self-refuting" up, so I dashed off a short post on each of the two main kinds (logical, would include either semantic or formal in the loose sense used here, and epistemic). This wasn't an argument about anything with you, let alone a bait-and-switch, it was just background definition of two different senses in which "self-refuting" gets used, since some people seemed interested (in a forum-appropriately hostile way). As a gesture of good will, *I'll* even delete them since they seem to be upsetting people.

Went to earlier posts. I don't find a way to delete them. Sorry, folks.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:39pm

Originally Posted by ChuckWepner

Yes, you are correct. It is. That falls into the first category I talked about. I mistakenly thought Omega might want an explanation that was clearer than what he got when he looked "self-refuting" up, so I dashed off a short post on each of the two main kinds (logical, would include either semantic or formal in the loose sense used here, and epistemic). This wasn't an argument about anything with you, let alone a bait-and-switch, it was just background definition of two different senses in which "self-refuting" gets used, since some people seemed interested (in a forum-appropriately hostile way). As a gesture of good will, *I'll* even delete them since they seem to be upsetting people.

Went to earlier posts. I don't find a way to delete them. Sorry, folks.

My Google Fu is strong accented with Search Engine Jitsu, and Wiki Te. I found the answer to my quandry but I appreciate your attempt to educate me in the ways of bullshit.

**thrutch** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:48pm

Originally Posted by ChuckWepner

he doesn't know the difference between disinterested and uninterested.

Hey, this is a fail in the making I've never seen before.

What is the difference between disinterested and uninterested?

**ChuckWepner** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:49pm

Originally Posted by Omega Supreme

My Google Fu is strong accented with Search Engine Jitsu, and Wiki Te. I found the answer to my quandry but I appreciate your attempt to educate me in the ways of bullshit.

There is actually a point, but believe me I am very aware that it is buried deep in the jargon. And I readily admit that there is a ton of stuff that goes on in academic circles, including in philosophy departments that is bullshit.

**ChuckWepner** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:53pm

Originally Posted by thrutch

Hey, this is a fail in the making I've never seen before.

What is the difference between disinterested and uninterested?

Uninterested = doesn't care / bored
Disinterested = has no stake in the matter at hand

So, a disinterested judge is a good judge, but an uninterested one is bad (how I remember).

**Rivington** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:55pm

Originally Posted by thrutch

Hey, this is a fail in the making I've never seen before.

What is the difference between disinterested and uninterested?

They can mean the same thing. Disinterested has an additional meaning: without a selfish or personal interest.

For an MMA judge, for example, we'd want a disinterested observer—someone who doesn't benefit from making sure one fighter wins over the other. We would not want an uninterested observer—someone who doesn't care about the match and lets his or her mind wander.

Disinterested can also mean no longer interested, but that's a rare use.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:59pm

Originally Posted by Rivington

So what? His point—that you carried on about the importance of style fields while fucking around in your own—remains intact.

Except that he didn't say I was "fucking around" with it, he said I chose a specific Portuguese phrase to give the appearance that I was actually training in A REAL STYLE, even though the actual text of my style field was quoted more than once in nearby posts, he either didn't read it an attacked anyway, or he read it and attacked any way. Either way he's a douche, and either way "NAGA NO KATANA" don't look like no style to anyone who knows what NAGA is (LOL)

No, he just conflated the first and the second instance of your style field hypocrisy. He didn't accuse you of hypocrisy where there was none. You are a style field hypocrite, period.

No, that's you're point, and the only reason I haven't changed my style field to "nothing" is that it annoys you. That and I started easing back into training about a week ago.