Sifu Rice At A Glance

[ChuckWepner]

No, there's an obvious inference. An inference which would not necessarily be the correct one. We would require further evidence, before drawing any conclusion as to the style.

All reasoning involves inferences. You are right that it is not necessarily correct to infer that Rice teaches JJJ. And I never said that it was. If you read what I said, it is that the way it is listed, in context, makes it *more likely* that he teaches JJJ than BJJ. This is how reasoning based on evidence works, as you no doubt know; it is rarely possible to have absolutely conclusive evidence, let alone to offer a deductive proof for an empirical claim. You are right that this evidence by itself is not that strong. That is why I offered additional, stronger evidence.

Where did DerAus state that your point rested solely on the spelling...?

It is the clear implication of post #63, in a context where he was responding to my argument (right under quoting it), obviously with his panties in a bunch over my ribbing him about the amusing misspelling of pedant in a post about his pedantry about spelling.

Seriously dude, you need to sit back, count to ten and breathe.
He critiqued your point, in a manner that is par-for-the-course on this site and you respond with this :- Mate, where did all this vitriol come from...?

I really loathe people being dishonest in argument. It also really isn't par for the course on the site. Lots of the forum leaders rough people up and curse them out, but I've found them to be sticklers for intellectual honesty as a rule. And I could list a ton of posters here who I respect who don't sink to that level. When someone repeatedly distorts what I've said in order to try to score rhetorical points, because otherwise the best he can do is spout "****" over and over, I'm going to call him on it. When he tries being condescending on top of it, I'll call him on it hard. He did it first in post #63, and again in quoting a sentence fragment in post #72 to distort what I'd said.

Then he offered a display of his great wit again by calling me a couple of names and ordering me off the forum in a cute little tantrum.

He does provide the answer, though, to the most famous Zen koan, "What is the sound of one lobe fapping?"

[It is Fake]

All reasoning involves inferences. You are right that it is not necessarily correct to infer that Rice teaches JJJ. And I never said that it was. If you read what I said, it is that the way it is listed, in context, makes it *more likely* that he teaches JJJ than BJJ. This is how reasoning based on evidence works, as you no doubt know; it is rarely possible to have absolutely conclusive evidence, let alone to offer a deductive proof for an empirical claim. You are right that this evidence by itself is not that strong. That is why I offered additional, stronger evidence.




It is the clear implication of post #63, in a context where he was responding to my argument (right under quoting it), obviously with his panties in a bunch over my ribbing him about the amusing misspelling of pedant in a post about his pedantry about spelling.



I really loathe people being dishonest in argument. It also really isn't par for the course on the site. Lots of the forum leaders rough people up and curse them out, but I've found them to be sticklers for intellectual honesty as a rule. And I could list a ton of posters here who I respect who don't sink to that level. When someone repeatedly distorts what I've said in order to try to score rhetorical points, because otherwise the best he can do is spout "****" over and over, I'm going to call him on it. When he tries being condescending on top of it, I'll call him on it hard. He did it first in post #63, and again in quoting a sentence fragment in post #72 to distort what I'd said.

Then he offered a display of his great wit again by calling me a couple of names and ordering me off the forum in a cute little tantrum.

He does provide the answer, though, to the most famous Zen koan, "What is the sound of one lobe fapping?"

Hahahaha!!!

[itwasntme]

Wow, your reading is terrible.


Yes and I called you lazy. No, you didn't understand my comment.

Sorry?

[bobyclumsyninja]

And miss out on all the opinionated jerks squabble? I'd sooner die.

And yes, I am calling myself an opinionated jerk also.

Are you admitting to trolling in MABS? That's a big no no.

[itwasntme]

Are you admitting to trolling in MABS? That's a big no no.

No. I was talking about this thread.

I wouldn't troll in MABS or the Training forums.

And I just looked at the thread title lol. I thought this was the Trollshido thread. I need to go to bed.

Edit: It appears the Trollshido thread was pulled from Trollshido and merged with the one I started in MABS which was moved here. That should explain the confusion.

Re-edit: Why is that, by the way? It appears that the Trollshido thread was deleted or some posts were deleted.

Re-re-edit: Nevermind, the posts were not deleted but merged with this thread before the semantics debate.

[It is Fake]

Yes, you created a thread to argue about how you were treated in a MABS thread. The argument was using BOTH threads as fodder. Now, it can be read with full context since it was moved to YMAS.

Remember, you started the secondary bitchfest IN YMAS and I moved it to trollshido. Your MABS thread was moved to YMAS after help from Rivington. Since they are dealing with the same issues, nope not semantics, they can be merged.

[itwasntme]

Since they are dealing with the same issues, nope not semantics, they can be merged.

I was referring to the exact place in the thread the posts got moved to. Right before Bodhi and Chuck "argued". Semantics probably wasn't the right word to use for their argument though.

[W. Rabbit]

This thread is sudden death on Wheel of Fish. No one wins.

[Sri Hanuman]

This thread is sudden death on Wheel of Fish. No one wins.

No idea where my other reply went, but this was the next best thing.