Originally Posted by wrightme

Not following your line of reasoning at all.

You can deduce things just like he can deduce things.
It does not entail, knowing something.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

You said the same thing a bunch of times already in this thread.

Yes. He hasn't gotten it yet. In fact, even with repetition, he still responds that it isn't true.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

You can deduce things just like he can deduce things.
It does not entail, knowing something.

Um, yes, that is what i was stating.


I replied that he can not 'know' who has 'ruffled skirts,' and his reply confirmed that.


So?

Originally Posted by wrightme

Um, yes, that is what i was stating.


I replied that he can not 'know' who has 'ruffled skirts,' and his reply confirmed that.


So?

So why keep repeating that he doesn't know?

Originally Posted by DenverJayhawk

Wrong again. It doesn't mean I don't know. It just means I don't have proof,vwhich I have repeatedly acknowledged several times even though you still haven't accepted that fact.

Without proof, you do not 'know.'

Originally Posted by DJ

When a user says I publicly attacked them in a light hearted back and forth exchange with only that member then I get a point for it within a hour , I don't think it is that likely that it was a differnet user that reported me. Of course I don't have proof and its possible it was someone else. But I don't think it is that likely.

To you, it may not be likely. But, as you say, you only guess, you do not 'know.'

I'd ask again, but I really don't want to keep repeating myself.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

So why keep repeating that he doesn't know?

Sigh.


You are simply here to argue, aren't you.


Because he keeps replying to that as if he does know.

And now, he says he can guess, but doesn't have proof, which is the same as not knowing, and I will point that out, and he will AGAIN reply as if I am incorrect.


It is correct to state that he does not know. When he replies that I am wrong, it isn't me who is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

I'd ask again, but I really don't want to keep repeating myself.

Sigh.


Had he simply admitted that he didn't know, it would be over already.

And, his guess is enough for him to alter his behavior, giving lie to his 'need information to alter behavior.' And, his 'cause-effect' hypothesis will not achieve his desired result, but that does not seem to matter to him.

Thus, the information he desires is for some other reason than any desire of his to alter his behavior. If he really wanted to alter his behavior, he already HAS enough data to do so. But, unless he alters behavior across the board, he will NOT achieve an objective of reducing warnings; except to the extent that he reduces infractions as a percentage of his overall activity.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Without proof, you do not 'know.'


To you, it may not be likely. But, as you say, you only guess, you do not 'know.'

One can deduce based on history without having the evidence to prove it. This is what i have maintained from the beginning. It was not a recent change in positioning.

The fact that you avoided my question further supports my theory.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Sigh.


You are simply here to argue, aren't you.


Because he keeps replying to that as if he does know.

And now, he says he can guess, but doesn't have proof, which is the same as not knowing, and I will point that out, and he will AGAIN reply as if I am incorrect.


It is correct to state that he does not know. When he replies that I am wrong, it isn't me who is incorrect.

Prove that i am wrong and answer the question then.

Originally Posted by DenverJayhawk

One can deduce based on history without having the evidence to prove it. This is what i have maintained from the beginning. It was not a recent change in positioning.

So, clearly, you do not 'know.' Yet each time I stated that, you tried to say I was incorrect.

Originally Posted by DJ

The fact that you avoided my question further supports my theory.

No, it does not support your theory.

Originally Posted by DenverJayhawk

Prove that i am wrong and answer the question then.

You ARE wrong, as NONE of us know who reported posts.

If madsci did, or if I did, does not preclude other reporters. If you 'deduce' that it is me and/or madsci, you are forgetting that others can still report you, without either of US even reading your posts.

When you view it personally as you are, you are missing the reality completely.


When you earn points, it isn't the fault of someone like me or madsci; it is you who created a rule infraction. Change that, and you don't earn points. If you have to use some 'theory' to choose who to 'tone it down' with, you miss the obvious. Which is, you might want to simply choose to 'tone it down' across the board.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Sigh.


You are simply here to argue, aren't you.

The same can be said of you.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Had he simply admitted that he didn't know, it would be over already.

It could also be over already if you didn't insist on having the last word trying to force such an "admission".

Originally Posted by Gerald

^^^
Irony post of the week.

I started to say much the same but then saw you had already beat me to it.

I'm more inclined to call it Irony Post of the Year, however.

Originally Posted by Gerald

^^^
Irony post of the week.

Spot-on.