Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

void Frozen(void)

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-05 18:44


void Frozen(void) {
        int D = 100;

        while(D-->0) {
                troll_prog();
                fail_to_read_sicp();
        }
}

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 13:58

>>120
However no one claimed the ownership of >>17
and you claimed that someone did, making your posts factually wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:00

>>121
guess what: i'm not >>114. You're just wrong and you can't read

now please kindly get out

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:02

>>122
The you have no place in the discussion: I was discussing with >>114

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:04

>>123
you still cannot read, because he never alleged that you DID post >>17, only that you claimed to. thus your claim that "
You're wrong: I posted >>16 not >>17" is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what he said. Thus, you are wrong and cannot read.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:06

>>124
But I never claimed to post >>17
its what >>114 posted(and >>114 is wrong).

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:09

>>125
Regardless of whether he is wrong or not, you still brought up something totally irrelevant to his post:

You're wrong: I posted >>16 not >>17 [sic]

He never claimed that you posted >>17, he only claimed that you claimed to post >>17. Thus, I postulate that you lack basic reading comprehension.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:10

>>126
Where i claimed to post >>17? I don't see a single post.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:12

>>127
Still wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:13

>>128
You just don't have any evidence to the contrary.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:18

>>129
I have plenty of evidence that he never claimed you posted >>17 and thus your claim of

>"I posted >>16 and not 17"1

is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[hr][/hr]
1http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1231198634/114

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:21

>>130
"ball when he claimed he posted >>17 -- "
I never claimed this: thus making >>114 wrong

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:26

>>131
You are the wrong one, because you are denying making irrelevant and off-topic posts. He never claimed you posted >>17, thus making your statement

>You're wrong: I posted >>16 not >>17

inaccurate at best and a red herring at worst. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:27

>>132
Can you disprove it? Where "he claimed he posted >>17 -- "?

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:28

>>133
Again, you're simply wrong because you are committing egregious logical fallacies of the worst kind.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:30

>>134
The posts is being simply wrong and you are trying to invent an excuse.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:34

>>133
>>114 is probably very aware that you posted >>16 and not >>17, and thus statement >>15 is pointless in the scope of this discussion. His claim of you claiming to post >>17 is largely irrelevant and you are just trying to rescind all of your fallacious arguments because you know you're wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:35

>>136
"His claim of you claiming to post >>17 is largely irrelevant"
Its actually very relevant, because its factually wrong: there were no such claims before.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:39

>>137
Actually no. Post >>115 logically does not follow from post >>114, thereby making your claim of posting >>17 irrelevant. Do you have any actual arguments or are you simply here to purposely mislead?

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:43

>>138
Its follows because:
>>114 claims: "I claimed that I posted >>17"
>>115 marks this claim as wrong: previous posts indicate its true

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:46

>>139
>>115 marks nothing as wrong. It simply states that you posted >>16 and not >>17. It says nothing about claiming to post >>17 and nothing from the aforementioned statement can infer that it does state that. There is a huge gap in your reasoning and I suggest you correct it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:48

>>140
That "gap" is called context.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 14:50

>>141
Context is not a substitute for deductive or syllogistic reasoning, and thus your posts are hugely flawed.

Name: >>114 2009-01-29 15:26

I meant he said he posted >>16, not >>17. Sorry about that.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 16:05

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 16:15

>>144
Feeding the troll, obviously.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 16:24

>>144
TROLLS FEEDING TROLLS FEEDING TROLLS TROLLY TROLLY TROLLING TROLLS

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 17:31

>>146
Needs more meta.

Name: =+=*=F=R=O=Z=E=N==V=O=I=D=*=+= !FrOzEn2BUo 2009-01-31 6:34

As >>143 explained, the post on which they argued about was wrong (>>17)
I only made post >>16 as reply to >>15 ,and in turn was replied by >>17


_________________________
orbis terrarum delenda est
 http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-06 9:59

Back to /b/, ``GNAA Faggot''

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 14:48

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -