WAI?

[someenigma]

The key word being usually. I suppose we'll have to categorize this outside of the "usual" situation. However, in this particular case, there is obvious evidence that you have no clue how to debate on a forum or get your point across, especially since you can't get past the basics.

But I will indulge you. The evidence, although not publicly accessible, has still happened, regardless of whether you believe it was made up or not. The testing procedure was flawless (and very easy to administer), and the results I obtained illustrated what I have now posted. Sure, I could post my test publicly, but what good would it do?

If you had a video that publicly showed your tests, people would have very little recourse for arguing against your point.

I know the results, and the actual gameplay content reinforces the result. I'm not looking for your approval, or anyone elses approval on the topic, anyways. Especially not of the approval from the caliber of forum poster typically found on these forums.

If not, then why do you keep replying to the posts which refute your claims?

Remember, evidence, whether public or not, is still evidence.

Remember also, scientific evidence is that which has
* (1) been tested
* (2) been peer reviewed
* (3) reliability and error rates listed
* (4) been accepted by the scientific community.

See Daubert for more information. Anything else may as well be anecdotal, as far as I'm concerned.

[olagaton]

Any evidence you "obtained" yourself Olagaton is immediately held in doubt cause everyone knows your reputation for holding your opinion as the only correct one and how you'd argue forever that you are right and that the other conflicting opinion is wrong regardless of how much information could be available disproving you.

First and foremost, as I've said, I couldn't care less whether you, or others on this forum, hold my evidence in doubt. Everyone who questions my reputation seems to already have an agenda against me, which makes me question their reputation, stance towards topics I discuss, and also leads me to equally hold their doubts in question as well. It's a circle -- it will never end.

And as for me arguing my position, lemme ask you this: If you were right about something, and people questioned it, wouldn't you defend your position? Defending your position doesn't necessarily mean proving your argument to be true, but can also involve finding holes in your oppositions argument, which I do from time to time. It's staggering how often people try to form an argument, post up some screenshot, or parse, or random statistical post with the mindset that such a post actually references the topic being discussed in favor of their argument. Typically it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and if it does, it typically has a plethora of holes in it, so much so that taking it for truth would be an insult to ones intelligence.

If you had a video that publicly showed your tests, people would have very little recourse for arguing against your point.

Besides the fact that I could care less what others on this forum think about me, a video can easily be doctored, as can a screenshot, as can a list of data. The fact that you would take a video at face value, and not question it's validity just reinforces the idea that you don't truly know what is truth and what isn't, and are therefore not a very reliable judge of such.

If not, then why do you keep replying to the posts which refute your claims?

Why not? Do you have a problem with it?

Remember also, scientific evidence is that which has
* (1) been tested
* (2) been peer reviewed
* (3) reliability and error rates listed
* (4) been accepted by the scientific community.

See Daubert for more information. Anything else may as well be anecdotal, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't recall ever saying my evidence was categorized as your version of "scientific evidence."

As per Wikipedia site (for what it's worth),
"Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry."

[Constrictions]

In my experience, pounce has never missed or been b/p/e'd from stealth.

Considering that i have seen burglar stealth attacks miss and/or get b/p/e'd, i'd say it's not wai.

[someenigma]

Besides the fact that I could care less what others on this forum think about me, a video can easily be doctored, as can a screenshot, as can a list of data. The fact that you would take a video at face value, and not question it's validity just reinforces the idea that you don't truly know what is truth and what isn't, and are therefore not a very reliable judge of such.

So, since videos can be doctored, and I said "people have little recourse" if you post one, that makes me "not a very reliable judge".

You're saying a couple of sentences, and asking us to accept them at face value. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that doctoring 2 sentences is a lot easier than doctoring a video of 100+ tests of some skill. Does that mean you are also not a very reliable judge, since you're asking us to take 2 sentences at face value?

Why not? Do you have a problem with it?

Nope, just curious. Usually people responding to threads have a vested interest in the conversation.

I don't recall ever saying my evidence was categorized as your version of "scientific evidence."

Neither did I. I was pointing out what "scientific evidence" was. But I mean, if we're going to take your definition of evidence and stick to it, then I could claim that I have evidence that you always lie. Remember, evidence, whether public or not, is still evidence.

[olagaton]

Does that mean you are also not a very reliable judge, since you're asking us to take 2 sentences at face value?

Quite honestly, I'm not asking you to do anything.

Nope, just curious. Usually people responding to threads have a vested interest in the conversation.

Or have somewhat valuable information to add that may be helpful to others. I had an interest in this topic, until I did the research and found out the truth about it. Since I know the results, I am offering the information to anyone still interested.

Neither did I. I was pointing out what "scientific evidence" was. But I mean, if we're going to take your definition of evidence and stick to it, then I could claim that I have evidence that you always lie. Remember, evidence, whether public or not, is still evidence.

And that's fine. If you feel you have evidence that I always lie, that is your decision. You don't have to, but you are welcome to post your "evidence" to others, as long as it's not violating the forum guidelines. That said, I, being myself and knowing that I don't always lie, gives me enough reason to pursue a counter to your "evidence." I have access to public posts, statements, recordings of myself, with truthful statements, which illustrates that I do not "always" lie. In this case, since there is conflicting "evidence," and you are choosing to use an absolute term "always", I can easily conclude that either your evidence is inaccurate, your testing procedure is inaccurate, or your conclusion is inaccurate. Knowing that, i can easily dismiss your claim and "evidence" against me.

[Brongdha]

I wish I could see you trying to be a lawyer, Slither. You'd be laughed out of the court.

[olagaton]

I wish I could see you trying to be a lawyer, Slither. You'd be laughed out of the court.

Actually, I would probably be respected in the craft, since I imagine the majority of people in there would be educated enough in debate and logic that they could undoubtedly know the difference between the nonsense most people post here on the forums, and the logical debate I typically present. In other words, they would most likely "get it."