Because I am bored (2 Viewers)

[uproar90]

If its not for you its not for you. I'm not here to say you're wrong, I just think if you played it with SRvg you would like it a hell of a lot more. I'm playing with just pubbies with no voice chat and still having a ton of fun.

Agreed... The only time I don't like playing w/ SRvg is when I'm on the other team and it's an unbalanced game... That is just aggravating. It's like listening to a group of people talk about how they're going to kick your butt while it's happening.

Now, getting loaded to the other team because that's where the only slot is, but your team is solid = a different story and can be quite a bit of fun b/c the trash talk aspect is there.

I didn't like this game at first either Twenty... I posted my thoughts earlier in this thread, and I hate to rehash, but I disliked it plenty for the first 3 or 4 matches I was in.

I was curious as to how long you actually tried it, and @ only 90 minutes in, you've decided it is just not for you. I can respect that because you've got MW2 to go back to which you do like, and which you're accustomed to, but as authentic mentioned... If you were on a decent team w/ a squad, I think you'd have more fun.

I didn't have MW2 to fall back on, so I gave BC2 another shot and it grew on me quickly.

authentic - send me an invite... I'm usually balancing my play between SRvg and a long-time gamer friend of mine (and his brother). It is sometimes hard to get into a SRvg game due to size of the crew, but the smaller party of 2-3 is easier to find open slots, or move to an open game to accomodate everyone.

 

[Twenty]

"Insufficient to produce complete certainty"
AKA
Can't prove it.

 

[St. Widge]

"Insufficient to produce complete certainty"
AKA
Can't prove it.

Which means that it can be wrong. You're confusing the basis of the opinion with whether or not that opinion can be wrong. What the above means is that the statement is not based on fact, it does not mean that the statement can not be wrong.

For instance, if I said in 2000 that "based on the reports I've seen in the media, there are WMDs in Iraq", that opinion is based on insufficinet evidence to guarantee complete certainty since it was based on news reports and not actual visual evidence of WMDs. But, it also turns out that opinion was wrong.

And, 2 + 2 = Mongeeses is also based on information "insufficient to produce complete certainty", but it is also wrong.

Finally, if I say it's my opinion that no gods exist and you say it is your opinion that god does exist, neither of us has enough evidence to guarantee the certainty of our position and we will likely never know who is wrong, but one of us has to be wrong since there either are gods or there are not. The fact that we can't know the truth of a statement does not make it any less right or wrong. It just means we can't know if it is right or wrong.

 

[buzd]

This pole should have been public. 25 votes and only 14 respondents. I would like to know how many of the other 11 have tried both games.

 

[St. Widge]

This pole should have been public. 25 votes and only 14 respondents. I would like to know how many of the other 11 have tried both games.

It is public. You just have to click on the number of votes to see who voted what way.

 

[buzd]

It is public. You just have to click on the number of votes to see who voted what way.

Ah - it used to warn you if a pole was public.

Sneaky.

 

[Twenty]

Which means that it can be wrong. You're confusing the basis of the opinion with whether or not that opinion can be wrong. What the above means is that the statement is not based on fact, it does not mean that the statement can not be wrong.

For instance, if I said in 2000 that "based on the reports I've seen in the media, there are WMDs in Iraq", that opinion is based on insufficinet evidence to guarantee complete certainty since it was based on news reports and not actual visual evidence of WMDs. But, it also turns out that opinion was wrong.

And, 2 + 2 = Mongeeses is also based on information "insufficient to produce complete certainty", but it is also wrong.

Finally, if I say it's my opinion that no gods exist and you say it is your opinion that god does exist, neither of us has enough evidence to guarantee the certainty of our position and we will likely never know who is wrong, but one of us has to be wrong since there either are gods or there are not. The fact that we can't know the truth of a statement does not make it any less right or wrong. It just means we can't know if it is right or wrong.

Ok, now we're getting into something different. In the future it can be proven wrong, you are right. For instance:

When cavemen walked the earth. If one caveman said to another, "in the year 2010, in my opinion there won't be any more people that look like us." At that moment, that opinion could not be proven one way or the other. However, now, that some of us interact with WDF on a daily basis, it obviously can be proven wrong.

 

[uproar90]

Every debate seems to end up with someone (or multiple someones) insulting WDQ.


I love that even when folks here disagree, we can still find common ground.


Here's to you Harry Henderson! Have a BEER on me!

 

[St. Widge]

Ok, now we're getting into something different. In the future it can be proven wrong, you are right. For instance:

When cavemen walked the earth. If one caveman said to another, "in the year 2010, in my opinion there won't be any more people that look like us." At that moment, that opinion could not be proven one way or the other. However, now, that some of us interact with WDF on a daily basis, it obviously can be proven wrong.

But, you are mixing up an metaphysical fact (what exists) with epistemology (what can be known). While it may be true that Cavemen could not know that WDF would survive to this day, even back then it was a true or false statement. The fact was that WDF would exist. It's just that the cavemen could not know if he would exist.

 

[buzd]

An explorer is caught by a group of cannibals on an island. As they are preparing the roux to cook him up, they give him the chance to make one statement. If it is true, they will shoot him. If false, they will hang him.

His reply "I will be hung".

True or false?

 

[Twenty]

That was me throwing in the towel on this debate.

I'm not wrong, though. I'll never admit that. You hear me?! NEVER!!

 

[The Mongoose]

An explorer is caught by a group of cannibals on an island. As they are preparing the roux to cook him up, they give him the chance to make one statement. If it is true, they will shoot him. If false, they will hang him.

His reply "I will be hung".

True or false?

Man that's deep. It's like a snake eating its own tail.

 

[antipop]

i a more interested in the type of roux they are going to make....i prefer a lighter one...

 

[buzd]

i a more interested in the type of roux they are going to make....i prefer a lighter one...

Explorers are gamey, though. A darker roux would be more appropriate.

 

[The Mongoose]

i a more interested in the type of roux they are going to make....i prefer a lighter one...

You see, anita, if he says "I will be hung" and it's true they won't hang him, meaning his statement was false, meaning they will hang him, but then his statement was true so they can't hang him. In which case his statement was false and they should hang him.

You get it now anita? I can explain it again if you are still having trouble.