I actually find it kinda funny ...

"SOM has divulged which black boxes are on as posted by Charlie."


ROTFLMFAO!


And Charlie knows because??????????? I can copy a post from a few years back where Charlie was certain SOM was throwing Bruce (Petrosian, Last Druid) a few extra wins each league just to assuage his ego and keep his mouth shut....Yeah, Charlie knows :lol:

"SOM has divulged which black boxes are on as posted by Charlie."


ROTFLMFAO!


And Charlie knows because??????????? I can copy a post from a few years back where Charlie was certain SOM was throwing Bruce (Petrosian, Last Druid) a few extra wins each league just to assuage his ego and keep his mouth shut....Yeah, Charlie knows :lol:

Whats even funnier or rather more ironic is that DJMACB didn't even know these boxes existed until Charlie posted about them a week or so ago...

but hes certain that NOW HE KNOWS how everything work

if you can't misapply Occam's razor a few times, or think that you are the only one who knows what the Butterfly effect is then really, whats the point?

Just had a good run of 4 straight 1st place teams. None of them won 100 games. I have a sub.500 regular season winning percentage, so I’m clearly inferior to the godlike wonders who run the same strategies, draft the same core players, and don’t play theme leagues.

Wonder why I didn’t win a championship (or even make the finals)? I mean, that’s how this whole thing WORKS, right?

(Obviously, I’ve been cursed by the alien, human-trafficking, lizard people who TRULY run things. Curse these strange boxes of various colors!)

You have precisely proven my point ...

Why is it that the burden of proof is on the people who believe something is rotten in Denmark?

Whereas the naysayers don't have to disprove anything? They get to simply say, "you guys are all wrong." And because they said it, it MUST be the reality.

You have precisely proven my point ...

Why is it that the burden of proof is on the people who believe something is rotten in Denmark?

Whereas the naysayers don't have to disprove anything? They get to simply say, "you guys are all wrong." And because they said it, it MUST be the reality.

So, unfortunately when you are dealing with cretins and philistines, they don't even understand what the correct counter-argument to what we are asserting, would be, IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY TO MAKE IT!!!
1. It (black box items) all affects us equally
OR potentially
2. The effects are as limited as SoM claims they are

Sorry DjmacB but you also unwitting gave Rich the reason why its almost impossible to be proven- since none of us have access to the actual code and ALL MATHEMATICAL POSSIBILITIES exist, it would take virtually a mountain of evidence to PROVE such at thing ie.not much different than 'proving' god or gods exist.
I know you in particular would rather engage in ad hominem attacks rather than use logic.

PS- these sorts of inanities are another reason I miss Bruce on here. He'd have shut down some of this stupidity with logic and even potentially found any existing weaknesses in my assertions as well.

PPS- macb- I actually understand thats not how you meant to use the teapot analogy, and that it is not actually about proving the existence of god- but unfortunately you just can't seem to grasp that you keep misusing the analogies you are trying to make-- sad, isn't it?

I think what people are saying is you’re looking for patterns to prove your assertion, then not allowing any counter arguments. But, let’s say you’re 100% right. Then why are you still playing? I mean, if I play and don’t know any better, that’s just ignorance. But if I supposedly know better and I still play, well...that’s another thing altogether, isn’t it?

Anyway, I’m sure someone has mentioned this before, but the home computer game supposedly normalizes fatigue if a pitcher is being overused (or maybe it does- I think it used to). I thought they had brought that switch to this version. If not, I wish they would. Pitcher AND batter overuse should carry greater injury risk, imho.

They say there is no evidence to prove anything, but by that same logic isn't there also no evidence to DISPROVE anything as well???

This may be one of the funniest things every posted on these boards.

They say there is no evidence to prove anything, but by that same logic isn't there also no evidence to DISPROVE anything as well???

This may be one of the funniest things every posted on these boards.

Funny how? You mean I'm funny like a clown? I amuse you?

They say there is no evidence to prove anything, but by that same logic isn't there also no evidence to DISPROVE anything as well???

This may be one of the funniest things every posted on these boards.

Funny how? You mean I'm funny like a clown? I amuse you?

Yes Joe Pesci that’s it.

The logic that someone has to disprove something that didn’t happen is faulty in and of itself. It goes like this.

Do you know what animals are the best at hiding in trees. Elephants. I guarantee you’ve never even seen an elephant hiding in a tree. That’s how good they are. You have no evidence that this isn’t happening but go ahead and disprove it.

The logic that someone has to disprove something that didn’t happen is faulty in and of itself. It goes like this.

Do you know what animals are the best at hiding in trees. Elephants. I guarantee you’ve never even seen an elephant hiding in a tree. That’s how good they are. You have no evidence that this isn’t happening but go ahead and disprove it.

Hmm- while I actually agree that its impossible to 'prove a negative' -
if you alter the question slightly, look what you can do-- (of course you'd have to define best etc.)
'Of all animals known to hide in trees, which do it best?'