|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 16, 2023 17:21:10 GMT -8
If someone's right, theyre right-regardless of whom I despise. Try it some time. Thank you. Likewise...minus the despising someone as I don't despise anyone.  I do despise misinformation. BTW, just an OT FYI in case you and I have never cleared it up, all those times I posted "Is there a scientist in the house" on this forum, not once was it meant to be directed at you. It was always directed at namisgr who seemed to be incapable of thinking objectively outside of his politics. Just wanted to be clear on that in case you had at any time thought it was directed at you.  |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 16, 2023 17:22:40 GMT -8
If you disagree, do your diligence. Find me some books that were NOT produced this way. If the printing process varied so greatly you should have tons of examples to show me. I deal with 10,000s books a year and so far, I have yet to find a pattern to disagree with my points. An anonymous poster on a comic forum (DiceX) regurgitating what little is speculated about comic book printing in its first 40 years is proof of nothing, just as with your appeals to alleged objectivity. Likewise mistaking the unsourced speculations from a tiny handful of dubious interests presenting alleged information 50-90 years after the fact for evidence; it's meaningless without sourcing. You've once again failed to provide evidence to support any of your assertions, and are once again attempting to shift the burden of proof.So in addition to all of your prior failures, Zod must now include the failure to recognize your failures, and correct them. How pitiful that you are encouraged in this incompetence by those who despise you. I don't think the word 'anonymous' means what you think it does.  You're currently anonymous. DiceX isn't anonymous. He's actually very well known in the comic community. The evidence is on the books themselves. Nearly every single printed book bears the physical evidence showing that they were printed the same. Let me know when you find an exception to the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 16, 2023 17:39:48 GMT -8
No way I thought scientist comments were directed at me-namisgr in my opinion as a scholarship student in college and working scientist is no scientist at all-he is a shill. I dont care where he's worked. I've worked beside plenty of imbecile 'scientists' in labs.
Someone mentioned merely working in a lab dont mean much-what lab? How competent were they? If they worked at Theranos for example-
|
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 16, 2023 17:44:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 16, 2023 18:03:30 GMT -8
No way I thought scientist comments were directed at me-namisgr in my opinion as a scholarship student in college and working scientist is no scientist at all-he is a shill. I dont care where he's worked. I've worked beside plenty of imbecile scientists in labs. I believe he's a real scientist. I've met him. Had dinner with him. I've known him personally for what, 15+ years? He's just terrible at thinking outside of the box his lack of self esteem, personal politics and personal pride have built for him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 22:04:53 GMT -8
An anonymous poster on a comic forum (DiceX) regurgitating what little is speculated about comic book printing in its first 40 years is proof of nothing, just as with your appeals to alleged objectivity. Likewise mistaking the unsourced speculations from a tiny handful of dubious interests presenting alleged information 50-90 years after the fact for evidence; it's meaningless without sourcing. You've once again failed to provide evidence to support any of your assertions, and are once again attempting to shift the burden of proof.So in addition to all of your prior failures, Zod must now include the failure to recognize your failures, and correct them. How pitiful that you are encouraged in this incompetence by those who despise you. I don't think the word 'anonymous' means what you think it does. You're currently anonymous. DiceX isn't anonymous. He's actually very well known in the comic community. The evidence is on the books themselves. Nearly every single printed book bears the physical evidence showing that they were printed the same. Let me know when you find an exception to the rule. Zod notes that you yet AGAIN commit the logical error of attempting to shift the burden of proof. As to DiceX, if he is well-known, you should have no trouble providing the supporting evidentiary information requested by Zod (and any other logical individual). Instead, you prefer to randomly and repeatedly assert that all comic books have always been trimmed on all 3 [open] sides as a counter to a claim Zod never made. Zod has never stated that comic books were or were not trimmed on these sides. Rather, Zod has asserted this: Comic books vary by the differing circumstances under which they were created.You have yet to supply meaningful evidence in support of your claims (primary and otherwise), especially those made in your OP. However, it is your duty to do so under the rules of logic. But since you accept single unsourced claims made on the internet as irrefutable evidence, Zod will share the following: Zod has himself been involved with printing for decades, as have members of Zod's family.
Zod has worked with major comic book publishers, and done hands-on work in all phases of comic book composition, including the physical creation of many different comic books.
As such, Zod can assure you that comic books vary by the differing circumstances under which they are created, and always have.
The evidence of this can often be found in the comic books themselves, though the history of comic book printing from the early 30s through early 70s is all but entirely lost.By your own standard of proof, these statements by Zod constitute irrefutable evidence. Nonetheless, Zod awaits proof of your claims as he has outlined previously in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 17, 2023 15:46:48 GMT -8
I don't think the word 'anonymous' means what you think it does. You're currently anonymous. DiceX isn't anonymous. He's actually very well known in the comic community. The evidence is on the books themselves. Nearly every single printed book bears the physical evidence showing that they were printed the same. Let me know when you find an exception to the rule. Zod notes that you yet AGAIN commit the logical error of attempting to shift the burden of proof. As to DiceX, if he is well-known, you should have no trouble providing the supporting evidentiary information requested by Zod (and any other logical individual). Instead, you prefer to randomly and repeatedly assert that all comic books have always been trimmed on all 3 [open] sides as a counter to a claim Zod never made. Zod has never stated that comic books were or were not trimmed on these sides. Rather, Zod has asserted this: Comic books vary by the differing circumstances under which they were created.You have yet to supply meaningful evidence in support of your claims (primary and otherwise), especially those made in your OP. However, it is your duty to do so under the rules of logic. But since you accept single unsourced claims made on the internet as irrefutable evidence, Zod will share the following: Zod has himself been involved with printing for decades, as have members of Zod's family.
Zod has worked with major comic book publishers, and done hands-on work in all phases of comic book composition, including the physical creation of many different comic books.
As such, Zod can assure you that comic books vary by the differing circumstances under which they are created, and always have.
The evidence of this can often be found in the comic books themselves, though the history of comic book printing from the early 30s through early 70s is all but entirely lost.By your own standard of proof, these statements by Zod constitute irrefutable evidence. Nonetheless, Zod awaits proof of your claims as he has outlined previously in this thread. Please show your proof. M'kay? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 17, 2023 15:59:44 GMT -8
"Please show your proof"
-shows proof
"Please show your proof"
Shows more proof.
"please show your proof"
etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 0:42:06 GMT -8
Zod notes that you yet AGAIN commit the logical error of attempting to shift the burden of proof. As to DiceX, if he is well-known, you should have no trouble providing the supporting evidentiary information requested by Zod (and any other logical individual). Instead, you prefer to randomly and repeatedly assert that all comic books have always been trimmed on all 3 [open] sides as a counter to a claim Zod never made. Zod has never stated that comic books were or were not trimmed on these sides. Rather, Zod has asserted this: Comic books vary by the differing circumstances under which they were created.You have yet to supply meaningful evidence in support of your claims (primary and otherwise), especially those made in your OP. However, it is your duty to do so under the rules of logic. But since you accept single unsourced claims made on the internet as irrefutable evidence, Zod will share the following: Zod has himself been involved with printing for decades, as have members of Zod's family.
Zod has worked with major comic book publishers, and done hands-on work in all phases of comic book composition, including the physical creation of many different comic books.
As such, Zod can assure you that comic books vary by the differing circumstances under which they are created, and always have.
The evidence of this can often be found in the comic books themselves, though the history of comic book printing from the early 30s through early 70s is all but entirely lost.By your own standard of proof, these statements by Zod constitute irrefutable evidence. Nonetheless, Zod awaits proof of your claims as he has outlined previously in this thread. Please show your proof. M'kay? Thanks. Having utterly failed to prove your initial claims... And endlessly attempted to shift your burden of proof... You now refuse to accept evidence of the exact type you have offered & consider irrefutable. Your hypocrisy is matched only by your incompetence. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 22, 2023 12:07:52 GMT -8
Please show your proof. M'kay? Thanks. Having utterly failed to prove your initial claims... And endlessly attempted to shift your burden of proof... You now refuse to accept evidence of the exact type you have offered & consider irrefutable. Your hypocrisy is matched only by your incompetence. All theory is either proven or disproven by the physical body of evidence we have to examine. Almost every comic ever printed exhibits the exact same characteristics I've described, showing it was folded, stapled, and then cut on 3 sides - in that order. It's really simple: If you disagree then you need to show me one that doesn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 20:15:04 GMT -8
Having utterly failed to prove your initial claims... And endlessly attempted to shift your burden of proof... You now refuse to accept evidence of the exact type you have offered & consider irrefutable. Your hypocrisy is matched only by your incompetence. All theory is either proven or disproven by the physical body of evidence we have to examine. Almost every comic ever printed exhibits the exact same characteristics I've described, showing it was folded, stapled, and then cut on 3 sides - in that order. It's really simple: If you disagree then you need to show me one that doesn't. All theory is either proven or disproven by the physical body of evidence we have to examine. Irrelevant deflection.
Present your evidence.
Almost every comic ever printed exhibits the exact same characteristics I've described, showing it was folded, stapled, and then cut on 3 sides - in that order. Comic books vary by the circumstances under which they were created.
If you have proof of the primary claims of your OP, please present it.
So far you have failed to do so.
It's really simple: If you disagree then you need to show me one that doesn't. It is really simple, yes.
You are responsible for presenting evidence supporting your initial claim, as Zod has previously informed you.
That you don't know this - even after repeatedly being told - is an epic embarrassment for you.
You have proven yourself incapable of logical thought and expression yet again.
But Zod does not despise but rather pities you.
This conversation could have been one in which you learned a great number of things.
But your need to be right - especially when wrong - is your personal tragedy.
It's not as though Zod is playing some complex game of multi-dimensional Kryptonian chess while you play checkers.
Zod is simply playing your simple game of earth checkers while you again and again scrawl "XXO," and then proceed to proclaim your genius.
Thus Zod's pity and embarrassment for you.
What sadder than a man who insists his ignorance is knowledge?
And your frenemy here, who has warned you about this pattern many times, now eggs you on in your repeated failure, deepening the tragedy.
But that's what frenemies are for Zod supposes.
Do take care - perhaps someday you'll see the error of your ways. 
|
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 22, 2023 20:41:54 GMT -8
its like he's talking to himself-
incredible.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 23, 2023 8:32:59 GMT -8
Somebody needs to tell somebody, or preferably...if appropriate.... themselves that if a statement is Logic it is not an error. If a statement is an error it is not Logic. If an assumption of the meaning of a statement is that it is an error in Logic, Logic dictates the assumption is an illogical statement has been offered for consideration.
Thus, a failure of Logical Consequence exists in any rebuttal to a claim of logical error. For programming, certainly. For humans: No.
Just say No.
It is fun to play I Am Smart, but when doing so, one takes a very big risk that one would be viewed as illogical, when one incorrectly opines on the subject of Logic.
That is all I've got.
Continue.
Logical error? Whew.... Parmenides, Aquinas and Boethius all checked into a hospital with symptoms of unexplained mental confusion, after reading the words "logical error".
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 23, 2023 8:33:35 GMT -8
PS: I enjoyed that snarky moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2023 21:23:55 GMT -8
Zod observes that the incompetence, hypocrisy, irony and tragedy continue to flow here. But no evidence or logical thought/expression from the OP or any of his mindless supporters. Zod concedes that this is what makes the forum so special however.  |
|
first phil's now this
