Time stamped prediction

Hugo Cornwall said:
Oh and Claus... I love you too...:w2:

That's a change. Here's your opinion of Randi and this board:

Originally posted by Hugo Cornwall on FTMB
I have small time for his gastapo methods, and his chorus of brown shirted, brown nosed, catamites 'doing the Master's work'...
 
CFLarsen said:


See? Danish is not THAT hard.....where do you think the word "window" comes from?

Vindue.

I actually started self teaching OE. How similar to modern Danish?
 
Ed said:
I actually started self teaching OE. How similar to modern Danish?

Don't know much about OE, but I suspect you will find quite a lot of Danish-influenced words. Danish has always been influenced a great deal by its neighbouring countries, and we find a lot of German, English and French words.
 
Lucianarchy,

You said your success rate is 100%. Could you give me the update what that means so far? Last I looked at the thread you had given one answer of The Boy Paj's seven experiments, and that one time you were right.

Is that what you mean by "100%"? Or did you try more times than that and I just missed seeing them?


Also, Hugo Cromwell, I've been looking through some of the threads, and you FT posters seem like a knowledgable, open-minded, inquiring, and quite pleasant group (even when vigorously disagreeing. :) ). BUT....why are people with yahoo and hotmail email accounts not allowed to register? :confused: I know people can set up phony accounts that way, but if that's the email system one uses...what alternatives do you suggest?
 
(I blame the Danewald for the Danish influence on OE.)

Personally, I’ve been made to feel very welcome on the FTMB, with a surprising amount of supportive PMs. In fact, if it weren’t for one of their admin taking pity on me (after Lucian had badmouthed me in a post there) and lifted the ban on hotmail accounts for me, I wouldn’t have been able to chase Lucian up a tree regarding his claims.

And Claus’ performance on Lucian’s thread was pretty woeful. What should’ve been the easiest argument to win (Lucian’s wafer-thin February 14 prediction) turned into a grindingly tedious debate about Lucian’s gender. Claus got seriously distracted (and still seems to think it’s important, even now) and never really pushed his arguments about the main topic of the thread. And I actually got quite angry reading it. Really, I did. To see the easiest argument in the world being lost like that was a pitiful sight.

And anyway, you know what? I’m GLAD Lucian’s back. He’s clearly unbalanced, or a master troll but he offers us a kind of scratching post for our arguments. And you CAN win an argument against him, if you stay focused and not go on about other stuff. While you’ll never get him to admit he’s wrong, you will have the satisfaction of seeing him fall silent on a particular topic.
 
While you’ll never get him to admit he’s wrong, you will have the satisfaction of seeing him fall silent on a particular topic.

I find that very hard to believe, considering that he still uses "ladybrook" and "Feb 14th" as proof of his superpowers, even though he's lost the arguments on them.
 
CFLarsen said:


That's a change. Here's your opinion of Randi and this board:


Now here's an English phrase which I believe is not your vocabulary, but is in mine:-

I was Wrong

I unreservedly apologise for that remark. It was based on prejudice rather than knowledge, and was quickly disabused by my visits here and looking over Randi's work. I believe, however to edit out that bit of history would be hypocritical, which is something you have accused me of many times, but I think it should stand as a monument to my own startlingly ill-informed arrogance.

Ersby, I think TBK and I have a point in common there. Even after losing the argument, the only way on can actually get LA to STFU would be by stapling his mouth shut. :D ;)
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
Now here's an English phrase which I believe is not your vocabulary, but is in mine:-

I was Wrong

I unreservedly apologise for that remark. It was based on prejudice rather than knowledge, and was quickly disabused by my visits here and looking over Randi's work. I believe, however to edit out that bit of history would be hypocritical, which is something you have accused me of many times, but I think it should stand as a monument to my own startlingly ill-informed arrogance.

But it was not the last time you made disparaging remarks about Randi or this board. The post was made on Feb. 2nd, 2004. Two weeks later, you go on to write this:

...and now we have insurgents from the 'Call me "Horse"' Randi forum... The darkness closes in from all sides... 'And Zealots of all shapes and types will appear in the land, to try and usher in a new Dark Age of Daemon Haunted superstition, dressed as cold Scientific Rationalism...'
16-02-2004

Message at the James Randi Correctional Institution...
...
This is great fun... shows a Wildean wit and level of intellectual superiority that makes me feel quite weak with awe...
...
At least we know we're no better liked by Scientific Rationalists than we are Relgious Fundamentalists... We must be doing something right
17-02-2004

Were you also wrong in these posts, or do you stand by them?
 
Pretty well, by that stage I was cherry picking the Zealots, since I was trying to bolster a postion that was becoming less and less tenable.

Got a problem with human error? :D
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
Pretty well, by that stage I was cherry picking the Zealots, since I was trying to bolster a postion that was becoming less and less tenable.

When did you change your mind about Randi and this board, then?

Hugo Cornwall said:
Got a problem with human error? :D

Not at all. I do have a problem with hypocrisy, though.
 
Sometime after the 17th I would assume. Based on your trawling the past of the FTMB you're in a better position to tell than I am ... it wasn't exactly a digital thing, nor was the state of thought on JREF a major topic occupying my attention... It wasn't exactly a Road to Damascus moment of revelation. Simply the realisation I was incorrect and being an ass.

Have you ever been wrong?
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
Sometime after the 17th I would assume.

The 17th, you say. Yet, 15 days before that, you had this to say about your "gastapo" comment on the FTMB:

Unequivocal apology... Just the feeling I get reading some of the things posted and therfore unsubstansiated. It was probably bad editing that gave me that opinion.
02-02-2004

You seem to go back and forth here: Randi et al is bad, your views were unsubstantiated, then you go back to slamming Randi and this board.....

So, you see, I don't believe for a second that you are all that sorry about your comments. You seem to mold your opinions depending on what situation you are in.

Hugo Cornwall said:
Based on your trawling the past of the FTMB you're in a better position to tell than I am ... it wasn't exactly a digital thing, nor was the state of thought on JREF a major topic occupying my attention... It wasn't exactly a Road to Damascus moment of revelation. Simply the realisation I was incorrect and being an ass.

So, what books and articles did you read? (Since it's not a "digital thing", I assume you gained your knowledge from the printed press) How did you realize you were incorrect?

Hugo Cornwall said:
Have you ever been wrong?

Frequently. I do try not to speak of what I know nothing about.
 
:D
I simply took offense at some of the posts on here after my apology. Sue me.

My opinion would have been changed by dealing with people like Esrby et al, rather than you, since you manage, even now, to hit squarely a vein of prejudice about monomania and anal retentiveness in the world of Skeptics.


However perception is reality. I think we had formed our opinions of each other reasonably early in our exchanges, and neither of us are seeing a reason to change them.

You think I am a hypocrite, I think you were toilet trained at gun point.

Go with God :w2:
 
Y'know Claus, I'm sure HC is really grateful for the opportunity you've provided him with to admit he may have been rash in his characterisation of skeptics, but do you think you could give it a rest now? He's apologised and your continued flogging of this dead horse is only succeeding in making yourself look really, really petty. HC is not the only one who might benefit from a little self-reflection - perhaps you might consider taking some of Ersby's comments on board?
 
Good Ed, what the HELL is going on?

He apologized. Twice. I know you were upset, but this is just getting too far afield to continue.

Please, CL, take a break from this fight -- which no one else is fighting about any longer. Count ten. Count sheep. Count of Monte Christo. Count Basie. Count Dracula. Count Chocula.

When angry, count ten before you speak; if very angry, a hundred."
-- Thomas Jefferson

N/A
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
:D
I simply took offense at some of the posts on here after my apology. Sue me.

Done
]
16-rose3-225.jpg


Be afraid. This is an angry American black man who is not only a capitalist, he has a law degree. Be very afraid.

My opinion would have been changed by dealing with people like Esrby et al, rather than you, since you manage, even now, to hit squarely a vein of prejudice about monomania and anal retentiveness in the world of Skeptics.

I am the best to deal with in these matters: Self effacing, modest, erudite yet humble, all in all the very model of a ... you get the idea

Go with God :w2:

Redundant in my case but I appreciate the thought
 

Back
Top Bottom