Can we have the audio of the Gauss video re-recorded.

[HugintheCrow]

33 minutes ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

You don't classify as several people...

Me and him do classify as several. Especially considering some others earlier in the thread too.

I'm really surprised you're still embarassing yourself over this.

Your garbage "arguments" that you still think will change anybody's mind if they read them (protip: they won't because they are gibberish) are tired and dead wrong.

"There is no 100% proof" Of course there isn't. DE hasn't said anything about this, why?

Because they know that people with actually functioning brains would instantly connect the dots and see the reference for themselves.

Because in no real world is there a need for 100% certainty, that's just not a thing. The entirety of modern physics runs on theories that aren't proven whatsoever, and what? We can make spaceships based on those wild guesses, and those spaceships fly to space no problem.

In fact, you cannot even say with 100% certainty that you EXIST. You ask for proof that Gauss's name is a reference? Give me a proof I exist, give me a proof that you exist. You can't actually do that, this might all be a simulation or a dream of someone else. We might not exist. There is no way to know that with 100% certainty. Tha't your beloved "logic" for you.

You question the existence of reality, you question the possibility of human thought, you question the possibility of communication between 2 humans. Just to try and disprove a connection between Gauss and Gauss. Just to say that 1+1 does not equal 2.

Stop writing comments. Drink some coffee and/or get some sleep. Realize how retarded you sound. Thank you for cooperation.

Edited September 4, 2019 by HugintheCrow

[DrakeRemorea]

25 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Oh great, we've gone from "You can't say Excalibur (frame) is named after the Legendary sword" and "All assumptions are illogical" to insulting people and contrived gender issues.

The patheticness of your posts is evidently boundless.

I'm not bringing up gender issues lol just saying, and I'm right.

Also again you keep saying remarks with nothing to back it. Yours would be pointless since you make little opinions and no points. 

[HugintheCrow]

2 minutes ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

I'm not bringing up gender issues lol just saying, and I'm right.

Also again you keep saying remarks with nothing to back it. Yours would be pointless since you make little opinions and no points. 

Oh, btw, you're getting to the point where you really sound like a generic troll. If you wanna pretend for longer, you need to try harder.

At this point even gullible people will start catching onto you.

[DrakeRemorea]

Just now, HugintheCrow said:

Me and him do classify as several. Especially considering some others earlier in the thread too.

You called me, mentally retarded or something like that not a troll... mind you, that you are tthe troll here. Like insanely so.

1 minute ago, HugintheCrow said:

I'm really surprised you're still embarassing yourself over this

Sorry I find no embarrassment in being right lol.

I'm surprised you are however since all you said was related to insanely absurd mental problem assumptions. Probably based on your own history with it.

2 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

Your garbage "arguments" that you still think will change anybody's mind if they read them (protip: they won't because they are gibberish) are tired and dead wrong

A. Doubt you read them seeing as you never directly responded to them. B. They are correct lmao, you'd know if you'd read them. 

4 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

"There is no 100% proof" Of course there isn't. DE hasn't said anything about this, why?

I didn't say that. That was someone else lol. 

I said there is.

4 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

Because they know that people with actually functioning brains would instantly connect the dots and see the reference for themselves.

Yes these are assumptions. Not right always, and also never prove anything since they're assumptions. 

5 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

Because in no real world is there a need for 100% certainty, that's just not a thing. The entirety of modern physics runs on theories that aren't proven whatsoever, and what? We can make spaceships based on those wild guesses, and those spaceships fly to space no problem.

Never said there was a need for it. But here its only one source to know the truth. DE anything else is just an assumption. 

Also you so realize theories are called 'theories' for a reason. Also spaceships great example. People run tests on those, you can't do that in this situation...

8 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

In fact, you cannot even say with 100% certainty that you EXIST.

I can say it. And I'd be right. You're the moron if you can compare these two situations.

8 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

You ask for proof that Gauss's name is a reference? Give me a proof I exist, give me a proof that you exist. You can't actually do that, this might all be a simulation or a dream of soemone else. We might not exist. There is no way to know that with 100% certainty. Tha't your beloved "logic" for you.

Proof? You want what a picture? Also it's not possible to be a simulation of someone's dream. You gotta be a moron to believe that.

You don't understand how precedent works...

10 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

You question the existence of reality, you question the possibility of human thought, you question the possibility of communication between 2 humans. Just to try and disprove a connection between Gauss and Gauss. Just to say that 1+1 does not equal 2.

I don't question any of those. You did compare life to a dream tho

And you can disprove connections between Gauss and Gauss. Just like you could with a House and a House. Or a Name and a Name...

11 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

Stop writing comments. Drink some coffee and/or get some sleep. Realize how retarded you sound. Thank you for cooperation.

How I sound lol. Mr we live in a dream.

8 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

Oh, btw, you're getting to the point where you really sound like a generic troll. If you wanna pretend for longer, you need to try harder

Yes, the generic, reasonable, correct, troll.

You told me to get help from a doctor for mental help. I sound like the generic troll. If anything you sound like a retard.

[HugintheCrow]

4 minutes ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

 

For someone so well versed in logic, you do not know about the idea of our lives being a simulation?

It's a fascinating philosophical concept, you should check it out, you'd like it, cause you enjoy negating everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

And no, you cannot prove you exist. You could stand right in front of me, and using logic, I could still deny your existence (and I would be 100% right according to some philosophers).

I can also totally question my own existence, there is no way for me to prove my own life isn't a dream. That's logic for you.

Also, my previous comments about your mental health were specifically tailored to anger you as a sort of check of your intellect (no good-willed intelligent person would become angered at them since no reasonable person considers mental issues shameful).

Additionally, I'm in no way impacted by you calling me retarded, since I know I'm not, and as you are not a person I'd consider qualified in psychology, I just see a guy who's throwing a tantrum. In my case, I'm actually somewhat knowledgeable in that field, so my hypothesis of your mental state actually has some ground.

Your emotional reaction and instant attempt to "insult" me clearly showed everyone that you are, in fact, trolling, or have some issues.

[CuChulainnWD]

As I understand it, having watched the Prime times and Dev streams, and riding Rebecca hard on the pronunciation before this thread became a meme; 2 Devstreams ago Rebecca was pronouncing Gauss correctly. Then suddenly incorrectly, because someone named Will (Possible frame creator?) does not respect the man for whom which the frame is named after.

She was told by  someone named Will to pronounce it Goss. I've quietly been sending her tweets and in forum instruction on the correct pronunciation and etymology of the name/word for quite some time before this thread became so popular. Rebecca, you were right. WILL IS WRONG. Gauss is pronounced Gows. End of.

Only the uneducated and willfully ignorant would pronounce it Goss.

Edited September 4, 2019 by CuChulainnWD

[CuChulainnWD]

1 hour ago, HugintheCrow said:

Me and him do classify as several. Especially considering some others earlier in the thread too.

I'm really surprised you're still embarassing yourself over this.

Your garbage "arguments" that you still think will change anybody's mind if they read them (protip: they won't because they are gibberish) are tired and dead wrong.

"There is no 100% proof" Of course there isn't. DE hasn't said anything about this, why?

Because they know that people with actually functioning brains would instantly connect the dots and see the reference for themselves.

Because in no real world is there a need for 100% certainty, that's just not a thing. The entirety of modern physics runs on theories that aren't proven whatsoever, and what? We can make spaceships based on those wild guesses, and those spaceships fly to space no problem.

In fact, you cannot even say with 100% certainty that you EXIST. You ask for proof that Gauss's name is a reference? Give me a proof I exist, give me a proof that you exist. You can't actually do that, this might all be a simulation or a dream of someone else. We might not exist. There is no way to know that with 100% certainty. Tha't your beloved "logic" for you.

You question the existence of reality, you question the possibility of human thought, you question the possibility of communication between 2 humans. Just to try and disprove a connection between Gauss and Gauss. Just to say that 1+1 does not equal 2.

Stop writing comments. Drink some coffee and/or get some sleep. Realize how retarded you sound. Thank you for cooperation.

Some philosophers also talk out of their arse. I guarantee you 100% that 100% of them would get out of the way of my fist meeting their nose, or their nose meeting my fist, given my perspective and defense at court. If they do not exist, then they do not have to worry or get out of the way of my "imaginary" fists of fury pounding some reality into them.

"I think, there for I am."

Edited September 5, 2019 by CuChulainnWD

[elmetnuter]

Look, i am french living in the US and my name is from seventeen hundred era old Provencal french. Nobody pronounces it correctly but I don't spend my time correcting people on Facebook or claiming they don't respect me for that.

Have you ever heard anybody pronouncing "Bauhaus" correctly?

10 pages for that... 🙄

[HugintheCrow]

13 minutes ago, CuChulainnWD said:

Some philosophers also talk out of their arse. I guarantee you 100% that 100% of them would get out of the way of my fist meeting their nose, or their nose meeting my fist, given my perspective and defense at court. If they do not exist, then they do not have to worry or get out of the way of my "imaginary" fists of fury pounding some reality into them.

"I think, there for I am."

See, that's the fun part about this theory. Everything you say I can deflect simply by saying "That's exactly how this simulation goes".

Perhaps the idea of pain is simulated in such a way that our simulated consciousness attempts to avoid it? It sounds silly, doesn't it? But it's based on a valid train of thoughts. It can be argumented for.

"I think therefore I am" is exactly as valid as the idea of complete nihilism. Neither is actually provable, each requires to be taken as an axiom, a dogma.

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

1 hour ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

Yes thank you what I said with 'sufficient' added twice.

Okay great but that doesnt change that assumptions can't be completely true or necessarily proven either way...

Not necessary for? It's necessary for proving a point correctly... also again doesn't prove anything true even if unnecessary...

Sure you don't need it. You can have confidence in the fact that fish can fly. Doesn't mean it's true.

Until they say it's truth value.

Yes but that's evidence that works differently, and confirms and proves the 'truth value'

Sorry it isn't clear at all that you consider a plausible assumption sufficient evidence for further assumptions. I don't belive this is something you have ever directly stated. Also as any reasonable person would consider WF Gauss being named for K.F.Gauss a plausible assumption you have instead demonstrated the opposite. This has continued with your stance on the veracity of any statment offered by DE. While you do sometimes briefly concede a statment is only evidence for a plausible assumption you always immediatly flip back to insisting it offers certainity. 

I don't understand what you mean by "proving a point correctly". If you mean verifying something as certainly true, then I would agree. However we are not attempting this. We are intrested in reaching plausible conclussions that are most likely true. In your fish example it is true that a person could have confidence fish can fly. However it would be misplaced confidence based on very poor evidence. If your problem with the idea of WF Gauss being named for K.F.Gauss is that the evidence is weak and thus it is implausible, you should have said so and explained the flaws in the evidence, instead of dismissing it as illogical.

Why does a statment by DE work diffrently from other evidence? It would be strong evidence but I don't see anyway this would cause it to function or be assessed diffrently. 

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

53 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

"I think therefore I am" is exactly as valid as the idea of complete nihilism. Neither is actually provable, each requires to be taken as an axiom, a dogma.

I belive "I think therefore I am" and the self excistence it represents is proveable. However it is only proveable by an individual to temself. It is actully the only thing I consider to be certain. The basic notion goes that no matter how much, or in what manner, you try to doubt your (or everythings) excistence you are always confronted with the fact that something is doubting. Some people say this doesn't prove you excist but only that something excists. To that a I say pishposh.

[DrakeRemorea]

1 hour ago, HugintheCrow said:

For someone so well versed in logic, you do not know about the idea of our lives being a simulation?

Sorry that I'm not retarded enough to believe against biology. 

1 hour ago, HugintheCrow said:

Perhaps the idea of pain is simulated in such a way that our simulated consciousness attempts to avoid it?

Actually it's our nervous system sending waves of "pain" to an area where it know something is wrong.

Since we don't manually use 90% of our brain, it has to do this things for us, tell us something is wrong. Otherwise we'd not care let alone notice if say we were stabbed in the leg.

1 hour ago, HugintheCrow said:

It sounds silly, doesn't it? But it's based on a valid train of thoughts. It can be argumented for.

It can be, never said it couldn't.

1 hour ago, HugintheCrow said:

"I think therefore I am" is exactly as valid as the idea of complete nihilism. Neither is actually provable, each requires to be taken as an axiom, a dogma.

You aren't quoting me so idk who you are... and it may not be (un)provable, but there is more proof for more things that make more sense.

[DrakeRemorea]

45 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

Sorry it isn't clear at all that you consider a plausible assumption sufficient evidence for further assumptions.

I do, it just doesn't make it valid proof...

Further assumptions still means assumptions which still mean nothing is proven. Its like dividing a number by two, then the answer by two, and so on til you reach zero. You never will by just deviding by two, or in this case just making assumptions. 

46 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

I don't belive this is something you have ever directly stated

Do you know how many things I havent said directly, that people on this thread completely inferred incorrectly... or how many things I've been told i said when I didn't... sorry i didn't realize no one could figure just one simple one out...

49 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

Also as any reasonable person would consider WF Gauss being named for K.F.Gauss a plausible assumption you have instead demonstrated the opposite

You're right a plausible assumption, like I've directly said. 

Plausible.

Not proven. 

I've demonstrated the opposite because how do I prove a point by believing against what I'm saying? That and I don't like to assume other peoples mindsets.

50 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

This has continued with your stance on the veracity of any statment offered by DE

Yes, the only provable way is DE. That's my point thanks for figuring that out. 

52 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

While you do sometimes briefly concede a statment is only evidence for a plausible assumption

Woah woah woah. That's not conceding a statement. It's the truth. However it doesn't prove anything more than the assumption is plausible. Doesn't prove it true just plausible. 

That's called being reasonable and truthful no conceding on anything.

53 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

you always immediatly flip back to insisting it offers certainity. 

It does offer certainty???? Wtf do you mean. 

DE statement, or direct use on Gauss' pronouncement, spelling, or origin. = only valid proof for any of those.

Plausible assumption, is possible and may have supporting evidence. Can not be proven.

Understand? Great.

55 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

I don't understand what you mean by "proving a point correctly". If you mean verifying something as certainly true, then I would agree

I meant I was proving a point, and I was doing it correctly....

56 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

However we are not attempting this. We are intrested in reaching plausible conclussions that are most likely true

Great well you've done that.

Doesn't make them true though.

57 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

In your fish example it is true that a person could have confidence fish can fly. However it would be misplaced confidence based on very poor evidence

It would yes. My point was confidence doesn't have to come from facts or proof.

58 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

If your problem with the idea of WF Gauss being named for K.F.Gauss is that the evidence is weak and thus it is implausible, you should have said so and explained the flaws in the evidence, instead of dismissing it as illogical

It's not my problem. Being why i didnt do that.

My problem is the evidence doesn't prove it, it proves it's plausible and no more. And I've explained that.

But assumptions are illogical. Any and all. By definition since they can't be proven as an assumption alone.......

59 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

Why does a statment by DE work diffrently from other evidence? It would be strong evidence but I don't see anyway this would cause it to function or be assessed diffrently

Because this is an intellectual property's value. They own the intellectual property. And one of it's values is it's name. They make the name and they decide it's own factors, such as spelling, pronunciation, and origin.

2 hours ago, CuChulainnWD said:

. Gauss is pronounced Gows. End of.

Only the uneducated and willfully ignorant would pronounce it Goss

Karl Friedrich Gauss is pronounced "gows"

WF's Gauss is pronounced "goss"

They're two different things sharing the spelling of a name.

You know how many Micheal Mitchell. I've seen them both pronounced the same. How do each of those have two different pronounciations? And yet the same word between two names? 

Mind blowing hey?

[(PSN)Apoleon_amarr]

Is this conflict created by rebbeca (the voice of lotus) a reference to the new war and the new conflicts that lotus will create in the future?

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

9 minutes ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

Because this is an intellectual property's value. They own the intellectual property. And one of it's values is it's name. They make the name and they decide it's own factors, such as spelling, pronunciation, and origin.

It doesn't matter that it's an IP that they named.  Ultimately they could lie or be wrong in any statement they make about it. This is ofcourse astonishingly unlikely, however it does mean that to accept the information as accurate is an assumption. 

[DrakeRemorea]

7 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

It doesn't matter that it's an IP that they named

You're right it could be anything. This just happens to be an ip. But since its a name everything I said does matter.

9 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

Ultimately they could lie or be wrong in any statement they make about it

You don't understand. They could be lying about what? What they believe? What the intended? Doesn't matter when they make that statement, it matters what they said. It's like if I got a birth certificate, it said my name, my birth everything. I can want a different name, someone else can have the same name pronounced differently, I can change it later on. Doesn't mean it's not the name or a lie.

Now of course the IP doesn't get a birth certificate, but that statement is its equal.

12 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

This is ofcourse astonishingly unlikely, however it does mean that to accept the information as accurate is an assumption. 

It's not the because instead of using 3rd party sources (not literally like the wiki, like Karl Friedrich Gauss' name however.) Instead of direct facts presented by DE and their IP. 

So what you just said is wrong.

[DrakeRemorea]

28 minutes ago, (PS4)Apoleon_amarr said:

Is this conflict created by rebbeca (the voice of lotus) a reference to the new war and the new conflicts that lotus will create in the future?

Lmao no one was complaining about mispronouncing it til rebecca said it. Yet these people are like "you're uneducated if you don't know the pronunciation" they learned from a video game. Also DE has the right to pronounce their intellectual properties names how they want.

[CuChulainnWD]

42 minutes ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

I do, it just doesn't make it valid proof...

Further assumptions still means assumptions which still mean nothing is proven. Its like dividing a number by two, then the answer by two, and so on til you reach zero. You never will by just deviding by two, or in this case just making assumptions. 

Do you know how many things I havent said directly, that people on this thread completely inferred incorrectly... or how many things I've been told i said when I didn't... sorry i didn't realize no one could figure just one simple one out...

You're right a plausible assumption, like I've directly said. 

Plausible.

Not proven. 

I've demonstrated the opposite because how do I prove a point by believing against what I'm saying? That and I don't like to assume other peoples mindsets.

Yes, the only provable way is DE. That's my point thanks for figuring that out. 

Woah woah woah. That's not conceding a statement. It's the truth. However it doesn't prove anything more than the assumption is plausible. Doesn't prove it true just plausible. 

That's called being reasonable and truthful no conceding on anything.

It does offer certainty???? Wtf do you mean. 

DE statement, or direct use on Gauss' pronouncement, spelling, or origin. = only valid proof for any of those.

Plausible assumption, is possible and may have supporting evidence. Can not be proven.

Understand? Great.

I meant I was proving a point, and I was doing it correctly....

Great well you've done that.

Doesn't make them true though.

It would yes. My point was confidence doesn't have to come from facts or proof.

It's not my problem. Being why i didnt do that.

My problem is the evidence doesn't prove it, it proves it's plausible and no more. And I've explained that.

But assumptions are illogical. Any and all. By definition since they can't be proven as an assumption alone.......

Because this is an intellectual property's value. They own the intellectual property. And one of it's values is it's name. They make the name and they decide it's own factors, such as spelling, pronunciation, and origin.

Karl Friedrich Gauss is pronounced "gows"

WF's Gauss is pronounced "goss"

They're two different things sharing the spelling of a name.

You know how many Micheal Mitchell. I've seen them both pronounced the same. How do each of those have two different pronounciations? And yet the same word between two names? 

Mind blowing hey?

As I said, there is the uneducated and then there are the willfully ignorant.

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

1 minute ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

You're right it could be anything. This just happens to be an ip. But since its a name everything I said does matter.

You don't understand. They could be lying about what? What they believe? What the intended? Doesn't matter when they make that statement, it matters what they said. It's like if I got a birth certificate, it said my name, my birth everything. I can want a different name, someone else can have the same name pronounced differently, I can change it later on. Doesn't mean it's not the name or a lie.

Now of course the IP doesn't get a birth certificate, but that statement is its equal.

It's not the because instead of using 3rd party sources (not literally like the wiki, like Karl Friedrich Gauss' name however.) Instead of direct facts presented by DE and their IP. 

So what you just said is wrong.

DE can state the WF is named Gauss. This is indisputeable. I agree they can also dictate the spelling and pronounciation of that chosen name. These are things the creator could not really lie or be wrong about. How they came to choose this name is something they can lie or be wrong about. Suppose that the truth is the WF is named for K.F.G. but DE issue a statment it is not. They have provided inaccurate information. They could of lied becuases an unpleasant fact has recently been revealed about K.F.G and they want to distance themselves from this. They could be mistaken via a scenario like the designer once read about K.F.G and his work, concisouly forgot it, and when designing a WF with similar features was promted by this subconcious information to find Gauss an appropriate sounding name. 

[DrakeRemorea]

12 minutes ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

How they came to choose this name is something they can lie or be wrong about

They could but when has lying ever been proven good for business lol. Also they'd have to be pretty dumb to just lie about a names origin lol.

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

22 minutes ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

They could but when has lying ever been proven good for business lol. Also they'd have to be pretty dumb to just lie about a names origin lol.

Yes but the the likelyhood isn't important. Just the fact that it is possible. By the same token what is the likelyhood that the WF Gauss and K.F.G share a name is a coincidence? 

[DrakeRemorea]

1 hour ago, (PS4)Shelneroth said:

Yes but the the likelyhood isn't important. Just the fact that it is possible. By the same token what is the likelyhood that the WF Gauss and K.F.G share a name is a coincidence? 

That'd be why I didn't mention the likelyhood.

Yes, not denying its plausibility. 

[DrakeRemorea]

2 hours ago, CuChulainnWD said:

As I said, there is the uneducated and then there are the willfully ignorant.

And you're the wilfully ignorant?

I'm guessing that's what you mean because otherwise that makes no sense. You say it in a sentence, only a sentence. Like it is supposed to mean something???? 

Either way I was just saying you're wrong to say DE pronounces their name wrong. 

Also you didn't say that, you said that they're the wilfully ignorant and the uneducated. You didn't contrast them as you are doing now...

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

53 minutes ago, (NSW)Drake_Remorea said:

That'd be why I didn't mention the likelyhood.

Yes, not denying its plausibility. 

Ah sorry. I thought when when you laughted at the prospect they'd consider liying a good idea and be dumb to do so you were saying it was relevant to the conversation.

[ZelUrk]

Goss is easier to pronounce than Gauss, so i would go with that.

Remember English is just a broken German.