Stupid World

[TheDemonLord]

If you had decent stats to show the extent of those 'all' it'd be a different story, you conjecture isn't going to cut it though. Thinking in terms of causation shouldn't cause you to fly off the handle like this...

Battlefield 5 sold half the copies of Battlefield 1.
Ghostbusters and Oceans 8 lost over half a Billion dollars combined.

All of the above had the same complaint: The focus on Identity Politics and pushing of Progressive ideals made for an unenjoyable experience.

Is that decent enough for you?

yeh let us know when that actually happens and you might have a point. Until then, the situation which has not shown signs of change, can't be considered a failure or mass rejection.

I see you are hell bent on ignoring the part where an Advert is meant to increase consumption of a Product or Service.

For reference:

Nike's "Just Do It" campaign more than doubled their sales over the course of a Decade.
the Got Milk? campaign resulted in a global 7% increase in Milk consumption.

There was three quotes with clear context and linkage to give that conversation; this backpedaling you are now attempting was as predictable as it is transparent. But I'll play along, what is the quote that 'yes' was referring to which you actually said, and what was the meaning of it?

There are 3 quotes with Clear Context:

There's what I said.
There's what you said.
and
There's what you want me to have said.

I made an accusation against you, it's clear in black and white, you asked me to back it up, I did so (hint - something you didn't do on the other accusations - funny that). The Quote, from you, backs up the accusation I made against you.

Everything else is in your warped mind.

To which definition do you refer? I was talking about the concept.

I see, More word games when you got owned is it?

By that logic it's a slam dunk then, wonder why he hasn't fought for his rights, or that majority you keep talking of hasn't helped him fight for his rights. Possibly because you conclusion is completely in error

I don't know why, I repeatedly stated that I can't stand him. I'd hazard a guess that if you think the entire system is rigged against you, then the winning move is not to play. Maybe he wants to take a break from court cases (he gets sued a LOT, and wins a fair amount of them)

I'll simply repeat - Parts of Twitter were declared a Public Space - That has some very important connotations, which the law has yet to fully explore.

What blatant lies?

You've got the 'Can't be a PM cause Woman' lie (which you've declined to back up with any evidence)
You've got the 'I said you called for Censorship' lie (which you're still trying to defend despite me posting the exact quote of what I said and the exact quote of what you said that proves it)
You've got the 'Backpedaling' lie for something I pointed out at the beginning, that you tried to bring up as if I was ignorant of it, in some form of Gotcha.

[Graystone]

Battlefield 5 sold half the copies of Battlefield 1.
Ghostbusters and Oceans 8 lost over half a Billion dollars combined.

All of the above had the same complaint: The focus on Identity Politics and pushing of Progressive ideals made for an unenjoyable experience.

Is that decent enough for you?



I see you are hell bent on ignoring the part where an Advert is meant to increase consumption of a Product or Service.

For reference:

Nike's "Just Do It" campaign more than doubled their sales over the course of a Decade.
the Got Milk? campaign resulted in a global 7% increase in Milk consumption.




There are 3 quotes with Clear Context:

There's what I said.
There's what you said.
and
There's what you want me to have said.

I made an accusation against you, it's clear in black and white, you asked me to back it up, I did so (hint - something you didn't do on the other accusations - funny that). The Quote, from you, backs up the accusation I made against you.

Everything else is in your warped mind.



I see, More word games when you got owned is it?



I don't know why, I repeatedly stated that I can't stand him. I'd hazard a guess that if you think the entire system is rigged against you, then the winning move is not to play. Maybe he wants to take a break from court cases (he gets sued a LOT, and wins a fair amount of them)

I'll simply repeat - Parts of Twitter were declared a Public Space - That has some very important connotations, which the law has yet to fully explore.



You've got the 'Can't be a PM cause Woman' lie (which you've declined to back up with any evidence)
You've got the 'I said you called for Censorship' lie (which you're still trying to defend despite me posting the exact quote of what I said and the exact quote of what you said that proves it)
You've got the 'Backpedaling' lie for something I pointed out at the beginning, that you tried to bring up as if I was ignorant of it, in some form of Gotcha.

Those are anecdotes with conjecture instead of proven cause, of course it is not decent enough

Everyone else uses ads too, so their purpose is also to maintain market share against other companies advertising strategies. No loss of product sales is not a failure, nor a sign of majority rejection, ie, they've gone woke, but certainly not broke.

So what's that first one, the what you 'said'? As a refresher, here are the words "Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?" the context is clear in that you answered that I had done those things.

Nope, just curious which definition you are using which has the term public spaces in it. Is there even one? or are you making shit up again...

Occam's razor, 'no lawsuit has been won, because no lawsuit could be won' remains a valid interpretation.

Where did I say that?
As above, you did say that.
Backpedaling is clearly my interpretation of your actions, it's not a blatant lie even if you were not backpedaling.

[TheDemonLord]

Those are anecdotes with conjecture instead of proven cause, of course it is not decent enough

Right, so People not buying it and telling you en masse why they aren't buying it is just Conjecture that's not decent enough.

Whereas you wish to assert that there is this silent majority that really loves this, but never pays a cent for it.

Even if we were to accept that it's purely anecdotal, it's still got infinitely more solid evidence than the alternative you're trying to push.

Everyone else uses ads too, so their purpose is also to maintain market share against other companies advertising strategies. No loss of product sales is not a failure, nor a sign of majority rejection, ie, they've gone woke, but certainly not broke.

Firstly - Rubbish. Simply maintaining existing shares is never the purpose, the purpose is ALWAYS to grow. Given the Viral nature of the ad, the fact that it has not shifted additional sales IS a failure.

Again, read your article about the Lead time on Razor sales...

So what's that first one, the what you 'said'? As a refresher, here are the words "Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?" the context is clear in that you answered that I had done those things.

That wasn't said to you. You do know you aren't Katman right? You keep harping on about Bait and Switch and here you are taking a comment specifically addressed to someone else as proof of what I've said about you?

I've already quoted what I actually said 3 times now. It's quite simple - I provided the proof for the Statements I specifically made about you. Not the statements you've falsely continue to attribute to me.

Nope, just curious which definition you are using which has the term public spaces in it. Is there even one? or are you making shit up again...

Sorry - the US definition is Public Forum, I mean - I would have thought one clearly as smart as you would have figured that out, but seeing as you are struggling to differentiate between what I actually say and what you fantasize that I say...

Occam's razor, 'no lawsuit has been won, because no lawsuit could be won' remains a valid interpretation.

Circular Logic. You're presupposing an outcome, using that to infer motive for an action and using the Motive to justify your presupposition.

Where did I say that?
As above, you did say that.
Backpedaling is clearly my interpretation of your actions, it's not a blatant lie even if you were not backpedaling.

First lie: Twice - posts 10259 and 10276 - I specifically called you out on post 10280, to which you responded (perpetuating the lie) in post 10284, then for ultimate Lols - when I called you out on it - you posted this absolute Gem:

Some bullshit you're always ready to find a way to cop out of. Just like the last time we debated, I pointed out a clear contradiction in statements you made, you denied it then fucked off. You've shown you're not worth my time trying to meander through your blatant lies about what you have or haven't said/meant, either offer some simple clarification, or don't and continue to be judged by your previous words and intent. Just like how you've said I have called for censuring, then cite my happiness that somebody was censured as evidence of that; stop being such a fucking moron, and stop changing what you say you meant based on how wrong you find yourself to be.

Which is a whole load of Ad Hominem attacks and curiously is devoid of anything resembling a Quotation from me.

Second Lie: see Post 10313 where I show you exactly what I said, to you, about you. I backed up this accusation in post 10275 - and you are still trying to turn it into something it's not.

Third Lie: See post 10250 where I clearly point out the failure of the ad, referencing the non-impact on sales, then in post 10318 you post this up, as if it was new information - in an attempt to perform a 'Gotcha' - when I show I've already pointed this out, you continue to state I'm 'backpedling' - which, considering I was the first one to point it out, is a literal impossibilty.

As I said - Stop Lying. In some ways you are starting to be worse than Yokel or Katman - at least they argue their position from a point of Honest belief.

[Graystone]

Right, so People not buying it and telling you en masse why they aren't buying it is just Conjecture that's not decent enough.

Whereas you wish to assert that there is this silent majority that really loves this, but never pays a cent for it.

Even if we were to accept that it's purely anecdotal, it's still got infinitely more solid evidence than the alternative you're trying to push.



Firstly - Rubbish. Simply maintaining existing shares is never the purpose, the purpose is ALWAYS to grow. Given the Viral nature of the ad, the fact that it has not shifted additional sales IS a failure.

Again, read your article about the Lead time on Razor sales...



That wasn't said to you. You do know you aren't Katman right? You keep harping on about Bait and Switch and here you are taking a comment specifically addressed to someone else as proof of what I've said about you?

I've already quoted what I actually said 3 times now. It's quite simple - I provided the proof for the Statements I specifically made about you. Not the statements you've falsely continue to attribute to me.



Sorry - the US definition is Public Forum, I mean - I would have thought one clearly as smart as you would have figured that out, but seeing as you are struggling to differentiate between what I actually say and what you fantasize that I say...



Circular Logic. You're presupposing an outcome, using that to infer motive for an action and using the Motive to justify your presupposition.



First lie: Twice - posts 10259 and 10276 - I specifically called you out on post 10280, to which you responded (perpetuating the lie) in post 10284, then for ultimate Lols - when I called you out on it - you posted this absolute Gem:



Which is a whole load of Ad Hominem attacks and curiously is devoid of anything resembling a Quotation from me.

Second Lie: see Post 10313 where I show you exactly what I said, to you, about you. I backed up this accusation in post 10275 - and you are still trying to turn it into something it's not.

Third Lie: See post 10250 where I clearly point out the failure of the ad, referencing the non-impact on sales, then in post 10318 you post this up, as if it was new information - in an attempt to perform a 'Gotcha' - when I show I've already pointed this out, you continue to state I'm 'backpedling' - which, considering I was the first one to point it out, is a literal impossibilty.

As I said - Stop Lying. In some ways you are starting to be worse than Yokel or Katman - at least they argue their position from a point of Honest belief.

Numbers for this 'telling en masse'?

Gillette seem to think otherwise, which remains a valid interpretation. What it certainly isn't, is that it is evidence of majority rejection.

That is why I asked if it also applied to me, and you said yes. If you had not said that it did apply to me, there would be no issue; but you did, so I've called you out on it...

Which definition, the first amendment? It makes no mentioned of public spaces...

Nope, I'm proposing a valid theory, based on it being the simplest one which fits the situation.

In none of those posts do I claim you have said women cannot be prime minister. Who is really doing the lying here?
See above, it was not originally said to me, but you asserted it applied to me as well.
And the 'go woke, get broke' thing you brought up showed you pedaling forward again in between.

Again, lying about what? You seem so certain I am doing so, yet are certainly unable to substantiate any of it... See this is why you will always be outclassed by anyone of significant intellect, you simply don't understand the core concepts of how to be logical, you can parody them but your obvious bias shows them to be a very poor imitation indeed. Do you even remember what the original point you were trying to make was?

[Berries]

Get a room.

[Katman]

Get a room.

It's mental disorders at 20 paces.

[TheDemonLord]

Numbers for this 'telling en masse'?

About Half a Billion dollars worth of Numbers.

Gillette seem to think otherwise, which remains a valid interpretation. What it certainly isn't, is that it is evidence of majority rejection.

Perhaps they are trying to save face? Rather than admit they've pissed off their Core audience? And as for Majority rejection - did you miss the part where the like/dislike ratio was around 33% like, 66% dislike.

66% is a Majority when compared to 33%.

That is why I asked if it also applied to me, and you said yes. If you had not said that it did apply to me, there would be no issue; but you did, so I've called you out on it...

I backed up the quotes from you, for the claims I made about you. Anything else is your fantasy land.

Which definition, the first amendment? It makes no mentioned of public spaces...

A public forum, also called an open forum, is open to all expression that is protected under the First Amendment. Streets, parks, and sidewalks are considered open to public discourse by tradition and are designated as traditional public forums.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

Nope, I'm proposing a valid theory, based on it being the simplest one which fits the situation.

No, you're trying to post hoc justify your theory based on a presumed outcome. That's circular logic.

In none of those posts do I claim you have said women cannot be prime minister. Who is really doing the lying here?

I've never said Women aren't fit to be PM.

Ah right, the backpedaling begins, what exactly did you say about Jacinda's fitness for PM (based on her gender) then?

And no - shorthanding the 'fit to be PM' to 'can't be PM' isn't what you are going to claim it is.

You twice made an argument that inferred that is what I claimed, so I called you explicitly on it - to which you then claimed I was backpedaling (which confirms you believe me to have said it) that's where I asked you to prove it, and that's where you spat the dummy, spouted a bunch of insults and posted up nothing.

Doubly hilarious considering how much you are quibbling over the evidence that I put forth, you fail miserably to back your shit up.

See above, it was not originally said to me, but you asserted it applied to me as well.

Only that which I directly accused you of, applies to you. It's really simple.

And the 'go woke, get broke' thing you brought up showed you pedaling forward again in between.

Pedalling forward, pedalling backwards - it seems you've got no clue as to what I'm actually doing and are just making shit up (AKA lying).

Again, lying about what? You seem so certain I am doing so, yet are certainly unable to substantiate any of it... See this is why you will always be outclassed by anyone of significant intellect, you simply don't understand the core concepts of how to be logical, you can parody them but your obvious bias shows them to be a very poor imitation indeed. Do you even remember what the original point you were trying to make was?

Yes - the Gillette ad is an example of Ideological, Man-hating trash, that's pissed a bunch of Men off. That it assumes a position of Moral superiority that it has neither earnt nor been elected to and that this behaviour is indicative of other attempts, within the same ideological framework that have destroyed previously successful products due to the rejection from the target audience/consumer of this particular message.

[TheDemonLord]

Get a room.

Why? You feeling left out?

[Graystone]

About Half a Billion dollars worth of Numbers.



Perhaps they are trying to save face? Rather than admit they've pissed off their Core audience? And as for Majority rejection - did you miss the part where the like/dislike ratio was around 33% like, 66% dislike.

66% is a Majority when compared to 33%.



I backed up the quotes from you, for the claims I made about you. Anything else is your fantasy land.





Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?



No, you're trying to post hoc justify your theory based on a presumed outcome. That's circular logic.







And no - shorthanding the 'fit to be PM' to 'can't be PM' isn't what you are going to claim it is.

You twice made an argument that inferred that is what I claimed, so I called you explicitly on it - to which you then claimed I was backpedaling (which confirms you believe me to have said it) that's where I asked you to prove it, and that's where you spat the dummy, spouted a bunch of insults and posted up nothing.

Doubly hilarious considering how much you are quibbling over the evidence that I put forth, you fail miserably to back your shit up.



Only that which I directly accused you of, applies to you. It's really simple.



Pedalling forward, pedalling backwards - it seems you've got no clue as to what I'm actually doing and are just making shit up (AKA lying).



Yes - the Gillette ad is an example of Ideological, Man-hating trash, that's pissed a bunch of Men off. That it assumes a position of Moral superiority that it has neither earnt nor been elected to and that this behaviour is indicative of other attempts, within the same ideological framework that have destroyed previously successful products due to the rejection from the target audience/consumer of this particular message.

So only false equivalency, got it.

Youtube views/reception is a different demographic (to their market) entirely, and hardly representative of the majority anyway.

That is not the first amendment. Please show your sources...

Is it not a valid theory?

But unfit to be PM, and can't be PM are two different things (seeing your error and trying to pre-empt me pointing it out does not make it less of an error). Inferring a thing is also not a blatant lie as you accused me of.
Except you confirmed what you accused others of, also applied to me. Why are you trying to ignore what you have clearly posted? Just as clear, is that it was not a blatant lie.
Yet, it is my honest interpretation of your posts, so it also, cannot be a blatant lie.
0 for 3, thanks for playing.

And how much of that point is in any way addressed by the stuff you are going on about now? ToDoLists indeed

[Berries]

Why? You feeling left out?

No, I've got two kids who argue just for the sake of it.

[TheDemonLord]

So only false equivalency, got it.

Sure - if you insist in sticking your head in the Sand.

You're happy to assert a fictional Majority that agrees with you, based on zero evidence, yet you dismiss the solid financial evidence and explicit statements by the target audiences.

Youtube views/reception is a different demographic (to their market) entirely, and hardly representative of the majority anyway.

Youtube is mainly Men.
The Advert was targetted at Men.
The shaving Market is predominantly Men.

So, exactly how is it a different demographic to their Market

That is not the first amendment. Please show your sources...

I know it's not, but I also know that a Public Forum has a specific legal definition in the US as a place where the First Amendment applies. I also know that parts of Twitter have been declared a Public Forum and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Is it not a valid theory?

Circular reasoning is never a Valid theory.

A Valid theory would be simply stating he may not have lodged a lawsuit because he might loose. Using that as a justification for the a priori assumption is not valid, and never will be.

But unfit to be PM, and can't be PM are two different things (seeing your error and trying to pre-empt me pointing it out does not make it less of an error). Inferring a thing is also not a blatant lie as you accused me of.

Then post the Quotation.

You can't, because I've never said that. I've given you 2 opportunities to do so, yet you continue with this blatant lie.

Except you confirmed what you accused others of, also applied to me. Why are you trying to ignore what you have clearly posted? Just as clear, is that it was not a blatant lie.

Sure, if you wish to ignore all the other things I said specifically about you, ignore where I linked it back to you and link something out of context said to someone else to yourself, which brings me to the next point:

Yet, it is my honest interpretation of your posts, so it also, cannot be a blatant lie.
0 for 3, thanks for playing.

Then you are delusional. In the Clinical Sense.

You first accuse me of Backpedaling, then I point out I've already referenced that point, then you accuse me of Frontpedaling.

Either your honest interpretation is due to a massive inability to comprehend english or
You are so poisoned by your Ideology that "Arithmetic of an alternative plan: 2+2 plus the enthusiasm of the workers=5"

And how much of that point is in any way addressed by the stuff you are going on about now? ToDoLists indeed

2/3rds of it.

[FJRider]

The shaving Market is predominantly Men.

So, exactly how is it a different demographic to their Market

Again I call BULLSHIT ... !!!

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/w...zors-marketing

Women shave a larger surface area of their bodies than men do.

[Graystone]

Sure, if you wish to ignore all the other things I said specifically about you, ignore where I linked it back to you and link something out of context said to someone else to yourself, which brings me to the next point:

Starting to get bored of your stupidity, let's clean up the ToDoList and focus on an easy one...

Well it's a completely different point. For the one to which I refer, your meaning was clear, either admit error, or continue to show how illogical and egotistical you are. Like every other time I have you completely outclassed, it comes down to one simple, inescapable point you refuse to admit the truth of... The rest of your ToDoList may hold up better currently, but we both know that if were given similar attention it would fall apart just as easily. Stop letting your bias control your thoughts and 'logic', you would fare much better that way...

[Katman]

......or continue to show how illogical and egotistical you are. Like every other time I have you completely outclassed.....

Oh, the irony.

[eldog]

a lot of Women remove hair from a larger surface area of their bodies than men do.

Fixed it for ya.