What did Schuler know?

Blanked

runsforcelery wrote:
<snip>

(7) I don't think I ever said that there was no communication at all between Commodore Pei and Pei Shan-wei after their public disagreement and separation. I also never said that there was no coordination at all between them after their public disagreement and separation. I am not saying at this time that there was, you understand, but people who are assuming that I said there was no communication between them are misinterpreting what I've written.

<snip>

I didn't mean to suggest those things. Just that it seemed to me unlikely that they would have had any conspiratorial conversations considering the ability of the command crew to eavesdrop in the way that Merlin and the gang do, thus leading to the command crew learning about the conspiracy and taking steps to thwart it, leaving us with a 100 page short story instead of a ?? book series.

Chyort wrote:Blanked

I'm having problems too, but I can see my posts in a separate tab while the tab I posted from is still waiting to update.

Keith_w wrote:

Chyort wrote:Blanked

I'm having problems too, but I can see my posts in a separate tab while the tab I posted from is still waiting to update.

I wasn't even that lucky. I got the never ending "Connecting" message. So i tried another tab and no new post.

Tried to submit again, same issue. So i pulled out my laptop to double/triple check that it wasn't going thru. 10-20 minutes after i gave up trying to post at all, still nothing.

30+ minutes later, 4 or so posts finally get posted.

*Grumbles*

=2015/03/18=
I have found that the easiest way around 'submit problems' is to create my post in a (offline) text file first.

Then when I've corrected any errors in my typing (I ALWAYS make a lot of errors) I do a 'select all' and 'copy' to get the text copied to the clipboard.

Then back to the tab waiting to accept my post.

A simple 'paste' command followed by a 'submit' usually works fine.

If the 'submit' fails, I at least do not need to re-type my post

R
.

Chyort wrote:Ugg.

Straight up refuse to register any submits. Even with me double checking between attempts on 2 differnt computers. Then 30 minutes or more later they all show up. Sorry.

kbus888 wrote:=2015/03/18=
I have found that the easiest way around 'submit problems' is to create my post in a (offline) text file first.

Then when I've corrected any errors in my typing (I ALWAYS make a lot of errors) I do a 'select all' and 'copy' to get the text copied to the clipboard.

Then back to the tab waiting to accept my post.

A simple 'paste' command followed by a 'submit' usually works fine.

If the 'submit' fails, I at least do not need to re-type my post

R
.

heh. i still have it copied on a clipboard manager. Retyping wasn't the problem.

I just loath double posting, and even more so when the double posts only show up 30+ minutes after the fact.

Anyways, no point dragging the thread further off topic. So im done complaining.

anwi wrote:

In keeping with the spirits of the forum:
Lo, behold! The great one has spoken. Since RFC has revealed that the Writ cautions against demons preaching sedition against God, what does that implicate for the reaction to the great reveal by the CoGA and by the common Safeholdians?

Um...I'm assuming that you're not speaking in jest, which, in this case, is probably a very questionable assumption...

Your snippage was a little overactive. What runsforcelery actually said was that IF there had been any inkling on the part of the people responsible for putting together the Holy Writ as a means of ensuring the planetary population's perpetual orthodoxy that someone had hidden away a PICA for the express purpose of eventually attacking that orthodoxy, THEN there would have been mention of it in the Writ. (Emphasis mine.)

What we have here is a conditional statement: IF P THEN Q. What you've concluded is that therefore Q. (You went on to claim IF Q THEN R, and ask what is R?) The problem with concluding Q is that Q is not necessarily true. The truth of Q depends on the truth of P, which we do not know. In fact, leaving the world of logic for the moment, the whole passage appears to me to be an example of a rhetorical device wherein not Q is implied, and therefore so is not P. "If that does not clearly say that the gentleman's committee does not have jurisdiction over certain matters then I will eat my hat."

If I'm right then the answer to your question of what is R is...not a thing. Neither the Church of God Awaiting nor common Safeholdians will be prepared for a demon preaching sedition.

~Tonto

Tonto Silerheels wrote:What we have here is a conditional statement: IF P THEN Q. What you've concluded is that therefore Q. (You went on to claim IF Q THEN R, and ask what is R?)

Congrats, you're in tune with the spirit of the forum. And what could be more inspiring than a discussion of formal binary logic? Thus:
(R --> Q) -/-> (-R --> -Q)
-/-> {-R, Q} = {0}
Moreover, I never claimed Q --> R.
In deed, by petitio principii and argumentum ad consequentiam the writ has every reason to warn against demons preaching sedition. Finally, the original statement is from RFC, he demonstrably likes to mislead by inducing us to -R --> -Q, it follows that my assertion must hold.
So, why would there be a "very questionable assumption"?

(Edit to clarify notation.)

Anwi wrote:

Lo, behold! The great one has spoken. Since RFC has revealed that the Writ cautions against demons preaching sedition against God

This is not what RFC said. In fact, he said the opposite.

AAMOF, we're told that the Writ acknowledges the existence of demons, but states that if they attempt to intervene in the world there will be a countervailing Divine intervention. 'immediate' is implied, which was one reason the Inquisition held off so long before declaring the demonicity of Merlin Athrawes.

If demons are going to be directly and openly countered, there's no need to warn against their lies. I think.

anwi wrote:

Tonto Silerheels wrote:What we have here is a conditional statement: IF P THEN Q. What you've concluded is that therefore Q. (You went on to claim IF Q THEN R, and ask what is R?)

Congrats, you're in tune with the spirit of the forum. And what could be more inspiring than a discussion of formal binary logic? Thus:
(R --> Q) -/-> (-R --> -Q)
-/-> {-R, Q} = {0}
Moreover, I never claimed Q --> R.
In deed, by petitio principii and argumentum ad consequentiam the writ has every reason to warn against demons preaching sedition. Finally, the original statement is from RFC, he demonstrably likes to mislead by inducing us to -R --> -Q, it follows that my assertion must hold.
So, why would there be a "very questionable assumption"?

(Edit to clarify notation.)