Last post wins!!!!!

[perfect_pitch]

You can't ignore you said "DAMN.... NOT BAD" to my initial answer, so you already have submitted my response was good. I win, you can't take that back no matter how hard you try.

I said it wasn't bad... which part of that did you misread? You hit the target but it was right on the edge of the sides. I submitted your response was close... It still wasn't the answer.

For an entire week you've been bleating on about this as if there's some sort of prize. My first post after your stated your answer - I justified that it still wasn't the answer; and just because your ego seems hurt by that - you've claimed me to be pedantic at every turn (and said the word so much so that if it was a drinking game - they'd be in the emergency room by now.)

There is no prize, there is no glory... Which part of that don't you understand?

[lostinidlewonder]

I said it wasn't bad... which part of that did you misread? You hit the target but it was right on the edge of the sides. I submitted your response was close... It still wasn't the answer.

You just can't admit that I knew exactly what episode it was and could have easily given you the name, what part of that did you misread?  You had to cheat and use Google to give you the episode number and season, as if that proved you knew it well lol. I gave the answer quite sufficiently. My response was directly related to it all.

For an entire week you've been bleating on about this as if there's some sort of prize. My first post after your stated your answer - I justified that it still wasn't the answer; and just because your ego seems hurt by that - you've claimed me to be pedantic at every turn (and said the word so much so that if it was a drinking game - they'd be in the emergency room by now.)

All your assumptions are wrong, you've carried on and cried a lot for the last week trying to insult and complain and be as pedantic as possible,  so there is no logical reason for you to complain here since you're worse at carrying on. Each of my responses are to your very own quotes to me, so what do you expect lol.

There is no prize, there is no glory... Which part of that don't you understand?

You just don't what me to keep responding, so I'll keep responding, why are you continually responding, what prize are you looking for? Lol. Why dont you take your very own advice, you seem to think very highly of your illogical brain haha,

[perfect_pitch]

You just don't what me to keep responding, so I'll keep responding, why are you continually responding, what prize are you looking for? Lol. Why dont you take your very own advice, you seem to think very highly of your illogical brain haha,

Taking my arguments and rewording them slightly to use against me means you're completely out of ideas.

You're now just arguing for the sake of arguing... I think there's a particular type of person who does that...

Congratulations - you are now officially... a troll.

Seek help man.

[lostinidlewonder]

Taking my arguments and rewording them slightly to use against me means you're completely out of ideas.

Incorrect, pointing out how the same questions you ask you should ask yourself lol. I don't need you to answer any of my questions, unlike you who gets upset if people don't answer your questions exactly how you want them to.

You're now just arguing for the sake of arguing... I think there's a particular type of person who does that...

Congratulations - you are now officially... a troll.

Seek help man.

Oh so you're the official who can officially tag what people are now? Lol. It's obvious based on your behaviour you tend to do that to people, calling them all sorts of negative words you can think of to make yourself feel better. You argue for the sake of being highly pedantic, so your simply being hypocritical of your own behaviour, but you tend to measure your behaviour with different measurements, just demonstrates how illogical you are and how you think you're beyond your own standards you set for others. Nah keep insulting others, it shows everyone the type of person you are, I happily will be called whatever anyone likes, you for instance are not important, id never care what you think of me positive or negative. I win, and I also win the Seinfeld debate by a landslide. Seeking help? I don't need help to deal with you lol.

[lostinidlewonder]

Let's all have a drink.

[frodo10]

Let's all have a drink.

Now you're talking!

[lostinidlewonder]

One of the cups is poisoned, should be very fun!

[perfect_pitch]

Nah keep insulting others, it shows everyone the type of person you are, I happily will be called whatever anyone likes, you for instance are not important, id never care what you think of me positive or negative. I win, and I also win the Seinfeld debate by a landslide. Seeking help? I don't need help to deal with you lol.

1) I only insult those who insult me. You've had a HISTORY over the last few months of trying to prove you're better than me - financially, professionally etc...

2) You're the one who's been trying to insist he's right on a question, to which I very calmly wrote:

It's not that big a deal... accept it.

If you didn't care - you wouldn't have gone on for an extra week carrying on this charade trying to prove you were right.

3) I tried to move on the discussion - you were the one desperate to keep it alive... that makes you the troll. All you've done is repeatedly declare yourself the winner to a question that no one was really invested in or cared about.

so logically I win.

I win against you all the time

I win again, wow look at all this winning from me.

Again I win too much and you lose badly.

Great win!!!

Win

I win  you eat it haha.

Winning.

I laughed at you, I win

And that's just in the last week.

Take some inspiration from Oprah...

[lostinidlewonder]

1) I only insult those who insult me. You've had a HISTORY over the last few months of trying to prove you're better than me - financially, professionally etc...

What garbage, you completely started the entire insults, telling me that I think im superior to everyone and need to get over it, one just has to look at the history of the posts on the Seinfeld episode, it is YOU who immediately started to take things to a personal level. I really don't care that you did, and it is really super funny that you think you didn't ahaha. It just shows the type of person you are.


Lol, so if someone is better than you that is insulting you? Lol!!! Why don't you better your position then instead of letting tall poppy syndrome make you think you are being insulted? lol. Just because I reveal a truth and that happens to be better than your own achievement that doesn't mean anything except I have actually achieved more than you. The definition of tall poppy syndrome is that you would take offense to that lol!!!!

Your insults are hilarious because they show you've utterly lost control. You like to use the f word against people, call them all sorts of things as if they have any effect at all. All they do is make you look like you're angry and annoyed, it utterly backfires on you.

2) You're the one who's been trying to insist he's right on a question, to which I very calmly wrote:If you didn't care - you wouldn't have gone on for an extra week carrying on this charade trying to prove you were right.

You are assuming that I care about anything, how can you guess what I think? We can easily say YOU yourself also care so much because you have been posting for over a week too on the exact topic. I am merely responding to every post of yours, I didn't start it You began with crying that my meaningful answer was a failure, I merely responded to that and whatever else came after. If you didn't continue on I'd have nothing to respond to, so you are 100% at blame too for carrying on lol. You are not so innocent as you are trying to make yourself out to be, such illogical behaviour from you is lol.

3) I tried to move on the discussion - you were the one desperate to keep it alive... that makes you the troll. All you've done is repeatedly declare yourself the winner to a question that no one was really invested in or cared about.

You have not tried to move it on one iota. You merely say  LET IT GO but then in the same breath complain and continue on with the entire issue. So you are really invested to carry on about this all, I am merely responding to each of your comments.

And that's just in the last week.

I win is part of this thread. I said "Eat it" because your very image you posted of your AI was filename EAT IT, so you decided to use that first. You are trying to make yourself seem so innocent, it is utterly hilarious that you are trying, please continue to do that because the illogical behaviour to me is comedy gold. You can't stand people win against you because you think you're so awesome It can be as simple as winning this thread by posting last, it makes you so annoyed, I win. I win. Hey pp, I win you're losing. Triggers you so bad

Take some inspiration from Oprah...

You are unable to demonstrate the very thing you are saying here. You are the only one saying LET IT GO, I instead never said that, so this demonstrates you are desperate for the entire interaction to end. Because of that I will not let it end, I will continually respond to you every time YOU continue on. Don't like that, don't continue on, otherwise this will literally go on forever, it is no skin off my nose, I don't mind winning this game in this exact manner.

[perfect_pitch]

One of the cups is poisoned, should be very fun!

Hopefully it's yours.



Drink up.

[lostinidlewonder]

Hopefully it's yours.
Drink up.

I know one of them are poisoned because I poisoned it. Thought that would have been obvious. How could it be fun for me otherwise? Yup.

[perfect_pitch]

I know one of them are poisoned because I poisoned it. Thought that would have been obvious.

Yes, it was obvious... I saw your previous posts.

Just like Russian Roulette, but with more foaming at the mouth.

[lostinidlewonder]

Well Russian roulette the barrel can spin then you'd not know where it is. You can die while enjoying the process here. Then everyone has fun too. Me especially since I know where it is.

[j_tour]

We do not care for beatboxing one bit.

[perfect_pitch]

Yep - nothing more sad than some weirdo who makes funny noises with their mouth while in public, going psshh, tik-a wouh-wouh-wouh...

Extremely sad.

[j_tour]

Extremely sad.

Deplorable, really. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Quite impressive the different sounds and seemingly simultaneously ones they can do. I might not like the actual genre but im not so close minded to say it's bad, it's pretty impressive. Sorta the same reaction we hope to get from those who think piano is for square geeks and classical music fairies but still can appreciate it on some level.

[j_tour]

Quite impressive the different sounds and seemingly simultaneously ones they can do. I might not like the actual genre but im not so close minded to say it's bad, it's pretty impressive. Sorta the same reaction we hope to get from those who think piano is for square geeks and classical music fairies but still can appreciate it on some level.

You're correct in that I agree.

An impressive set of vocal performances and lyrics, pre-composed in a sort of vocalese or Sprechgesang style.

Much enhanced by the liberal borrowings from Jimmy Smith's original recording. 

I find it a clever performance.

[perfect_pitch]

Quite impressive the different sounds and seemingly simultaneously ones they can do. I might not like the actual genre but im not so close minded to say it's bad

That's not close mindedness... people are entitled to like and dislike what they want. I also hate sport... that's just me. I know plenty of people who love it.

I've seen people who just love the Australia Football - they rave about it... frankly - I think it's as boring as watching paint dry.

[lostinidlewonder]

That's not close mindedness... people are entitled to like and dislike what they want. I also hate sport... that's just me. I know plenty of people who love it.

I've seen people who just love the Australia Football - they rave about it... frankly - I think it's as boring as watching paint dry.

Dislike vs. narrow-mindedness: Saying “I don’t like beatboxing” = personal preference. Going further: Calling it “extremely sad” and mocking the sounds publicly = narrow mindedness, close mindedness and rigid judgment. It’s a textbook case of someone moving from personal opinion into the territory of a narrow outlook.

Saying “I think watching Australia Football is as boring as watching paint dry” isn’t just personal preference it’s mocking and dismissive. By using exaggeration and ridicule you cross from personal taste into narrow or closed minded judgment.

[perfect_pitch]

Oh please - I've seen some of those beat-boxing matches - haven't seen anything impressive about them. Most 5 year olds make silly noises with their mouths, but most of them grow up.

And you can claim closed-mindedness if you want, but you're wrong. I didn't just close my mind to it - I live in Australia where I've been dragged to football games, seen a few finals on live TV.

It's boring because after a 90 minute game, there can be as many as 200 points shared between the teams... and most of them just spend their time hugging each other as they tackle themselves to the ground trying to put their hands on the ball.

Now SOCCER (or the real Football), you can go almost 90 minutes with maybe 2 points between both teams. The anticipation and suspense this creates is palpable as that one single goal can take you from a draw to an absolute victory in the last 2 minutes.

Again... just because I don't agree with you, you just assume I'm closed-minded. You assume way too much about me; WAY too much.

[gasplamey]

You're calling gpt 5 pathetic? lol you're the only one in the world that'd think that.

Do I detect a touch of generalization? You know, that thing you were complaining about pitchy and me doing a little while ago?

Anyways that whole argument seemed like imperfect_tone making a statement that was dumb but technically the truth and loserinidlewonder saying that it was both dumb and not the truth.

[lostinidlewonder]

Oh please - I've seen some of those beat-boxing matches - haven't seen anything impressive about them. Most 5 year olds make silly noises with their mouths, but most of them grow up.

And you can claim closed-mindedness if you want, but you're wrong. I didn't just close my mind to it - I live in Australia where I've been dragged to football games, seen a few finals on live TV.

It's boring because after a 90 minute game, there can be as many as 200 points shared between the teams... and most of them just spend their time hugging each other as they tackle themselves to the ground trying to put their hands on the ball.

Now SOCCER (or the real Football), you can go almost 90 minutes with maybe 2 points between both teams. The anticipation and suspense this creates is palpable as that one single goal can take you from a draw to an absolute victory in the last 2 minutes.

Again... just because I don't agree with you, you just assume I'm closed-minded. You assume way too much about me; WAY too much.

It's just the definition of close mindedness. Don't like something, fine, going out of your way to disparage it, means your narrow minded or close minded about it specifically not everything there is to be in this world. I'm narrow minded about many things too, like paedophiles for instance, they should be locked up forever or chemically castrated.

[lostinidlewonder]

Do I detect a touch of generalization? You know, that thing you were complaining about pitchy and me doing a little while ago?

You don't usually detect anything thats logically sound when trying to debate, not at least your previous history of responses here. Provide quotes and context otherwise you're just saying whatever. 

Anyone who says gpt5 is pathetic has zero grounds for such conclusions. Look up the definition of the word. It's like saying a dictionary is pathetic, or someone with 200+IQ is pathetic, sure you can say that but you have zero logic to back yourself up with.

Anyways that whole argument seemed like imperfect_tone making a statement that was dumb but technically the truth and loserinidlewonder saying that it was both dumb and not the truth.[/font]

Your conclusion is baseless and fragmented, you've not put any context to anything you've said, so I guess we just dismiss it as a pointless rant.

[gasplamey]

You don't usually detect anything thats logically sound when trying to debate, not at least your previous history of responses here. Provide quotes and context otherwise you're just saying whatever.

Here's two that I found on a quick skim of the previous few pages. There's probably more that I missed, but whatever. btw both of these are the entirety of paragraphs and are criticizing defective_tonality for generalizing, which is exactly what I said you were complaining about. You had all the right to complain here, just pointing out that you're also doing exactly what you complained about.

You have to realise what you think doesn't speak for others lol. Your not that influential sorry to say.

I'm just responding to your crying maybe don't cry in the first place. It seems you're the only one taking it serious enough to rant on about it and beyond. I just respond and reflect whatever you throw down. Your the touchy one look at all your swearing and attempts at insulting me and your attempts of trying to speak for others as if that makes your position any better, it doesn't, all it does it show you've lost control.
Why did you put my name in that quote I'd not say something as lame as that lol.

There was also the hilarious AI comedy thing about "pointing out my logical falacies" or whatever that included "hasty generalizations" as a reason.

Anyone who says gpt5 is pathetic has zero grounds for such conclusions. Look up the definition of the word. It's like saying a dictionary is pathetic, or someone with 200+IQ is pathetic, sure you can say that but you have zero logic to back yourself up with.

You just moved the goalposts. You originally said:

You're calling gpt 5 pathetic? lol you're the only one in the world that'd think that.

Now it's:

Anyone who says gpt5 is pathetic has zero grounds for such conclusions. ... sure you can say that but you have zero logic to back yourself up with.

And that's another thing you complained about peepee doing. Surely with your "incredible memory" (as you mentioned in reply 18672 to this thread) you remember doing that so recently?
Also honestly I tried GPT5 basically on-release and it kind of sucked. I prefer GPT4. Maybe something's changed since I last tried it though because that was a while ago idk.

Your conclusion is baseless and fragmented, you've not put any context to anything you've said, so I guess we just dismiss it as a pointless rant.

Fine allow me to elaborate. pitcher said that you hadn't named the episode, which was a dumb thing to say considering that you provided a clip from the episode, but it was technically correct. You correctly pointed out that it was a dumb thing to say, but also that argued that he was incorrect that you hadn't answered his question correctly and your wrong on that front.

[lostinidlewonder]

Your "skimming" process defines your functional illiteracy, once you learn to read and comprehend competently come back lol. You've been sufficiently dealt with in the past and couldn't recover from that.

[gasplamey]

Your "skimming" process defines your functional illiteracy, once you learn to read and comprehend competently come back lol.

You realized that you lost the argument so you try to bow out? Classic loser. Maybe that's what the "lost" in your name refers to.

[lostinidlewonder]

Do I detect a touch of generalization? You know, that thing you were complaining about pitchy and me doing a little while ago? Anyways that whole argument seemed like imperfect_tone making a statement that was dumb but technically the truth and loserinidlewonder saying that it was both dumb and not the truth.

It's always amusing when you decide to chime in, especially when your entire argument is built on a foundation of logical fallacies and a complete misreading of the conversation. Let's dismantle this "analysis" of yours thoroughly, shall we?

First, you start with childish ad hominem attacks like "imperfect_tone" This is the first and most obvious sign that you have no substantive argument to make. Leave poor pp alone. Call me what you want it just shows you have no argument. *Gasp!!* lame, very lame.

Now, let's address your two main points, both of which are spectacularly wrong.
1. Your False Accusation of Hypocrisy

Here's two that I found on a quick skim of the previous few pages. ... both of these are the entirety of paragraphs and are criticizing defective_tonality for generalizing, which is exactly what I said you were complaining about. You had all the right to complain here, just pointing out that you're also doing exactly what you complained about.

This is a textbook False Equivalence. You're attempting to equate two completely different types of statements to create the illusion of hypocrisy.

My criticism of perfect_pitch was for his repeated attempts to speak for others, assuming his personal opinion was a universal one ("no one was really invested in or cared about"). He was appointing himself as a spokesman for the group.
My statement...

You're calling gpt 5 pathetic? lol you're the only one in the world that'd think that.

...is called hyperbole. It's a common rhetorical device used for emphasis, not a literal claim that I polled all 8 billion people on Earth. It's a way of expressing incredulity at an absurd statement. To treat it as a literal generalization demonstrates a fundamental lack of reading comprehension. It's like accusing someone of lying when they say "I've told you a million times."

You then follow up with this gem:

You just moved the goalposts.

Incorrect. I didn't move the goalposts; I clarified the logical foundation of my hyperbole. My follow-up statement that "anyone who says gpt5 is pathetic has zero grounds for such conclusions" isn't a change in argument it's the reasoning behind the initial statement. You're confusing clarification with retreat.

2. Your Laughable Mischaracterization of the Seinfeld Debate
This is where your argument truly falls apart.

Fine allow me to elaborate. pitcher said that you hadn't named the episode, which was a dumb thing to say considering that you provided a clip from the episode, but it was technically correct. You correctly pointed out that it was a dumb thing to say, but also that argued that he was incorrect that you hadn't answered his question correctly and your wrong on that front.

This is a complete Strawman Argument. You've fabricated a simplistic version of my position to make it easier to attack.

My argument was never that I literally typed the words of the episode title. My argument, which you either ignored or were incapable of understanding, was this:
perfect_pitch's question was trivial and easily answerable with a two-second Google search. Simply providing the name proves very little. Providing a video clip of the episode's central joke the very joke from which the episode gets its title, "The Red Dot" is a superior and more comprehensive demonstration of actual knowledge. His pedantic insistence on the exact text while ignoring the superior evidence was the entire issue. The debate was about the quality of evidence, not a binary "did he type it or not?" You declare me "wrong on that front" by judging me against a fabricated version of my own argument. Your conclusion is therefore worthless, as it's based on a false premise that exists only in your mind.
In conclusion, your entire intervention is a failure of logic. You started with insults, moved to false equivalencies, and built your core argument on a complete strawman. You have thoroughly misunderstood every point of the debate you tried to analyze. I win, and I also win the Seinfeld debate by a landslide.

Maybe sit the next one out, I win against you again.

[gasplamey]

It's always amusing when you decide to chime in, especially when your entire argument is built on a foundation of logical fallacies and a complete misreading of the conversation. Let's dismantle this "analysis" of yours thoroughly, shall we?
First, you start with childish ad hominem attacks like "imperfect_tone"" This is the first and most obvious sign that you have no substantive argument to make. When you can't attack the logic, you attack the person. It's a classic, and frankly, pathetic tactic.

Now, let's address your two main points, both of which are spectacularly wrong.
1. Your False Accusation of HypocrisyThis is a textbook False Equivalence. You're attempting to equate two completely different types of statements to create the illusion of hypocrisy.

My criticism of perfect_pitch was for his repeated attempts to speak for others, assuming his personal opinion was a universal one ("no one was really invested in or cared about"). He was appointing himself as a spokesman for the group.
My statement......is called hyperbole. It's a common rhetorical device used for emphasis, not a literal claim that I polled all 8 billion people on Earth. It's a way of expressing incredulity at an absurd statement. To treat it as a literal generalization demonstrates a fundamental lack of reading comprehension. It's like accusing someone of lying when they say "I've told you a million times."
You then follow up with this gem:Incorrect. I didn't move the goalposts; I clarified the logical foundation of my hyperbole. My follow-up statement that "anyone who says gpt5 is pathetic has zero grounds for such conclusions" isn't a change in argument—it's the reasoning behind the initial statement. You're confusing clarification with retreat.
2. Your Laughable Mischaracterization of the Seinfeld Debate
This is where your argument truly falls apart.This is a complete Strawman Argument. You've fabricated a simplistic version of my position to make it easier to attack.
My argument was never that I literally typed the words of the episode title. My argument, which you either ignored or were incapable of understanding, was this:
perfect_pitch's question was trivial and easily answerable with a two-second Google search.
Simply providing the name proves very little.
Providing a video clip of the episode's central joke—the very joke from which the episode gets its title, "The Red Dot"—is a superior and more comprehensive demonstration of actual knowledge.
His pedantic insistence on the exact text while ignoring the superior evidence was the entire issue.
The debate was about the quality of evidence, not a binary "did he type it or not?" You declare me "wrong on that front" by judging me against a fabricated version of my own argument. Your conclusion is therefore worthless, as it's based on a false premise that exists only in your mind.
In conclusion, your entire intervention is a failure of logic. You started with insults, moved to false equivalencies, and built your core argument on a complete strawman. You have thoroughly misunderstood every point of the debate you tried to analyze. I win, and I also win the Seinfeld debate by a landslide.
Maybe sit the next one out, I win against you again.

Yeah just from the first few sentences this is clearly modified AI text. Anyone using AI to make their argument is an automatic loss. lol
But fine I'll argue with you and GPT.

Let's dismantle this "analysis" of yours thoroughly, shall we?

Right out of the gate it wasn't even an "analysis". I hardly "analyzed" shxt.

First, you start with childish ad hominem attacks like "imperfect_tone"" This is the first and most obvious sign that you have no substantive argument to make. When you can't attack the logic, you attack the person. It's a classic, and frankly, pathetic tactic.

I'm using it against both you and perfect_pitch because it's funny. You can't tell me you didn't laugh when I called p-p "pitchy", and p-p probably laughed when I called you "loserinidlewonder". You're the butt of the joke and you need to get over it.
Also, I do agree with you in the argument against latg, but weren't you just using that against him. Kind of undermines your point to say something is bad and then immediately do that thing.

1. Your False Accusation of HypocrisyThis is a textbook False Equivalence. You're attempting to equate two completely different types of statements to create the illusion of hypocrisy.
My criticism of perfect_pitch was for his repeated attempts to speak for others, assuming his personal opinion was a universal one ("no one was really invested in or cared about"). He was appointing himself as a spokesman for the group.
My statement......is called hyperbole. It's a common rhetorical device used for emphasis, not a literal claim that I polled all 8 billion people on Earth. It's a way of expressing incredulity at an absurd statement. To treat it as a literal generalization demonstrates a fundamental lack of reading comprehension. It's like accusing someone of lying when they say "I've told you a million times."

Fine so "generalizing" was the wrong term. Both of you tried to 'speak for others' by claiming that your own opinions were the majority opinions without any evidence backing that up. You both "appointed yourselves as spokesmen for the group". Everyone knows that you didn't actually poll anyone, though you still speak with absolute authority on a topic that you have no proof of. There's nothing anywhere that can verify that there's not a sizable portion of people who don't view GPT5 as pathetic.

2. Your Laughable Mischaracterization of the Seinfeld Debate
This is where your argument truly falls apart.This is a complete Strawman Argument. You've fabricated a simplistic version of my position to make it easier to attack.

My argument was never that I literally typed the words of the episode title. My argument, which you either ignored or were incapable of understanding, was this:
perfect_pitch's question was trivial and easily answerable with a two-second Google search. Simply providing the name proves very little. Providing a video clip of the episode's central joke the very joke from which the episode gets its title, "The Red Dot" is a superior and more comprehensive demonstration of actual knowledge. His pedantic insistence on the exact text while ignoring the superior evidence was the entire issue. The debate was about the quality of evidence, not a binary "did he type it or not?" You declare me "wrong on that front" by judging me against a fabricated version of my own argument. Your conclusion is therefore worthless, as it's based on a false premise that exists only in your mind.
In conclusion, your entire intervention is a failure of logic. You started with insults, moved to false equivalencies, and built your core argument on a complete strawman. You have thoroughly misunderstood every point of the debate you tried to analyze. I win, and I also win the Seinfeld debate by a landslide.

You complain about me fabricating your position then you fabricate mine. I specifically said that you didn't type the words of the episode title, which made p-p correct on a technicality. You then argued that you'd answered the question correctly in your own way by providing a clip from the episode in question which was showed your knowledge of the episode more than naming it, and I agree with you on that. That's why I said p-ps post was dumb. What I can't agree with you on is that you answered p-ps question correctly, because you didn't give the answer in the format required by the question. I agree that you gave an answer that showed more knowledge of the episode which is what p-p was asking the question for, but he's right that you didn't give the answer that he had reasonably defined as correct.
The last paragraph is prob a bit incoherent bc it's 3 am here but idec its insane that you're arguing with someone who agrees with your imho most important point.

[lostinidlewonder]

Im doing it on purpose too because I know you are posting because you think you are wasting my time but i assure you, this takes very little time

This should be fun. It is not an automatic loss unless you copy paste the response, see post 1 of this entire thread, I retype every single letter, I really do! lol. I have no need to debate with you normally because I already thrashed your butt the normal way, you're not worth the effort, it already points out all your errors which I can also see so this helps me not waste time with someone as illogical as you. Have some literate response and I can debate with more rigor. I merely need to proof read and agree then send, easy to beat you.I encourage you to response with AI, since your illogical initial stance will make it break and my initial powerfully logical stance will be impossible to defeat without doing hilarious things which your AI will try I have debated against AI a lot over the years, so good luck.

Yeah just from the first few sentences this is clearly modified AI text. Anyone using AI to make their argument is an automatic loss. lol
But fine I'll argue with you and GPT.

Let's begin with your opening move: a preemptive surrender disguised as an accusation. Claiming my response is AI-generated simply because it's coherent and systematically dismantles your argument is the ultimate intellectual cop-out. It’s a convenient excuse to avoid engaging with the substance of the points because you know you can't refute them. This isn't a rule; it's a confession that you've been outmaneuvered. I don't need AI to expose flawed logic; your posts provide more than enough material.

I'm using it against both you and perfect_pitch because it's funny... You're the butt of the joke and you need to get over it.
Also, I do agree with you in the argument against latg, but weren't you just using that against him. Kind of undermines your point to say something is bad and then immediately do that thing.

First, your defense for using ad hominem attacks is that "it's funny." That's not a defense; it's an admission that you have no logical point, so you resort to childish insults. Second, you once again create a False Equivalence. My criticism of liszt-and-the-galops was a direct response to his hypocritical moralizing and misrepresentation of the facts. I wasn't attacking him for "fun"; I was deconstructing his weak argument. You, on the other hand, admit to using insults simply for your own amusement. There is no hypocrisy on my end; there is only a glaring contradiction on yours.

Fine so "generalizing" was the wrong term. Both of you tried to 'speak for others' by claiming that your own opinions were the majority opinions without any evidence backing that up... There's nothing anywhere that can verify that there's not a sizable portion of people who don't view GPT5 as pathetic.

You concede the term was wrong, yet proceed to double down on the same flawed logic. You are still fundamentally failing to distinguish between hyperbole and a literal claim. My statement was an expression of the sheer absurdity of calling a revolutionary technology "pathetic." It is a rhetorical device to highlight an outlier opinion, not a scientific claim based on polling data. The burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary and ridiculous claim (that GPT-5 is "pathetic"), not on me to disprove that other people might share that illogical view.

You complain about me fabricating your position then you fabricate mine. I specifically said that you didn't type the words of the episode title, which made p-p correct on a technicality... What I can't agree with you on is that you answered p-ps question correctly, because you didn't give the answer in the format required by the question. I agree that you gave an answer that showed more knowledge... but he's right that you didn't give the answer that he had reasonably defined as correct.

This paragraph is a masterpiece of self-contradiction. You are trying to ride the fence so hard you've impaled yourself on it.
You admit perfect_pitch's stance was "dumb."
You admit my answer "showed more knowledge."
You admit my answer demonstrated I knew the episode.
And yet, after all that, you still cling to the "technicality" that I didn't adhere to the "format required." My entire point, which you seem to be deliberately ignoring, is that the "required format" was intellectually bankrupt. The goal of a trivia question is to test knowledge. I demonstrated superior knowledge. Therefore, I answered the spirit and substance of the question more effectively. Clinging to the pedantic "format" is to prioritize trivial procedure over actual substance.
You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously agree that my answer was better and that perfect_pitch's "technically correct" stance has any merit. Your position is logically incoherent. It's not "insane" for me to argue with you; it's insane that you'd present an argument that so thoroughly invalidates itself.
Your entire post is a predictable sequence of deflection, false equivalence, and self-contradiction. You've conceded every important point while desperately trying to salvage a meaningless technicality.
I win. Again. Maybe get some sleep before attempting to debate topics you clearly don't understand.

[gasplamey]

Im doing it on purpose too because I know you are posting because you think you are wasting my time but i assure you, this takes very little time

I know it takes you very little time, you've mentioned a few times somewhere that you type fast.

Let's begin with your opening move: a preemptive surrender disguised as an accusation. Claiming my response is AI-generated simply because it's coherent and systematically dismantles your argument is the ultimate intellectual cop-out. It’s a convenient excuse to avoid engaging with the substance of the points because you know you can't refute them. This isn't a rule; it's a confession that you've been outmaneuvered. I don't need AI to expose flawed logic; your posts provide more than enough material.

I was pointing out that your first few sentences were written in a style very similar to how chat GPT writes. I also then proceeded to refute your points, demonstrating that I could in fact refute them.

First, your defense for using ad hominem attacks is that "it's funny." That's not a defense; it's an admission that you have no logical point, so you resort to childish insults. Second, you once again create a False Equivalence. My criticism of liszt-and-the-galops was a direct response to his hypocritical moralizing and misrepresentation of the facts. I wasn't attacking him for "fun"; I was deconstructing his weak argument. You, on the other hand, admit to using insults simply for your own amusement. There is no hypocrisy on my end; there is only a glaring contradiction on yours.

Dude. I'm not him and Im' not defending him but that definitely came across as attacking latg personally mixed in with some actual legitimat rebuttall. And again, my miswording of names was funny and had nothing to do with the argument we're having..

You concede the term was wrong, yet proceed to double down on the same flawed logic. You are still fundamentally failing to distinguish between hyperbole and a literal claim. My statement was an expression of the sheer absurdity of calling a revolutionary technology "pathetic." It is a rhetorical device to highlight an outlier opinion, not a scientific claim based on polling data. The burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary and ridiculous claim (that GPT-5 is "pathetic"), not on me to disprove that other people might share that illogical view.

Not everyone thinks that its a revolutionary technology is the problem. I completely disagree and you clearly do as well but I will at least respect others opinions if theyre well grounded.

This paragraph is a masterpiece of self-contradiction. You are trying to ride the fence so hard you've impaled yourself on it.
You admit perfect_pitch's stance was "dumb."
You admit my answer "showed more knowledge."
You admit my answer demonstrated I knew the episode.
And yet, after all that, you still cling to the "technicality" that I didn't adhere to the "format required." My entire point, which you seem to be deliberately ignoring, is that the "required format" was intellectually bankrupt. The goal of a trivia question is to test knowledge. I demonstrated superior knowledge. Therefore, I answered the spirit and substance of the question more effectively. Clinging to the pedantic "format" is to prioritize trivial procedure over actual substance.
You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously agree that my answer was better and that perfect_pitch's "technically correct" stance has any merit. Your position is logically incoherent. It's not "insane" for me to argue with you; it's insane that you'd present an argument that so thoroughly invalidates itself.

This is just blatant lack of flexibility. Yes my post is a bit gramatically incoherent because its 4 am here but at least I'm willing to acknowlege that this situation is nuanced rather than blindly abicating all responsibility.

Maybe get some sleep before attempting to debate topics you clearly don't understand.

I can debate in my sleep.
Not as well as when I'm awake, but I can.

[lostinidlewonder]

I was pointing out that your first few sentences were written in a style very similar to how chat GPT writes. I also then proceeded to refute your points, demonstrating that I could in fact refute them.

Let's be clear: you didn't "point out a style"; you made a baseless accusation as a crutch. And you didn't "refute" my points; you sidestepped, misunderstood, and contradicted them. The fact that you think your response constituted a refutation is the most hilarious part of this entire exchange.

Dude. I'm not him and Im' not defending him but that definitely came across as attacking latg personally mixed in with some actual legitimat rebuttall. And again, my miswording of names was funny and had nothing to do with the argument we're having..

Your perception of what "came across" is irrelevant. I dismantled his arguments using his own words. That is called a debate. Your "miswording of names" was a childish attempt at an insult, which you admit was just for "fun." My response was a surgical deconstruction of a flawed argument. The two are not equivalent, and your attempt to paint them as such is just another logical failure. One is a substantive rebuttal; the other is playground name-calling.

Not everyone thinks that its a revolutionary technology is the problem. I completely disagree and you clearly do as well but I will at least respect others opinions if theyre well grounded.

You are completely missing the point. Whether everyone agrees it's revolutionary is irrelevant. The claim that it is "pathetic" is what lacks grounding. There is a vast chasm between holding a nuanced, critical opinion of a technology and dismissing it with a term as absurd as "pathetic." An opinion that GPT-5 has flaws is "well-grounded." An opinion that it is "pathetic" is objectively baseless. You're defending an indefensible position and conflating legitimate criticism with ludicrous hyperbole.

This is just blatant lack of flexibility. Yes my post is a bit gramatically incoherent because its 4 am here but at least I'm willing to acknowlege that this situation is nuanced rather than blindly abicating all responsibility.

This is not about a "lack of flexibility"; it's about a lack of logic on your part. Your position is not "nuanced"; it is fundamentally self-contradictory. You cannot simultaneously state that:
A) My answer was superior and demonstrated more knowledge.
B) perfect_pitch's pedantic, "technically correct" stance has merit.
These two statements are mutually exclusive. To hold both is to be logically incoherent. You're not being "flexible"; you're trying to validate two opposing viewpoints to avoid taking a definitive stance. I am not "blindly abdicating responsibility"; I am holding you accountable for the logical mess you've presented. Your fatigue is not an excuse for flawed reasoning.

I can debate in my sleep.
Not as well as when I'm awake, but I can.

Judging by the quality of your arguments, I believe you. You've demonstrated a complete inability to grasp the core points, distinguish between rhetorical devices and literal claims, or construct a logically consistent position. Your "rebuttals" have been a series of concessions wrapped in deflections.
This has been another decisive win for me. I suggest you go back to sleep.

[perfect_pitch]

and p-p probably laughed when I called you "loserinidlewonder". You're the butt of the joke and you need to get over it.

Didn't even see it to be honest - there's been a wall of text posted since I was at work... I kind of skimmed it.

What I can't agree with you on is that you answered p-ps question correctly, because you didn't give the answer in the format required by the question

Technically I was just looking for the answer - it didn't need to be in the form of a question... I think that's Jeopardy that does that. While I did reference Jeopardy as an example of a game show, it was merely that the answer given had to contain the information asked by the questioner (whether it was in question form or not).

perfect_pitch's question was trivial and easily answerable with a two-second Google search. Simply providing the name proves very little.

The problem I have is that you tried to assert that your answer is still correct, which it's not:
'name what episode that's from'
'oh that's easy, here's a clip from it'
'you didn't name the episode' + stupid excuses

Hey... that's what I said a week ago and he called me pedantic.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE... Not this AGAIN. I've ANSWERED THIS very clearly a number of days ago.

Lost... If someone in their car asks you for directions, and you say it's 4.7km north-east of here - you haven't answered their question. You may have given them some more information, but it hasn't answered what they asked for.

You are literally trying to beat this dead horse to a mushy pulp in the ground. I had walked away from the argument... others had started to get back to the gentle jesting we usually post about each other and here you are... taking a baseball bat to the already dead and rotting corpse that is the argument that I THOUGHT had been put aside a couple of days ago... and trying desperately to splatter whatever giblets and mush is still left in the rotting cadaver that is the argument... all over the pavement (and by that, I mean this thread).

Why are you so desperate to rehash the same crap we just put aside???

[gasplamey]

This is not about a "lack of flexibility"; it's about a lack of logic on your part. Your position is not "nuanced"; it is fundamentally self-contradictory. You cannot simultaneously state that:
A) My answer was superior and demonstrated more knowledge.
B) perfect_pitch's pedantic, "technically correct" stance has merit.
These two statements are mutually exclusive. To hold both is to be logically incoherent. You're not being "flexible"; you're trying to validate two opposing viewpoints to avoid taking a definitive stance. I am not "blindly abdicating responsibility"; I am holding you accountable for the logical mess you've presented. Your fatigue is not an excuse for flawed reasoning.

I don't think his technical correctness has any merit. I literally called it "dumb." But he was still technically correct that you didn't name the episode because you didn't but rather did something better. The problem I have is that you tried to assert that your answer is still correct, which it's not:
'name what episode that's from'
'oh that's easy, here's a clip from it'
'you didn't name the episode' + stupid excuses

Let's be clear: you didn't "point out a style"; you made a baseless accusation as a crutch.

I don't think it's baseless if you literally said that it was true:

Im doing it on purpose too because I know you are posting because you think you are wasting my time but i assure you, this takes very little time

This should be fun. It is not an automatic loss unless you copy paste the response, see post 1 of this entire thread, I retype every single letter, I really do! lol. I have no need to debate with you normally because I already thrashed your butt the normal way, you're not worth the effort, it already points out all your errors which I can also see so this helps me not waste time with someone as illogical as you. Have some literate response and I can debate with more rigor. I merely need to proof read and agree then send, easy to beat you.

You are completely missing the point. Whether everyone agrees it's revolutionary is irrelevant. The claim that it is "pathetic" is what lacks grounding. There is a vast chasm between holding a nuanced, critical opinion of a technology and dismissing it with a term as absurd as "pathetic." An opinion that GPT-5 has flaws is "well-grounded." An opinion that it is "pathetic" is objectively baseless. You're defending an indefensible position and conflating legitimate criticism with ludicrous hyperbole.

Listen I'm not the person to argue about this because I agree with you that it'll be revolutionary in the near future and in some areas already is. But using it as a substitute for human to human debate is pathetic.

[lostinidlewonder]

*Gasp* lame! Very lame indeed.

I don't think his technical correctness has any merit. I literally called it "dumb." But he was still technically correct that you didn't name the episode because you didn't but rather did something better. The problem I have is that you tried to assert that your answer is still correct, which it's not.

You're tying yourself in logical knots. You admit my answer was superior ("did something better") yet cling to a pedantic definition of "correct" that you yourself labeled "dumb." This is self-contradiction. My answer demonstrated superior knowledge, which is the entire purpose of a trivia question. Clinging to a "technicality" you admit has no merit isn't a nuanced position; it's a logical failure. I answered the substance of the question correctly. Full stop. At the very start I said the question was too easy and proved why.

I don't think it's baseless if you literally said that it was true...

Your accusation was baseless because it was a guess made before I explained my process. My later confirmation doesn't retroactively validate your shot in the dark. You're desperately trying to invent a rule—"using AI is an automatic loss"—because you can't compete with the arguments themselves. It's a pathetic attempt to disqualify an opponent you can't out-think.

Listen I'm not the person to argue about this... But using it as a substitute for human to human debate is pathetic.

And here is your full retreat. The original argument was whether GPT-5 technology is "pathetic." You have now completely abandoned that indefensible position and shifted the goalposts to an entirely different debate about its use. This is a tacit admission that you lost the original point.
You've contradicted yourself, shifted your arguments, and conceded the main points. This debate is over. I win.

Technically I was just looking for the answer - it didn't need to be in the form of a question... I think that's Jeopardy that does that. While I did reference Jeopardy as an example of a game show, it was merely that the answer given had to contain the information asked by the questioner...

The issue has always been your rigid, pedantic insistence on one specific string of text, which you admit was trivial, over a more comprehensive answer that demonstrated superior knowledge.

Hey... that's what I said a week ago and he called me pedantic.

Yes, and you were pedantic then, just as you are now. The fact that someone else is now repeating your flawed logic doesn't suddenly make it valid. It just means there are two of you who can't grasp the simple concept that demonstrating true understanding is superior to regurgitating a simple fact.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE... Not this AGAIN. I've ANSWERED THIS very clearly a number of days ago.

Lost... If someone in their car asks you for directions, and you say it's 4.7km north-east of here - you haven't answered their question.

Your analogy is, and always has been, laughably flawed. It's a classic False Analogy Fallacy.
I gave a more detailed response not a more vague one, and yes we have already been through this and you are sitll unable tp counter the fact I was more detailed in my response rather than a weak google search for the answer, something you did to get the episode number and season number.

You are literally trying to beat this dead horse to a mushy pulp... I had walked away from the argument... Why are you so desperate to rehash the same crap we just put aside???

This is pure hypocrisy. You claim you "walked away," yet here you are, posting again, complaining and re-engaging with the exact same tired points. I am not "re-hashing" anything; I am responding directly to others who are engaging with the topic. If you truly wanted to put it aside, you would have stayed silent. You can't have it both ways. Your very act of posting this complaint proves you're just as invested as anyone else.

The horse isn't dead because you keep trying to ride it.

[gasplamey]

Your accusation was baseless because it was a guess made before I explained my process. My later confirmation doesn't retroactively validate your shot in the dark. You're desperately trying to invent a rule—"using AI is an automatic loss"—because you can't compete with the arguments themselves. It's a pathetic attempt to disqualify an opponent you can't out-think.

It wasn't a "shot in the dark" it was a well-educated guess. Your just miphed that I caught you so quickly.

And here is your full retreat. The original argument was whether GPT-5 technology is "pathetic." You have now completely abandoned that indefensible position and shifted the goalposts to an entirely different debate about its use. This is a tacit admission that you lost the original point.

You missed that 'is' was in italics. I was talking about the subject that you had switched to within that part of the argument. I don't think chatGPT is pathetic and I've said this from the start. But I do think that its pathetic to use it to write your arguments for you.
As for the "leaving your arguments on the table' bit, I don't need to debunk or clarify the stuff thats so obviously wrong or clear. lol
On a different topic, can we at least agree that latg locking that other thread is pathetic and cowardly? Not trying to change the subject away from the argument, just adding this into the pot.

[lostinidlewonder]

You missed that 'is' was in italics. I was talking about the subject that you had switched to within that part of the argument. I don't think chatGPT is pathetic and I've said this from the start. But I do think that its pathetic to use it to write your arguments for you.

This is a pathetic attempt at backpedaling. You are retroactively trying to assign a new meaning to your words based on a single italicized letter, hoping no one will notice you've completely abandoned your original position.
Let's review the facts:
The debate started with perfect_pitch calling GPT-5 pathetic.
You entered the debate to defend his position.
Now that your argument has been exposed as indefensible, you're claiming you were talking about something else entirely.
This isn't a clever clarification; it's a cowardly retreat. You've shifted the goalposts so far they're in another time zone. Your new position—that using a tool to articulate arguments is "pathetic"—is a Luddite's cry, equivalent to claiming an architect is "pathetic" for using CAD software instead of a pencil and slide rule. It's an argument born of desperation.

As for the "leaving your arguments on the table' bit, I don't need to debunk or clarify the stuff thats so obviously wrong or clear. lol

This is not a rebuttal; it's a forfeit. You are explicitly stating that you are unable or unwilling to defend your own points. Waving your hand and declaring my arguments "obviously wrong" without providing a single shred of counter-logic is the ultimate admission of intellectual defeat. You are conceding the entire debate on the Seinfeld question because you have no coherent response to the logical inconsistencies I pointed out. Thank you for making it so easy.

On a different topic, can we at least agree that latg locking that other thread is pathetic and cowardly? Not trying to change the subject away from the argument, just adding this into the pot.

He can't lock anything. It was an admin. It just proves that wherever there are people who disagree a thread will be posted many times in the recent. Last Post Wins is a playground for randomness so of course its going to take over the recent post list. In the end who cares what happens, the forum has such little activity as it is.

[gasplamey]

This is a pathetic attempt at backpedaling. You are retroactively trying to assign a new meaning to your words based on a single italicized letter, hoping no one will notice you've completely abandoned your original position.
Let's review the facts:
The debate started with perfect_pitch calling GPT-5 pathetic.
You entered the debate to defend his position.
Now that your argument has been exposed as indefensible, you're claiming you were talking about something else entirely.
This isn't a clever clarification; it's a cowardly retreat. You've shifted the goalposts so far they're in another time zone. Your new position—that using a tool to articulate arguments is "pathetic"—is a Luddite's cry, equivalent to claiming an architect is "pathetic" for using CAD software instead of a pencil and slide rule. It's an argument born of desperation.This is not a rebuttal; it's a forfeit. You are explicitly stating that you are unable or unwilling to defend your own points. Waving your hand and declaring my arguments "obviously wrong" without providing a single shred of counter-logic is the ultimate admission of intellectual defeat. You are conceding the entire debate on the Seinfeld question because you have no coherent response to the logical inconsistencies I pointed out. Thank you for making it so easy.He can't lock anything. It was an admin. It just proves that wherever there are people who disagree a thread will be posted many times in the recent. Last Post Wins is a playground for randomness so of course its going to take over the recent post list. In the end who cares what happens, the forum has such little activity as it is.

Okay this entire post is you just lying out of your xss and making stuff up then saying that's what I meant.
The 'is' was in italics from the start and its meant the same thing the entire time. This is you getting desperate and accusing me of lying because you have no actual argument just personal attacks.
I was never defending p-ps position that GPT is pathetic. Look at my post history again. Point out a single instance where I said that chatGPT itself is pathetic.
CAD doesn't replace human inteligence it allows it to go further. This is the real false equivalency.
I have a sneaking suspicion that he did in fact lock the thread. And wdym 'he can't lock anything' you've said yourself that you could lock this thread whenever you want because you made it. I can lock my "musical madness but favorites win" thread whenever I want because I made it I can literally see the button to do so. Your lying through your teeth.

[lostinidlewonder]

Okay this entire post is you just lying out of your xss and making stuff up then saying that's what I meant.
The 'is' was in italics from the start and its meant the same thing the entire time. This is you getting desperate and accusing me of lying because you have no actual argument just personal attacks.
I was never defending p-ps position that GPT is pathetic. Look at my post history again. Point out a single instance where I said that chatGPT itself is pathetic.

This is a pathetic attempt to rewrite history. A single italicized 'is' does not magically change the entire context of a multi-post debate. The conversation, initiated by perfect_pitch, was about whether the technology was pathetic. You jumped in to argue on his side. You are now trying to use a single piece of punctuation as a get-out-of-jail-free card for a losing argument. It's a cowardly retreat, not a clarification.
And you're playing a semantic shell game with "defending his position." You may not have used the exact words, but you actively engaged to support the person making that claim and attack the counter-arguments. You weren't an innocent bystander; you were an accomplice in a flawed debate. Your actions spoke for you.

CAD doesn't replace human inteligence it allows it to go further. This is the real false equivalency.

Thank you. You have just made my entire point for me with perfect clarity. You claim my analogy is false, and then proceed to describe exactly how I use AI: as a tool that allows my intelligence to "go further" by articulating my pre-existing arguments more efficiently and systematically. You have managed to validate my analogy while simultaneously attempting to refute it. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

I have a sneaking suspicion that he did in fact lock the thread. And wdym 'he can't lock anything' you've said yourself that you could lock this thread whenever you want because you made it. I can lock my "musical madness but favorites win" thread whenever I want because I made it I can literally see the button to do so. Your lying through your teeth.

Here, your ignorance becomes comical. You're confusing the user-level ability of a thread's creator to lock their own post with the site-wide powers of an administrator. I can't lock threads I started. You can't lock threads you started. liszt-and-the-galops  has zero ability to lock it. An admin did, as was clearly stated. This isn't a lie; it's a basic fact of how forums function. Your accusation is born from a complete and utter lack of understanding of the platform you're using.
Let's summarize your performance:
You've lied about the context of the debate, hiding behind a single italicized word.
You've validated my own analogy while calling it false.
You've falsely accused me of lying based on your own ignorance of basic forum functions.
This isn't a debate. This is a complete and utter self-immolation. I win.

[gasplamey]

This is a pathetic attempt to rewrite history. A single italicized 'is' does not magically change the entire context of a multi-post debate. The conversation, initiated by perfect_pitch, was about whether the technology was pathetic. You jumped in to argue on his side. You are now trying to use a single piece of punctuation as a get-out-of-jail-free card for a losing argument. It's a cowardly retreat, not a clarification.
And you're playing a semantic shell game with "defending his position." You may not have used the exact words, but you actively engaged to support the person making that claim and attack the counter-arguments. You weren't an innocent bystander; you were an accomplice in a flawed debate. Your actions spoke for you.

I was arguing that your both wrong in that part of the wider argument. I've been arguing that. I'm still arguing that.

Thank you. You have just made my entire point for me with perfect clarity. You claim my analogy is false, and then proceed to describe exactly how I use AI: as a tool that allows my intelligence to "go further" by articulating my pre-existing arguments more efficiently and systematically. You have managed to validate my analogy while simultaneously attempting to refute it. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

AI is being used both as a substitute for human intelligence and as a crutch by you in this debate. This is a fact that you simply cannot disprove.

Here, your ignorance becomes comical. You're confusing the user-level ability of a thread's creator to lock their own post with the site-wide powers of an administrator. I can't lock threads I started. You can't lock threads you started. liszt-and-the-galops  has zero ability to lock it. An admin did, as was clearly stated. This isn't a lie; it's a basic fact of how forums function. Your accusation is born from a complete and utter lack of understanding of the platform you're using.

what are you even saying here. No seriously, what. "You're confusing the user-level ability of a thread's creator to lock their own post" follow by "I can't lock threads I started. You can't lock threads you started. liszt-and-the-galops  has zero ability to lock it."
Not only did latg creat the thread in question but threadmaker can very much lock their own threads. I can literally see the button to do so on my own threads and you can as well. Your just lying blatantly at this point and arent trying to hide it.

You've lied about the context of the debate, hiding behind a single italicized word.

You and chatGPT have demonstrated a complete failure in understanding the context of this debate if that's what you think.

[lostinidlewonder]

I was arguing that your both wrong in that part of the wider argument. I've been arguing that. I'm still arguing that.

This is a pathetic and transparent attempt at historical revisionism. You can claim you were playing the role of a neutral arbiter all you want, but your post history betrays you. You jumped into this debate to attack my points and defend perfect_pitch's pedantry. Your current "you're both wrong" stance is a cowardly retreat, a new position you've adopted only after your original one was completely dismantled.

AI is being used both as a substitute for human intelligence and as a crutch by you in this debate. This is a fact that you simply cannot disprove.

Calling your opinion a "fact" doesn't make it one. This is a baseless unsupported assertion. You're attacking the method because you have no answer for the substance. The logic, the strategy, and the points are mine. The AI is a tool for articulation, no different than a speechwriter using a word processor. Your argument is a Luddite's complaint, a desperate attempt to disqualify a superior opponent by inventing arbitrary rules. The only "crutch" here is your continued reliance on this tired, irrelevant talking point.

what are you even saying here. No seriously, what. "You're confusing the user-level ability of a thread's creator to lock their own post" follow by "I can't lock threads I started. You can't lock threads you started. liszt-and-the-galops has zero ability to lock it."
Not only did latg creat the thread in question but threadmaker can very much lock their own threads. I can literally see the button to do so on my own threads and you can as well. Your just lying blatantly at this point and arent trying to hide it.

This is the highlight of your intellectual bankruptcy. You CANT lock your own threads at all, you can request they be locked but the admin has to do that.

You and chatGPT have demonstrated a complete failure in understanding the context of this debate if that's what you think.

Who is using GPT? I'm using a much better AI for debates. The only failure of understanding here is yours. You've backpedaled, failed to support your claims, and been caught making a monumental factual error because you were too lazy to check your own work.

[perfect_pitch]

Your analogy is, and always has been, laughably flawed. It's a classic False Analogy Fallacy.
I gave a more detailed response not a more vague one, and yes we have already been through this and you are sitll unable tp counter the fact I was more detailed in my response rather than a weak google search for the answer, something you did to get the episode number and season number.

No... I have countered the fact multiple times... you're choosing to just ignore my argument.

I asked for the episode name - something that you very clearly claimed was too simple to answer, yet couldn't answer it.

And I can hand on heart swear on a stack of bibles that I didn't google the answer. That has been one of my favourite episodes for a long, long time; same with 'the Opposite', which I know for a fact is Season 5, Episode 22 (the last episode of Season 5) before George starts working for the NY Yankees at the start of Season 6.

I didn't have to google that either, but is my ABSOLUTE favourite episode.

I asked for the Episode name, you didn't give me the answer. Simple comprehension... maybe you misread the question, but you didn't answer it.

The debate started with perfect_pitch calling GPT-5 pathetic.

No... if you read my post PROPERLY, I said your constant use of relying on AI to try and justify your argument seemed pathetic, and in the example you gave...

perfect_pitch throws down the challenge: “Name the episode.”

lost doesn’t give the title, but instead posts a clip from the episode itself — showing he obviously knew it.

PP moves the goalposts: “Not bad… but you didn’t name it.”

I didn't move the goalpost - it was set in stone from the first time I asked the question. I said name the episode... you didn't do it. Your AI misinterpreted that as well and you used that to try and justify your whole argument.

You claim you "walked away," yet here you are, posting again, complaining and re-engaging with the exact same tired points.

Not even REMOTELY true!!!

perfect_pitch's question was trivial and easily answerable with a two-second Google search. Simply providing the name proves very little. Providing a video clip of the episode's central joke the very joke from which the episode gets its title, "The Red Dot" is a superior and more comprehensive demonstration of actual knowledge. His pedantic insistence on the exact text while ignoring the superior evidence was the entire issue. The debate was about the quality of evidence, not a binary "did he type it or not?" You declare me "wrong on that front" by judging me against a fabricated version of my own argument. Your conclusion is therefore worthless, as it's based on a false premise that exists only in your mind.
In conclusion, your entire intervention is a failure of logic. You started with insults, moved to false equivalencies, and built your core argument on a complete strawman. You have thoroughly misunderstood every point of the debate you tried to analyze.

I hadn't talked about Seinfeld for about 2 days before you once again brought up your inane argument.

The horse isn't dead because you keep trying to ride it.

Mate... the horse is dead; and you're the one holding the bat. I walked away 2 days ago.

Your refusal to actually read written evidence presented in front of you, doesn't make you right - and you can try and argue your points again and again, posting the same thing and getting AI to re-write your argument 1000x over - it won't help. I didn't ask if you knew which episode it was... My question was "Name the episode"... that's all I wanted to know - HELL, I wouldn't have cared of even known if you had googled it. In fact, as far as I know you VERY WELL have googled it - found out the answer and then just found another video from the episode to post here.

Your clip didn't answer the question though. That's not being pedantic...

It's called being CORRECT.

[lostinidlewonder]

No... I have countered the fact multiple times... you're choosing to just ignore my argument.
I asked for the episode name - something that you very clearly claimed was too simple to answer, yet couldn't answer it.

You haven't "countered" anything; you've merely repeated the same flawed premise and use poor allusions to try and support it which I have sufficiently dismantled. The claim that I "couldn't answer it" is a blatant lie. I didn't fail to answer it; I chose to provide a superior answer that demonstrated a deeper level of knowledge than your trivial question demanded. My answer contained the very essence of the episode's title. To ignore this is to be willfully blind and indeed pedantic.

And I can hand on heart swear on a stack of bibles that I didn't google the answer. That has been one of my favourite episodes for a long, long time; same with 'the Opposite'...

So you memorized the Episode number and season number, the definition of a number 1 fan which you already admitted you are not. Sorry you can't pull the smokes and mirrors over this one, you googled the episode and season number to make urself look good. In any case the point was never about your knowledge; it was about the intellectual bankruptcy of your question and your refusal to accept a superior answer. Your passionate defense of your own trivia prowess is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that your entire argument is built on pedantry.

No... if you read my post PROPERLY, I said your constant use of relying on AI to try and justify your argument seemed pathetic...

Another attempt at historical revisionism. You are trying to retroactively narrow the scope of your insult. The debate was about AI's capabilities, and you used the word "pathetic." Now you're trying to pivot and claim it was only about my use of it. This is a cowardly retreat from your original, indefensible position. You're moving the goalposts because you lost the initial argument. I used AI to analyze our discussion not create my rebuttals, but you maybe don't have the intelligence to understand the difference lol.

I didn't move the goalpost - it was set in stone from the first time I asked the question. I said name the episode... you didn't do it. Your AI misinterpreted that as well and you used that to try and justify your whole argument.

You are confusing the question with the standard of evidence. The question remained the same. The goalpost you moved was your refusal to accept a comprehensive, contextually rich answer in favor of a simplistic, text-based one. And blaming the AI is the ultimate cop-out. The AI correctly identified your action as moving the goalposts because it recognizes a shift in evaluative criteria. It's not a misinterpretation; it's a correct analysis of your flawed debate tactics.

I hadn't talked about Seinfeld for about 2 days before you once again brought up your inane argument... Mate... the horse is dead; and you're the one holding the bat. I walked away 2 days ago.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order. You claim you "walked away," yet you have written a multi-paragraph, quote-filled post rehashing the exact same points. This very post is you picking up the bat. You did not walk away. You are actively re-engaging while simultaneously complaining about the re-engagement. I am responding to the ongoing conversation, a conversation that you are an active and willing participant in. Your feigned exasperation is a transparently dishonest tactic.

In fact, as far as I know you VERY WELL have googled it - found out the answer and then just found another video from the episode to post here.
Your clip didn't answer the question though. That's not being pedantic...
It's called being CORRECT.

This final section is a stunning display of projection and logical failure.
Unsupported Accusation: You accuse me of googling without a shred of evidence. I have evidence you proclaimed you are not a number 1 fan yet you could name an episode by number and season by number of an exact episode, that creates dissonance and makes your position highly illogical. Based on your current assumption if I googled the name of the episode and looked for other videos of it it shows i knew exaclty what episode it was and its name lol. I win.


Circular Reasoning: You state my clip didn't answer the question, which is the very point of contention.
The Grand Delusion: You conclude by declaring your pedantry "CORRECT."
No, it is not correct. It is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge a superior form of evidence. It is prioritizing a trivial format over substantive knowledge. It is the last refuge of someone who has lost an argument on its merits and has nothing left but to cling to arbitrary, self-defined rules.
You have presented a masterclass in flawed argumentation: lies, red herrings, historical revisionism, hypocrisy, and circular reasoning. You have not countered a single one of my points; you have only repeated your own debunked premises.
I win.

[perfect_pitch]

it was about the intellectual bankruptcy of your question and your refusal to accept a superior answer.

No... you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if you knew the episode... I asked for the name of the episode. Your video clip didn't provide the answer. An answer is something containing information that someone else can take away and use for themselves.

If someone wanted to know the episode name from which the original picture was from so they could watch the episode themselves, your video clip doesn't answer that.

The debate was about AI's capabilities, and you used the word "pathetic." Now you're trying to pivot and claim it was only about my use of it. This is a cowardly retreat from your original, indefensible position.

Nope... I have the original quote right here:

And Lost - the fact that you have to run to AI to try and justify your arguments is rather sad. We already had this discussion where AI can be manipulated into giving favourable answers if you just tweak the input slightly.

It's kind of pathetic, really.

You didn't even bother to read what I wrote... did you? My intent was clearly about your pathetic insistence of using AI to rationalise and justify every argument you made .

So you memorized the Episode number and season number

Something that is easily visible every time you watch an episode of anything on Netflix. It shows you the season and the episode number... not that hard.

the definition of a number 1 fan which you already admitted you are not.

By definition, Number 1 fan would have to be - the Number 1 fan in the world. I'm not that obsessive, but I've watched the series at least 10-15 times in its entirety and listened to the commentary that came on the DVD's... so I'm a huge fan... but to claim the #1 fan in the world seems a little ridiculous.

You haven't "countered" anything; you've merely repeated the same flawed premise and use poor allusions to try and support it which I have sufficiently dismantled.

No... actually, what you've done is continually dismiss everything I have presented - very little of which was flawed, and was actually supported by many cohesive arguments; and all you've done is assume you're right the entire time.

This doesn't make you superior...

It makes you IGNORANT!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

No... you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if you knew the episode... I asked for the name of the episode. Your video clip didn't provide the answer. An answer is something containing information that someone else can take away and use for themselves.
If someone wanted to know the episode name from which the original picture was from so they could watch the episode themselves, your video clip doesn't answer that.

This is a spectacular display of moving the goalposts combined with a breathtaking lack of practical sense. You have now invented a brand-new, self-serving definition of an "answer." Let's apply your own flawed logic:
My video clip, which showed the climactic scene involving George, the cleaning lady, and the infamous red dot, provides a wealth of searchable information: "George Costanza red dot cashmere sweater." A two-second Google search of those terms—all derived directly from the "useless" clip—instantly yields the episode name, "The Red Dot."
Your answer, by your own new standard, is therefore a complete failure. My answer was not only superior in demonstrating knowledge, it was also infinitely more useful. You're not just wrong; you've been defeated by the very criteria you just invented.

Nope... I have the original quote right here:

And Lost - the fact that you have to run to AI to try and justify your arguments is rather sad. ... It's kind of pathetic, really.

You didn't even bother to read what I wrote... did you? My intent was clearly about your pathetic insistence of using AI to rationalise and justify every argument you made .

This is a classic case of cherry-picking and attempting to rewrite history. You are conveniently ignoring the entire preceding context of the conversation, which was about the capabilities of AI in general. You made a broad, dismissive statement in a broader context. Now you're trying to retroactively claim it was a narrow, personal comment. This isn't a clarification; it's a cowardly retreat from an indefensible position. My "insistence" on using a superior tool to dismantle your flawed arguments is not pathetic; your inability to cope with it is.

Something that is easily visible every time you watch an episode of anything on Netflix. It shows you the season and the episode number... not that hard.

This is a laughably weak justification. Do you memorize the season and episode number of every show you watch? Of course not. You provided that extra information for one reason and one reason only: to try and one-up my answer and appear more knowledgeable. This act reveals your own hypocrisy. You believe it's acceptable for you to provide extra, unasked-for information to bolster your position, but you condemn me for doing the same in a far more comprehensive way.

No... actually, what you've done is continually dismiss everything I have presented - very little of which was flawed, and was actually supported by many cohesive arguments; and all you've done is assume you're right the entire time.
This doesn't make you superior...
It makes you IGNORANT!!!

This is pure projection. I haven't "dismissed" your arguments; I have systematically taken each one apart and exposed it as a logical fallacy. Your arguments have not been "cohesive"; they have been a chaotic mess of moving goalposts, flawed analogies, cherry-picked quotes, and hypocrisy.
I don't assume I'm right; I have proven it by dismantling your reasoning at every turn. Your final resort to an all-caps insult is not an argument. It is the frustrated scream of a debater who has been utterly and completely outmaneuvered and has nothing left.
It is the sound of you losing. I win.

[perfect_pitch]

My video clip, which showed the climactic scene involving George, the cleaning lady, and the infamous red dot, provides a wealth of searchable information: "George Costanza red dot cashmere sweater." A two-second Google search of those terms—all derived directly from the "useless" clip—instantly yields the episode name, "The Red Dot."

And yet, the video clip doesn't reveal the episode name...
The DESCRIPTION doesn't reveal the episode name...

AND BEST OF ALL, even watching the entire clip - the words 'Red Dot' are NEVER mentioned... or did you forget that???

You can't even see the red dot on the cashmere sweater she is wearing...

So... the video clip doesn't yield the episode name... in any way.

Your entire argument is using that video clip would yield the answer, yet you can't derive 'the red dot' or "George Costanza' from that video clip, unless you were already a fan of the Seinfeld and knew who the characters were.

So for anyone wanting to know the answer - they'd have to google 'Cashmere sweater Seinfeld' and maybe they'd get the answer; however this wouldn't have yielded any more information than if they googled "was that wrong", to which the very first google suggestion reveals the sitcom it was from and ultimately the episode as well.

You're video clip didn't answer the question any more than the original picture did.

My "insistence" on using a superior tool to dismantle your flawed arguments is not pathetic; your inability to cope with it is.

Nope... it proves you are incapable of making an argument of your own accord. If you're going to just use AI, then I should be arguing with it... not you.

I haven't "dismissed" your arguments

You have... and I know you have. You see even in the most strong of arguments or debates, there's usually at least some points of data that open-minded people can at least understand, even those on the opposition of a subject or point of conjecture.

You, however have completely and utterly dismissed everything I have said - NO MATTER what I've said... you have just well and truly just dismissed them. All you've done is claim I'm wrong at every turn, no matter the example, basis and relevance of what I've said. The fact that other people have seen some semblance of what I've said as being correct shows they are open-minded enough to understand my arguments.

You however, are incapable of having a rationale argument... with anyone.

[lostinidlewonder]

No... you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if you knew the episode... I asked for the name of the episode. Your video clip didn't provide the answer. An answer is something containing information that someone else can take away and use for themselves.
If someone wanted to know the episode name from which the original picture was from so they could watch the episode themselves, your video clip doesn't answer that.

This is a spectacular display of moving the goalposts combined with a breathtaking lack of practical sense. You have just invented a brand-new, self-serving definition of an "answer," and in doing so, you have been utterly defeated by your own logic.
Let's use your new standard: an answer must be "useful." My video clip, showing the climactic scene with George, the cashmere sweater, and the infamous red dot, provides a wealth of searchable information. A two-second Google search of "George Costanza cashmere", all terms derived directly from my "useless" clip, instantly yields the episode name.

My answer was not only a superior demonstration of knowledge, it was infinitely more useful for finding the episode than a simple title with no context with a google search.

Nope... I have the original quote right here:

And Lost - the fact that you have to run to AI to try and justify your arguments is rather sad. ... It's kind of pathetic, really.

You didn't even bother to read what I wrote... did you? My intent was clearly about your pathetic insistence of using AI to rationalise and justify every argument you made .

This is a classic case of cherry-picking and attempting to rewrite history. You are conveniently ignoring the entire preceding context of the broader debate about AI's capabilities to retroactively claim your broad, dismissive statement was a narrow, personal comment. This isn't a clarification; it's a cowardly retreat from an indefensible position. My "insistence" on using a superior tool to dismantle your flawed arguments is not pathetic; your inability to cope with it is. I used AI to neutrally judge our interactions and it diagnosed you with being pedantic, quite a perfect conclusion.

Something that is easily visible every time you watch an episode of anything on Netflix. It shows you the season and the episode number... not that hard.

This is a laughably weak justification. Do you memorize the season and episode number of every show you watch? Of course not. You provided that extra, unasked-for information for one reason and one reason only: to try and one-up my answer and appear more knowledgeable. This act reveals your own staggering hypocrisy. You believe it's acceptable for you to provide extra information to bolster your position, but you condemn me for doing the exact same thing in a far more comprehensive and useful way.

No... actually, what you've done is continually dismiss everything I have presented - very little of which was flawed, and was actually supported by many cohesive arguments; and all you've done is assume you're right the entire time.
This doesn't make you superior...
It makes you IGNORANT!!!

This is pure projection. I haven't "dismissed" your arguments; I have systematically taken each one apart and exposed it as a logical fallacy. Your arguments have not been "cohesive"; they have been a chaotic mess of moving goalposts, flawed analogies, cherry-picked quotes, and hypocrisy.
I don't assume I'm right; I have proven it by dismantling your reasoning at every turn. Your final resort to an all-caps insult is not an argument. It is the frustrated scream of a debater who has been utterly and completely outmaneuvered and has nothing left.
It is the sound of you losing. I win.

[perfect_pitch]

This is a spectacular display of moving the goalposts

Nope... this is a spectacular display of you simply repeating yourself... possibly using AI.

Two different posts, yet your argument now is just a re-hashing of the same banal argument and dismissive nature of evidence presented to you.



Too lazy to type an actual proper response? You've just proven you're not even reading what I write now...

You're posting simply for the sake of posting.

[lostinidlewonder]

Nope... this is a spectacular display of you simply repeating yourself... possibly using AI.
Two different posts, yet your argument now is just a re-hashing of the same banal argument and dismissive nature of evidence presented to you.
Too lazy to type an actual proper response?

You're too lazy you had to post the same image twice thinking that proves anything? lol

This is the weakest response you've managed yet. You have been so thoroughly dismantled that you are now reduced to complaining about the format of your defeat.

I am "repeating myself" because you are repeating the same flawed arguments that have already been debunked. When you present the same failed logic, you will be met with the same irrefutable correction. This is not a failure on my part; it is a testament to the consistency of your errors.

And your obsessive fallback to the "AI" accusation is the ultimate concession. It is a desperate, transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that you have zero substantive counter-arguments left. You cannot address the points, so you attack the method.

You're not looking for a "proper response." You're looking for an escape hatch. There isn't one.
You've lost. I win.

[perfect_pitch]

And your obsessive fallback to the "AI" accusation is the ultimate concession. It is a desperate, transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that you have zero substantive counter-arguments left. You cannot address the points, so you attack the method.

No... I used all my arguments - and as I said - you were dismissive of all of them.

In fact, I think it's fair to say that since you used ChatGPT for most of your arguments... you've had no arguments...

ChatGPT made most of them; you merely just copy and pasted what was on the screen.



You lose.

Good night...