FORUM LAWS OF PHYSICS!

[Sandmaster]

no they aren't!

(you're supposed to argue back triggering a chain reaction causing the debate)

I think I can add that one. 1 sec

[General Veers]

You just disproved yourself. (There, a counterattack.) End of discussion.

Thank you for adding that one.

[Sandmaster]

But it isn't true (now how do we get a religious subject into this?)!

[vaconcovat]

*Sand master appears at least once in every thread
*Soccerking will change his avatar frequently because he is never quite happy with it.
*Vinister will never get vaconcovat's name right

[General Veers]

That reminds me, isn't it a general rule that a particular staff member will change his name at least five times in one year?

[Qwerty]

yes, that is one.

13. If inappropriate images are involved, DhoomLord, Ozone, and Chernobog will be there.

yes... to delete it...

[Sandmaster]

hmm...idk much about you, but i'm pretty sure it is valid when it comes to mono and dhoom XD

[vaconcovat]

Wow

and yeah, i agree with SM

what about my rules! THEY'RE AWESOME.

lol

[Sandmaster]

Your first was redundant (if it exists, SandMaster will post on it)

Your seconnd could be merged with Nedraxos' name changing

Your third makes no sense to me

[vaconcovat]

ask vinister about my third rule

[Buggy793]

That one about Nedraxos's name change is so true...
We should also add:

-You will never see Sandmaster under Online Now
-If his avatar is unusual or misunderstood, he's staff
-Staff applications are always open, but no one knows it. It just happens
-Everyone on chat is staff
-If previous rule is untrue, person has been of forum less than a month
-Haxor is a place of honor on this board and are usually more respected than most normal members

Some of these are vague, but who the heck cares. (See Rule 2)

[Soul Alchemist]

I was actually crying these were so funny....except for the Shandy is a girl one....

- If it is Listo, then it is a game
- GV will only come onto chat as a guest, and if not, the universe will collapse
- SPIRITbot is a robot, the leader of all sentient machines, and will lead the machines to the destruction of humanity
- SPIRITbot is NOT secretly in love with a human named SilentlyRandom
- despite everyone's thoughts, SilentlyRandom and General Veers actually WOULD make a good match.
- At least 5 noobs will actually take these rules seriously

I bet you ten Dan-Balls (not really. I don't gamble) that some noob will.

[dhoomlord666]

44. The name "DarkWinter" and "Nigramancer" are considered bannable names.
45. Chernobog does in fact live in a bog
46. I am an EcoTerrorist
47. Alpha16 will never become Beta17
48. TheListo will now be referred to as Devin Shawler
49. If your Appendix bursts, you will divide by zero and die.
50. Records do in fact spin right round
51. Rick Astley is Never gonna give you up.
52. IP addresses can change on the hour.
53. Ha55ii is not God. TehL33tz0 is god.
54. Pi does not infact equal Eight Slices
55. SandMaster has sand in his shorts
56. Spiritbot likes Grills
57. Qwerty/Chernobog love Black Hoes
58. Uploads by JVigger are to be deleted on sight.
59. Sendai45 is God of Art.
60. KITTEHCAT ISH CYEWT.
61. DhoomLord likes Tigers
62. MaybeTomorrow is a n3rD.
63. AeroDude has a sister. AeroDudette.
64. LISTO LUVS SILENTLYRANDOM!
65. Soccerking likes soccer
66. P0wD3rFr3ak is a Pornographog. If seen on chat, we will contain situation.

[Sandmaster]

Added rules 43-66 from the reuest lists

[Sandmaster]

Added rules 69-80

[General Veers]

Actually, I never was demoted, I just sound higher than I really am (General is higher than Major General, which is my true rank).

Besides, there is no rank of "Private" in the Imperial Ranking system...

The lowest anyone could be in the army is "Second Lieutenant."

---

Also, rules 18, 70, and 74 are not necessarily true. Converses are not necessarily true if conditions are true. Based off the "Theories on Life, the Universe, and Everything" thread, I thought you knew better...

Here's a reminder on logic:

p: primary logical hypothesis (If...)
q: primary logical conclusion (then...)
~: not/negative

Condition: pq
Converse: qp
Inverse: ~p~q
Contrapositive: ~q~p

• True condition automatically implies true contrapositive.
  
• False condition automatically implies false contrapositive.
  
• True converse automatically implies true inverse.
  
• False converse automatically implies false inverse.

• True condition does not necessarily imply true or false converse.
  
• False condition does not necessarily imply true or false converse.
  
• True condition does not necessarily imply true or false inverse.
  
• False condition does not necessarily imply true or false inverse.
  
• True contrapositive does not necessarily imply true or false converse.
  
• False contrapositive does not necessarily imply true or false converse.
  
• True contrapositive does not necessarily imply true or false inverse.
  
• False contrapositive does not necessarily imply true or false inverse.

[SMLG]

It isn't a converse, its a transitional.

The rules imply that if P (variable) then Q (important), while rule 2 implies that if Q (important) then ~R (staff will not do it. The negation isn't necessary because we arent using R in any other way)

This is perfectly valid and therefore serves no problem.

I'll fix the 'private veers' thing

[Soul Alchemist]

and thus, we go into a large, flammable debate on how the star wars governments work and the rankings thereof.

ooh, new rule:
- if it has SandMaster, General Veers, or SPIRITBot, the flammability of the topic is raised at least 50%

[artik]

Nonjas give Artik a stomachache.

[General Veers]

Jan 25, 2009 12:06:37 GMT -5 Sandmaster said:

2. If it’s important, staff won’t do it.

p₁q₁
...

70. The Great Debate is awesome. If it wasn’t discussed on the Great Debate, it is not important (therefore staff act upon it, as shown by law 2).

p₂q₂(r₂)
var~p₁(~q₁)
...

74. If it’s in the spam board, it isn’t important (therefore staff act upon it according to law 2).

p₃q₃(r₃)
var~p₁(~q₁)

Alright, maybe I should state that the parentheticals are not necessarily true because the primary conclusion (which serves as the secondary hypothesis for the secondary condition) in conjunction with the secondary conclusion (the parenthetical) indeed form the converse of rule 2, i.e. ~qr when r=. The primary condition (p & q) gets away, since it does not "match" with rule 2, but the secondary condition (q & r) does not and acts as the converse.

Red is the opposite/"negative" of green, and purple is the opposite/"negative" of yellow.

pq
qp
~p~q
~q~p

You get away with rule 18, in which case locking is not always equivalent to "doing."

If you define "doing" and "acting upon" as being similar enough to use interchangeably in logical conditions, then the parentheticals in rules 72 and 74 in conjunction with their primary conclusions (i.e. the secondary conclusion) of rules 72 and 74 are inverses of rule 2. As such, rules 72 and 74 may be true but are not necessarily true based off rule 2 alone.

If you DON'T define "doing" and "acting upon" as being similar enough to use interchangeably in logical conditions, then I give up trying to argue the "logic" case for the aforementioned rules (2, 70, 74).