Chaotic Rapier vs Longsword

[Obtaurian]

I'm not discounting the utility of RS wiki, rather I'm pointing out the idiocy of claiming RS wiki as canon.

 

That was sarcasm....correct?

 

Why would it be sarcasm?

[stonewall337]

I'm not discounting the utility of RS wiki, rather I'm pointing out the idiocy of claiming RS wiki as canon.

 

That was sarcasm....correct?

 

 

Let me rephrase that for you, since you misunderstood me:

 

RS Wiki has a use, at times. However, claiming that RS wiki has ONLY correct information is idiotic and illogical.

[Sir_Armadyl]

Fine, ill check in other pages and find the truth.

[Wingless]

So, there's no proof for, and no proof against. Thus, both theories live until one is logically proven making it a Devil's Proof.

 

Am I seeing a TDs experiment coming up?

[Sir_Armadyl]

http://www.runehq.com/database.php?type=monster&id=00991 STAB, http://es.kendincos.net/video-frtltrr-my-tormented-demon-drops-dragon-claws.html SLASH, http://es.kendincos.net/video-frtltrr-my-tormented-demon-drops-dragon-claws.html STAB, http://forums.zybez.net/blog/1309/entry-3786-show-me-your-weakness-you-monsters/ STAB. That is 3-1 to stab, 4-1 with wikia, i dont really think it is wrong....

[Obtaurian]

So, there's no proof for, and no proof against. Thus, both theories live until one is logically proven making it a Devil's Proof.

 

Am I seeing a TDs experiment coming up?

 

That's not how burden of proof works. If someone claims something to be true, they must provide proof to back their claim. Until they can prove it to be true, it's untrue. Thus, Sir Armadyl's claim is untrue until he provides proof (preferably something other than a few links that simply state his claim to be true rather than with EVIDENCE and TESTING).

[Sir_Armadyl]

Besides, when i kill them and darklight isnt working i swich to stab and hits (this CAN be luck, but it happens 100% of time so...)

[Sir_Armadyl]

omg, so i think that if i link this thread to support CR (as it is winning) it wont count because you think they make the stuff up? i donno but u kinda sound like an ass =/

[Wingless]

So, there's no proof for, and no proof against. Thus, both theories live until one is logically proven making it a Devil's Proof.

 

Am I seeing a TDs experiment coming up?

 

That's not how burden of proof works. If someone claims something to be true, they must provide proof to back their claim. Until they can prove it to be true, it's untrue. Thus, Sir Armadyl's claim is untrue until he provides proof (preferably something other than a few links that simply state his claim to be true rather than with EVIDENCE and TESTING).

 

Do you know what Devil's Proof is?

 

In essence the lack of proof that contradicts the given statement makes the statement true in some sense. This connects with the idea that there is no evidence to prove that the devil exists. But there is also no evidence that says "the devil does not exist" so therefore one cannot rule that the devil doesn't exist.

 

Basically, there's no evidence that they're not weak to stab and there's no evidence that they are, which makes it true until it is tested. It's like saying that light orbs carry electricity within wires - there's no proof that that's not true until you look it up or test it yourself, which mean both truths exist at the same time.

[Sir_Armadyl]

So, there's no proof for, and no proof against. Thus, both theories live until one is logically proven making it a Devil's Proof.

 

Am I seeing a TDs experiment coming up?

 

That's not how burden of proof works. If someone claims something to be true, they must provide proof to back their claim. Until they can prove it to be true, it's untrue. Thus, Sir Armadyl's claim is untrue until he provides proof (preferably something other than a few links that simply state his claim to be true rather than with EVIDENCE and TESTING).

 

Do you know what Devil's Proof is?

 

In essence the lack of proof that contradicts the given statement makes the statement true in some sense.

 

Basically, there's no evidence that they're not weak to stab and there's no evidence that they are, which makes it true until it is tested. It's like saying that light orbs carry electricity within wires - there's no proof that that's not true until you look it up or test it yourself, which mean both truths exist at the same time.

 

You are totally right, i have tested it (long time ago) and as i said i used darklight in stab and also d hally, i got quicker kills, but still, these might be just luck...

[MstrMonopoly]

TDs are slightly weaker to stab, from my personal experience. Darklight always seems to hit slightly more often.

[stonewall337]

omg, so i think that if i link this thread to support CR (as it is winning) it wont count because you think they make the stuff up? i donno but u kinda sound like an ass =/

No clue what that meant, but if you think someone requiring proof for your claims is "being an ass" then I think there are quite a few asses on TIF.

 

BTW, there is evidence that TD's are weak to stab, I can vouch for that. That wasn't my point. Rather, you have to be able to PROVE or give EVIDENCE for your claims, rather then just expect people to believe you. Also, most people here who do extensive testing do NOT consider RS wiki a reliable source.

[Obtaurian]

So, there's no proof for, and no proof against. Thus, both theories live until one is logically proven making it a Devil's Proof.

 

Am I seeing a TDs experiment coming up?

 

That's not how burden of proof works. If someone claims something to be true, they must provide proof to back their claim. Until they can prove it to be true, it's untrue. Thus, Sir Armadyl's claim is untrue until he provides proof (preferably something other than a few links that simply state his claim to be true rather than with EVIDENCE and TESTING).

 

Do you know what Devil's Proof is?

 

In essence the lack of proof that contradicts the given statement makes the statement true in some sense. This connects with the idea that there is no evidence to prove that the devil exists. But there is also no evidence that says "the devil does not exist" so therefore one cannot rule that the devil doesn't exist.

 

Basically, there's no evidence that they're not weak to stab and there's no evidence that they are, which makes it true until it is tested. It's like saying that light orbs carry electricity within wires - there's no proof that that's not true until you look it up or test it yourself, which mean both truths exist at the same time.

 

But Burden of Proof is far more applicable in this case, as the argument is verifiable. :rolleyes:

[Smapla]

So, there's no proof for, and no proof against. Thus, both theories live until one is logically proven making it a Devil's Proof.

 

Am I seeing a TDs experiment coming up?

 

That's not how burden of proof works. If someone claims something to be true, they must provide proof to back their claim. Until they can prove it to be true, it's untrue. Thus, Sir Armadyl's claim is untrue until he provides proof (preferably something other than a few links that simply state his claim to be true rather than with EVIDENCE and TESTING).

 

Do you know what Devil's Proof is?

 

In essence the lack of proof that contradicts the given statement makes the statement true in some sense. This connects with the idea that there is no evidence to prove that the devil exists. But there is also no evidence that says "the devil does not exist" so therefore one cannot rule that the devil doesn't exist.

 

Basically, there's no evidence that they're not weak to stab and there's no evidence that they are, which makes it true until it is tested. It's like saying that light orbs carry electricity within wires - there's no proof that that's not true until you look it up or test it yourself, which mean both truths exist at the same time.

 

are you serious?

this isn't schrodinger's cat

 

if someone makes an untested assertion which can be verified, then it's not okay to say that it's true until it's tested. it's just unknown.

 

 

 

oh and lack of proof against a position does not prove that position. i think i can point to russell's teapot or something here?

[Aneron]

I'm not sure what logic goes into saying that something is false until it's proven, but it doesn't sound terribly sound to me.

 

I've heard from enough people over time (from first-hand experiences) that TDs are weak to stab to find his position (that TDs are weak to stab) considerably more credible than your position, that TDs are not weak to stab because all statements are false until incontrovertible evidence in their favor is provided.

[stonewall337]

I'm not sure what logic goes into saying that something is false until it's proven, but it doesn't sound terribly sound to me.

 

I've heard from enough people over time (from first-hand experiences) that TDs are weak to stab to find his position (that TDs are weak to stab) considerably more credible than your position, that TDs are not weak to stab because all statements are false until incontrovertible evidence in their favor is provided.

NO ONE SAID FALSE UNTIL PROVEN. That is where your logic is flawed. Rather, I said at least twice that you can't CLAIM something is true without being willing to prove, or give evidence, to support your claim. I've tested stab at Tds, and I can give evidence that they are weak to stab. But if I wanted to make that claim and have people believe me, I need to be willing to back it up.

 

You are assuming the inverse, which is a logical fallicy. Just because something isn't verifiable until proven doesn't mean it ISN'T true because it hasn't been proven.

[Bladewing]

I've never said that TDs aren't weak to stab. I'm saying that there is not evidence to show that they are significantly (I'll say at α=0.10 to be lenient) weaker to stab than any other type.

 

Until I see this proof, I will have to believe the null hypothesis: "TDs are equally weak to all melee styles".

 

PS: "I killed 10 TDs with stab and 10 with slash and the 10 with stab seemed faster" does not constitute testing

[Smapla]

I'm not sure what logic goes into saying that something is false until it's proven, but it doesn't sound terribly sound to me.

 

I've heard from enough people over time (from first-hand experiences) that TDs are weak to stab to find his position (that TDs are weak to stab) considerably more credible than your position, that TDs are not weak to stab because all statements are false until incontrovertible evidence in their favor is provided.

 

that is not my statement.

 

his statement was (correct me if i'm wrong), that tds are weak to stab. he did not provide any evidence.

 

 

now, let's take a step back. if someone asserts an unverified claim, and i say "you need to verify that before i believe it" i am not saying that the claim is false. i'm saying we don't know if it is true or not.

 

 

i am saying that "tds are weak to stab" has not been proven. this does not mean that i am saying tds are not weak to stab. i own a rapier, it would make me look smarter to have chosen it if tds are weak to stab.

[Aneron]

Until they can prove it to be true, it's untrue.

 

obtaurian posted that. assuming that (1) he posted it (this is verifiable by viewing page 52) and that (2) what people post is what they view (sarcasm is more difficult to detect on the internet but in this instance I believe obtaurian was being serious), obtaurian's view is that an unproven claim is untrue.

 

it has been stated that tormented demons are weak to stab, however this is unproven. since it is unproven, it is therefore untrue in obtaurian's eyes, making my post relevant

 

anyways, I don't think there is anyone on this topic who would post saying that TDs are not weak to stab, and many who would post saying that they are. knowledge isn't democratic, but considering the fact that these forums have a fairly high concentration of people who know what they are talking about, I think it's safe to say

 

TDs are weak to stab

 

which is what matters

[Obtaurian]

Sorry, let me clarify what I meant: I have no reason to believe something that hasn't been proven. I don't necessarily believe that TDs AREN'T weak to stab, but it hasn't been proven (only speculated), so I'm not going to just take his word for it.

[SirIzenhime]

I'm not discounting the utility of RS wiki, rather I'm pointing out the idiocy of claiming RS wiki as canon.

 

That was sarcasm....correct?

 

 

Let me rephrase that for you, since you misunderstood me:

 

RS Wiki has a use, at times. However, claiming that RS wiki has ONLY correct information is idiotic and illogical.

 

My appolgies, I quoted the wrong part, I meant to quote this..

 

 

The KB is never wrong, after all. Jagex is the maker of the game RuneScape, they wouldn't make a mistake, or if they did they would correct it right away!

[stonewall337]

I'm not discounting the utility of RS wiki, rather I'm pointing out the idiocy of claiming RS wiki as canon.

 

That was sarcasm....correct?

 

 

Let me rephrase that for you, since you misunderstood me:

 

RS Wiki has a use, at times. However, claiming that RS wiki has ONLY correct information is idiotic and illogical.

 

My appolgies, I quoted the wrong part, I meant to quote this..

 

 

The KB is never wrong, after all. Jagex is the maker of the game RuneScape, they wouldn't make a mistake, or if they did they would correct it right away!

 

 

Oh lol, ye. It was in response to the person who said that RS wiki was never wrong, there were only "typos" if any mistake was there, since people always edited it to make it 100% correct!

[DyingSilent]

I'm not discounting the utility of RS wiki, rather I'm pointing out the idiocy of claiming RS wiki as canon.

 

That was sarcasm....correct?

 

 

Let me rephrase that for you, since you misunderstood me:

 

RS Wiki has a use, at times. However, claiming that RS wiki has ONLY correct information is idiotic and illogical.

 

My appolgies, I quoted the wrong part, I meant to quote this..

 

 

The KB is never wrong, after all. Jagex is the maker of the game RuneScape, they wouldn't make a mistake, or if they did they would correct it right away!

 

 

Oh lol, ye. It was in response to the person who said that RS wiki was never wrong, there were only "typos" if any mistake was there, since people always edited it to make it 100% correct!

 

Lol riiiiiiight. *Edits RS Wiki Overload level to 99 to watch kids /wrists*

[IHasChicken]

RS wiki still says that monster kills on a PvP world have better drops more often, with absolutely no proof.

[Elf Spice]

This is probably off topic, but I'll ask here instead of making a new thread.

 

For general slaying with a rapier, is ardougne cloak 3 better than SW Cape? How much more time can I save with +6 stab on, say, a metal dragon task?