Since Rey likely isn't a Jedi...

"Woodroward;c-1019396" wrote:

"Mullato;c-1019384" wrote:

Lmao, that's not not how it works buddy.

You are trying to convince everyone that Something happened. Everyone else is saying that Nothing happened. You dont have to provide proof when Nothing happens.

This is like everyone telling you that trees can't jump, but you are telling us that one time you think you saw a tree jump. Who do you think needs to provide proof in that case? Exactly, if nothing happens there is no proof necessary, if something happens, then proof is necessary.

As it stands, this isn't looking good for the case or not of you being a troll or delusional. Because there is plenty of proof in this thread of that.

IF I was trying to convince anyone of anything. That would be the case. But I have stated over and over again that that isn't the case. I am trying to convince NO ONE of ANYTHING.

You ARE trying to convince me of something. That means the burden of proof falls to you, and that is EXACTLY how it works.

Maybe you should look into the burden of proof a little bit.

Nope troll, you are trying to convince everyone of something happening. In this case it's something "mysteriously appearing in game, and then mysteriously disappearing."

If you are not trying to convince us of anything, then what exactly are you doing?

Ohhhh right, being a troll.

"Tatebomb;c-1019407" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1019396" wrote:

"Mullato;c-1019384" wrote:

Lmao, that's not not how it works buddy.

You are trying to convince everyone that Something happened. Everyone else is saying that Nothing happened. You dont have to provide proof when Nothing happens.

This is like everyone telling you that trees can't jump, but you are telling us that one time you think you saw a tree jump. Who do you think needs to provide proof in that case? Exactly, if nothing happens there is no proof necessary, if something happens, then proof is necessary.

As it stands, this isn't looking good for the case or not of you being a troll or delusional. Because there is plenty of proof in this thread of that.

IF I was trying to convince anyone of anything. That would be the case. But I have stated over and over again that that isn't the case. I am trying to convince NO ONE of ANYTHING.

You ARE trying to convince me of something. That means the burden of proof falls to you, and that is EXACTLY how it works.

Maybe you should look into the burden of proof a little bit.

Rey had a jedi tag and a lightsaber 3 months ago. No one saw it but me and they quickly removed it though. Prove me wrong.

Oh, wow I must of missed that, but since you remember it happening then it must be true.

"Woodroward;c-1019378" wrote:


I have tried to convince no one of anything, therefore I have no need to produce proof. However others ARE trying to convince me of something, and that means that proof is required.

So you can continue to troll me by posting in response without proof, or you can move on. The choice is yours. Are you a man of merit or a troll? Your choice reveals the answer to this question.

The burden of proof is on you. not me. YOU are the one insisting I adopt your understanding.

This is utter nonsense. You've been insisting for two days that Kylo Ren was a Sith, so don't say everyone else must follow different rules than you, who can provide zero evidence. The reason you can't is because it never happened. If he had been labeled a Sith you would have seen threads on this forum asking: "why is he a Sith?" because it has been known since before the game was released and before the Force Awakens was released that he was not a Sith. There have been plenty of threads asking why he's not a Sith and in no instance have I ever seen anyone say that the game tagged him temporarily as one.

Sorry, your charge = your burden of proof.

"Mullato;c-1019404" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1019396" wrote:

"Mullato;c-1019384" wrote:

Lmao, that's not not how it works buddy.

You are trying to convince everyone that Something happened. Everyone else is saying that Nothing happened. You dont have to provide proof when Nothing happens.

This is like everyone telling you that trees can't jump, but you are telling us that one time you think you saw a tree jump. Who do you think needs to provide proof in that case? Exactly, if nothing happens there is no proof necessary, if something happens, then proof is necessary.

As it stands, this isn't looking good for the case or not of you being a troll or delusional. Because there is plenty of proof in this thread of that.

IF I was trying to convince anyone of anything. That would be the case. But I have stated over and over again that that isn't the case. I am trying to convince NO ONE of ANYTHING.

You ARE trying to convince me of something. That means the burden of proof falls to you, and that is EXACTLY how it works.

Maybe you should look into the burden of proof a little bit.

Nope troll, you are trying to convince everyone of something happening. In this case it's something "mysteriously appearing in game, and then mysteriously disappearing."

If you are not trying to convince us of anything, then what exactly are you doing?

Ohhhh right, being a troll.

I mentioned something I saw. People told me I didn't see it. People addressed me. I responded.

If I had addressed you all, you'd have a foot to stand on when you call me a troll, but I didn't you all addressed me. Ipso Facto, you are the trolls.

You want me to somehow take my memory out and place it on the screen for you to see? Whether or not he actually has it is irrelevant. I saw it. That's what I said. You all said I was wrong. Prove I didn't see it.

"Tatebomb;c-1019407" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1019396" wrote:

"Mullato;c-1019384" wrote:

Lmao, that's not not how it works buddy.

You are trying to convince everyone that Something happened. Everyone else is saying that Nothing happened. You dont have to provide proof when Nothing happens.

This is like everyone telling you that trees can't jump, but you are telling us that one time you think you saw a tree jump. Who do you think needs to provide proof in that case? Exactly, if nothing happens there is no proof necessary, if something happens, then proof is necessary.

As it stands, this isn't looking good for the case or not of you being a troll or delusional. Because there is plenty of proof in this thread of that.

IF I was trying to convince anyone of anything. That would be the case. But I have stated over and over again that that isn't the case. I am trying to convince NO ONE of ANYTHING.

You ARE trying to convince me of something. That means the burden of proof falls to you, and that is EXACTLY how it works.

Maybe you should look into the burden of proof a little bit.

Rey had a jedi tag and a lightsaber 3 months ago. No one saw it but me and they quickly removed it though. Prove me wrong.

Oh, wow I must of missed that, but since you remember it happening then it must be true.

"Woodroward;c-1019418" wrote:

"Mullato;c-1019404" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1019396" wrote:

"Mullato;c-1019384" wrote:

Lmao, that's not not how it works buddy.

You are trying to convince everyone that Something happened. Everyone else is saying that Nothing happened. You dont have to provide proof when Nothing happens.

This is like everyone telling you that trees can't jump, but you are telling us that one time you think you saw a tree jump. Who do you think needs to provide proof in that case? Exactly, if nothing happens there is no proof necessary, if something happens, then proof is necessary.

As it stands, this isn't looking good for the case or not of you being a troll or delusional. Because there is plenty of proof in this thread of that.

IF I was trying to convince anyone of anything. That would be the case. But I have stated over and over again that that isn't the case. I am trying to convince NO ONE of ANYTHING.

You ARE trying to convince me of something. That means the burden of proof falls to you, and that is EXACTLY how it works.

Maybe you should look into the burden of proof a little bit.

Nope troll, you are trying to convince everyone of something happening. In this case it's something "mysteriously appearing in game, and then mysteriously disappearing."

If you are not trying to convince us of anything, then what exactly are you doing?

Ohhhh right, being a troll.

I mentioned something I saw. People told me I didn't see it. People addressed me. I responded.

If I had addressed you all, you'd have a foot to stand on when you call me a troll, but I didn't you all addressed me. Ipso Facto, you are the trolls.

Quiet troll, no one cares about your gibberish.

"Tatebomb;c-1019407" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1019396" wrote:

"Mullato;c-1019384" wrote:

Lmao, that's not not how it works buddy.

You are trying to convince everyone that Something happened. Everyone else is saying that Nothing happened. You dont have to provide proof when Nothing happens.

This is like everyone telling you that trees can't jump, but you are telling us that one time you think you saw a tree jump. Who do you think needs to provide proof in that case? Exactly, if nothing happens there is no proof necessary, if something happens, then proof is necessary.

As it stands, this isn't looking good for the case or not of you being a troll or delusional. Because there is plenty of proof in this thread of that.

IF I was trying to convince anyone of anything. That would be the case. But I have stated over and over again that that isn't the case. I am trying to convince NO ONE of ANYTHING.

You ARE trying to convince me of something. That means the burden of proof falls to you, and that is EXACTLY how it works.

Maybe you should look into the burden of proof a little bit.

So essentially you're just the crazy guy on the corner with the end is near sign not caring about anything. You come on here making claims with zero proof to back it up and get mad when we call you out on it. Gotcha. And like the crazy guy on the corner best thing for all of us is to ignore your rambling.

Rey had a jedi tag and a lightsaber 3 months ago. No one saw it but me and they quickly removed it though. Prove me wrong.

Good for you. Difference is, I ain't making shit up to troll someone like you just did.

You addressed me, you are trolling me. I didn't address you. I am not trolling you.

lmao, and he's still going.

What's utter nonsense is saying that I tried to insist that other people agree with me. That's your misinterpretation of my words. I have NEVER tried to make anyone agree with me. The only thing I have INSISTED on is that I saw it. There's no way for me to prove that.

Burden of proof is something that exists in scientific circles and court. That's where it comes from. The burden of proof falls on someone making the accusation or discovery. I have accused no one. I have made no claim of discovery. I saw what I saw, but I didn't discover it. I didn't write the code. It wasn't my creation.

Sure, in layman's terms burden of proof means that anyone who says anything has to provide proof of what they've said or they're wrong, but that's not the way it actually is.

Now many people have ACCUSED me of being wrong. They are bringing their words up in contention to mine. It was not I who was contending what other people believe, but the reverse. All I did was stated my current knowledge. I provided the details of how I know it. My job is done.

Contesting what I have said would require actual proof though.

The common knowledge version of the burden of proof has as much merit to it as The geocentric view of the universe does... which is to say none.

True... If he says he saw Rey with a Jedi tag and a lightsaber but it was removed before anyone even knew it happened.... We can't claim he is making it up, he's basically stating something similar as you Wood... Hahah xD i hope you can see this joke as a good example of how you're sounding here...

Again buddy, you said you saw, ppl said you didn't because it was never there. It was never there. You could start thinking to yourself that MAYBE you got it wrong? No one is accusing you of making it up, we're just saying it was never there. Then you started to reply as if you're been trolled, but you aren't, you're been told a FACT.

"Tatebomb;c-1019427" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1019424" wrote:

"Tatebomb;c-1019407" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1019396" wrote:

"Mullato;c-1019384" wrote:

Lmao, that's not not how it works buddy.

You are trying to convince everyone that Something happened. Everyone else is saying that Nothing happened. You dont have to provide proof when Nothing happens.

This is like everyone telling you that trees can't jump, but you are telling us that one time you think you saw a tree jump. Who do you think needs to provide proof in that case? Exactly, if nothing happens there is no proof necessary, if something happens, then proof is necessary.

As it stands, this isn't looking good for the case or not of you being a troll or delusional. Because there is plenty of proof in this thread of that.

IF I was trying to convince anyone of anything. That would be the case. But I have stated over and over again that that isn't the case. I am trying to convince NO ONE of ANYTHING.

You ARE trying to convince me of something. That means the burden of proof falls to you, and that is EXACTLY how it works.

Maybe you should look into the burden of proof a little bit.

So essentially you're just the crazy guy on the corner with the end is near sign not caring about anything. You come on here making claims with zero proof to back it up and get mad when we call you out on it. Gotcha. And like the crazy guy on the corner best thing for all of us is to ignore your rambling.

Rey had a jedi tag and a lightsaber 3 months ago. No one saw it but me and they quickly removed it though. Prove me wrong.

Good for you. Difference is, I ain't making **** up to troll someone like you just did.

You addressed me, you are trolling me. I didn't address you. I am not trolling you.

I'm not making it up. I'm not trying to convince you the Rey had a lightsaber. The burden is on you to prove that I made it up. You are the one accusing me of making it up.

If you had just commented it that would be the case. but you did in conjunction with a trolling post. You are obviously trolling. There's a difference. Your analogy fails.

You're a troll, I am not. That's fine. If you want to be a troll, be a troll. But at least own it.