vaelian
About
- Username
- vaelian
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 446
Reactions
Comments
-
anonymouse wrote: » vaelian wrote: » And I demonstrated to be open to that possibility. If you don't think I refuted everything, please bring it up for further discussion and clarification. Well, you were, using your own rules of argument, un…
-
jragosta wrote: » 1. You claimed that Apple Maps was inferior in accuracy. Nope, I did not make any quality claims in this thread. Feel free to prove me wrong with a quote, though. jragosta wrote: » 2. You refuse to provide even a shred o…
-
jragosta wrote: » Oh, so we're going to drop the accuracy argument that you've been soundly losing and move to a features argument? Well, aside from the fact that the discussion had nothing to do with features, let's play your game. Nope, we're…
-
anonymouse wrote: » I think we all missed the part where you actually refuted anything. However, in the spirit of your logic... And I demonstrated to be open to that possibility. If you don't think I refuted everything, please bring it up for …
-
anonymouse wrote: » Objectivism is a philosophy propounded by Ayn Rand. And, no, there aren't really any debatable points. OK, then not only can you not clearly position the goal posts, but you are also denying things that you accepted earli…
-
anonymouse wrote: » That was my subjective comparison's, not the article's, Mr. Magic Logic Powers. Do you recall me asking for your definition of objectivism? You claim that the article is objective, yet you agree that certain points are deba…
-
jragosta wrote: » Really? Where was that proven? In the same post where you claimed to have magically refuted any future arguments I might make? When I mentioned that it lacks a feature similar to Google Street View. jragosta wrote: » So, …
-
anonymouse wrote: » You may feel that any result is better than no result, however, I'll take accuracy over nonsense any day. Now who's having trouble with reading comprehension? Or did you ignore that because it didn't support your argument? Y…
-
jragosta wrote: » So please show us the evidence that #1 is greater than #2. You keep insisting on the claim that Apple Maps is worse, so you must have evidence to prove that #1 is greater than #2. So where is it? The article you cited didn't supp…
-
jragosta wrote: » You're forgetting that Vaelian has some magic logic powers. Earlier in this thread, for example, he told me that he had already refuted every argument I had ever made as well as any argument I would ever make in the future. Th…
-
anonymouse wrote: » Given that the link did not declare Google Maps better, not even in search (Google Maps more likely to return a search result but search result more likely to be nonsense hardly qualifies as better.) That's not given, and yo…
-
anonymouse wrote: » He was talking about something else, no one knew, our bad. (We still haven't been able to pin down exactly what he was talking about, of course.) Prove that no one knew. So far, the only one who seems to be confused is you.…
-
anonymouse wrote: » I guess that's why none of your comments make any sense. You were talking about something unrelated the whole time. Not my fault if you are incapable of following the context of a thread... I came late and managed to do it;…
-
anonymouse wrote: » I gave a link at the beginning of this thread that illustrates what is meant by an objective comparison. And I demonstrated that the link you provided did not back up your claims and even mentioned some cases where Google ma…
-
anonymouse wrote: » Well, no, you haven't refuted anything because the entire discussion is about the relative quality of the mapping data. The branch of the discussion we're in has strayed from that a long time ago thus making it irrelevant fo…
-
anonymouse wrote: » Oh, I see. You aren't concerned with the overall quality of the mapping data, just a feature checklist. I think you're posting in the wrong thread, that's not what this discussion is about. That deduction is irrational. Jus…
-
anonymouse wrote: » As we all know, there's nothing about that site that qualifies it as an objective comparison. Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Or perhaps you can define "objective" so that we can scrutinize the application of you…
-
anonymouse wrote: » Oh, can you link to some of that evidence? And by evidence, I mean object comparisons, not anecdotal, incidental stories. Because, so far, no one has been able to provide a link to this evidence. I knew you'd know where we coul…
-
suddenly newton wrote: » Is that supposed to be a justification for your double standard? Nope, the justification was already given: Apple Maps replaced Google Maps, but Google Maps didn't replace anything. Different conditions justify differe…
-
anonymouse wrote: » So, is it your position that Apple Maps isn't as good as Google Maps, or that it's fine as a replacement for them? Yes, there's lots of evidence of that thus making it factual, ranging from missing features to missing or ina…