E Trondhjems fotballag
Å Rosenborg, å Rosenborg
Tar seiern hjem i dag
Vi reise oss på store stå
Når Troillongan går på
Å ingen banke RBK
Åheiåheiåheiåhååååååååååååååååååååååååååååå! 
Yay, unless Brann gets two 6-0 victories in their last two matches, and Rosenborg gets two 0-6 defeats, it looks as if I’ll be buying a new shirt next year. After all, I gotta have one with two stars on it, don’t it?
On a slightly more depressing note, it looks as if Molde’s gonna be relegated. Unless they win their last two matches, I fear they’ll trade places with Aalesund next year, without necessarily getting Aalesund’s innate capacity for winning the Division 1 every year they play there… 
Finally: I’d originally planned a victorious return to my forums tonight, but between Brann-Rosenborg and Ultimate X-Men, there ain’t much time for anything else. Oh well. At least I managed to drag my lazy ass back to Everestia Community/Guardians’s Grove a few days ago… 
(Oh, and I managed to create four or five new categories, just for this post. Ain’t I the clever one? )
Posts
Great. Even more categories we really dont need.
In fact, there could be that RBK could do it this year.
23. October 2006 @ 16:58 ( Permalink )
Could be? So long as they get one more point, they’ve got the gold in their pocket already. And even if they were to lose their two final matches, their goal difference is so good that the defeats probably won’t matter.
23. October 2006 @ 17:19 ( Permalink )
Good to see there are people out there who give a flying fuck. With all the energy spent on this nonsense, there should be.
23. October 2006 @ 18:06 ( Permalink )
What people like you don’t understand, Loki, is that It’s not G(g)od/s, belief in Christ or very old, nonsensical books that will bless our wretched souls.
It’s a firm belief in Roar Strand, RBK and 4-3-3 that will be your ticket through the pearly gates!
24. October 2006 @ 16:05 ( Permalink )
Either that, or that it’s nice to have some trivial matter to get all emotional about. Just because one likes one part of the game, doesn’t mean one necessarily likes all of it.
Nice to see you around, Lothair Manthelar!
24. October 2006 @ 19:12 ( Permalink )
“What people like you don’t understand, Loki, is that It’s not G(g)od/s, belief in Christ or very old, nonsensical books that will bless our wretched souls.
It’s a firm belief in Roar Strand, RBK and 4-3-3 that will be your ticket through the pearly gates!”
Empirical evidence, please?
24. October 2006 @ 22:37 ( Permalink )
I can’t give you that, Loki (for reasons I believe appearent).
But what I can give you is an example of a man given divine luck. Mr. Diego Maradona wouldn’t have survived his addiction if it wasn’t for his god-like skills with the ball.
But come on; who demands empirical evidence on such a theory? Would you say the same thing to a Christian or a Buddhist?
Terje wrote:
Nice to see you around, Lothair Manthelar!
Thank you. Brækar gave me the address (because I was getting thouroughly annoyed with you not showing up on the Pattern. The standard of the posts drop dramatically when you’re not around)
I’ll be reading this blog quite reguraly, so don’t post to many incomprehensible “theory” posts, okay?
25. October 2006 @ 15:22 ( Permalink )
Post them, I read here every day.
Speaking of post.
http://sauhuset.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B9CC63D9288CFB4B!147.entry
25. October 2006 @ 15:39 ( Permalink )
“The standard of the posts drop dramatically when you’re not around”
Well duh.
“I’ll be reading this blog quite reguraly, so don’t post to many incomprehensible “theory” posts, okay?”
yayz0r.
25. October 2006 @ 16:08 ( Permalink )
“But come on; who demands empirical evidence on such a theory? Would you say the same thing to a Christian or a Buddhist?”
Uhm, yes? If they claimed or implied that this was true for me as well as themselves and spoke in a way assuming I would take their word for it, I would and at several points in time have. (Alright, not with Buddhists, don’t know too many of those)
25. October 2006 @ 19:29 ( Permalink )
Uhm, yes? If they claimed or implied that this was true for me as well as themselves and spoke in a way assuming I would take their word for it, I would and at several points in time have. (Alright, not with Buddhists, don’t know too many of those)
But it’s down right impossible, and it’s not common practise amongst the scientific community, or similar ones, to demand such evidence.
“The standard of the posts drop dramatically when you’re not around”
Well duh.
And if you don’t show your sorry ass at least once every fortnight - I’ll sharpen my wits and drive you out of this blog so your only safe harbour will be the Pattern.
My best regards, Lotta - Evil Maniac Come To This Earth To Torment And Pass Final Judgment On Peoples View Of Exitence ( both virtually and spiritually)
25. October 2006 @ 23:06 ( Permalink )
“And if you don’t show your sorry ass at least once every fortnight - I’ll sharpen my wits and drive you out of this blog so your only safe harbour will be the Pattern.”
Yeah, because the threats of some 17 year old who can’t even make a decent stand against Loki for at least a few posts? Not gonna be much to worry about.
25. October 2006 @ 23:15 ( Permalink )
How am I to provide him proof that no one can provide. Unfortunately for you, Terje, I’m not about to test theory just yet.
(I’ve always had my doubts about Roars shooting skills)
And I’m sixteen, although I’m flattered that you thought I was older
25. October 2006 @ 23:24 ( Permalink )
“How am I to provide him proof that no one can provide. Unfortunately for you, Terje, I’m not about to test theory just yet.”
Like he said, if you claim that your beliefs are the best for him as well, he should expect to see some kind of proof for that, don’t you agree? And if you were unable to prove this thesis of yours, well, than he would have the right to totally ignore you.
“And I’m sixteen, although I’m flattered that you thought I was older”
Heh, I actualy thought you were 18, so I meant to insult you.
26. October 2006 @ 00:48 ( Permalink )
“But it’s down right impossible, and it’s not common practise amongst the scientific community, or similar ones, to demand such evidence.”
…Seeing as I have no relation to any scientific community, I don’t see the relevance of their practise as to my chosen form of behaviour.
And if it’s impossible to show me you’re right, you needn’t bother to try tell me you’re right, I’ll have no grounds for believing you anyway. (Which Terje, by the way, just said in slightly different words)
26. October 2006 @ 01:07 ( Permalink )
Like he said, if you claim that your beliefs are the best for him as well, he should expect to see some kind of proof for that, don’t you agree? And if you were unable to prove this thesis of yours, well, than he would have the right to totally ignore you.
I’ve always thought keeping an open mind about almost any subject is the best way to go. Even if you don’t believe it to be true, it’s smarterer to say “it might” anyways.
Heh, I actualy thought you were 18, so I meant to insult you.
That was one cheek. Could you please kiss the other :p?
lol
26. October 2006 @ 15:25 ( Permalink )
” Even if you don’t believe it to be true, it’s smarterer to say “it might” anyways.”
I’ve never said it wasn’t true, I’ve just asked you for empirical evidence for it being true. _Of course_ it MIGHT be true. Almost every concievable statement MIGHT be in some way true. Stating that would be horribly redundant and even condescending towards you to as it would seem I thought that if I just fed you an obvious banality, you’d be happy and move on your way. Instead of that, however, I gave you the chance to explain to me *why* this statement of yours is something I should pay extra notice to. Almost everything MIGHT be true. By asking for evidence, I’m already stating that your statement MIGHT be true in my eyes. If I thought it couldn’t be true, I couldn’t very well ask you if you could provide evidence, could I? That’d be downright silly and even slightly mean. What I want from you is something which seperates your belief from all the zillions of concievable concepts which also might be true. Thus, I ask you for evidence I can experience empirically.
26. October 2006 @ 18:55 ( Permalink )
Loki: Asking some poor 16-year old to prove something that in essence is unprovable proves that you 1. take pleasure in confronting other people with their views even though you don’t profit from it yourself (except for the pleasure you take in it) 2. have way too much faith in humanity.
And I think we can dismiss alternative two. Show some more empathy, old chap, you just showed us that it isn’t clever to try to force your world-view unto other people, so don’t do it yourself.
Lotte/Lothair/Filthy namestealer: Giving Loki an excuse to argue with you proves that you deserved everything you got, so I can’t really see why I tried to defend you, except from the fact that you seemed like a relatively clever guy… Still, we can’t let that influence you overmuch, can we? Arrogance is punished. Always.
- Ole/Lothair
26. October 2006 @ 22:04 ( Permalink )
“Asking some poor 16-year old to prove something that in essence is unprovable proves that you 1. take pleasure in confronting other people with their views even though you don’t profit from it yourself (except for the pleasure you take in it) 2. have way too much faith in humanity.”
1! 1! 1!
“And I think we can dismiss alternative two.”
1! 1! 1!
“Show some more empathy, old chap, you just showed us that it isn’t clever to try to force your world-view unto other people, so don’t do it yourself.”
Nonsense, I just showed you that it isn’t clever to try to force one’s world-view onto _me_.
“Arrogance is punished. Always.”
Really?
(…when will I be punished for mine, then? *horrified*)
26. October 2006 @ 22:08 ( Permalink )
“Nonsense, I just showed you that it isn’t clever to try to force one’s world-view onto _me_.”
Onto you or Terje, or even me. We are three, and your point have been proved so extremely many times before, so I’d say that it’ve been proved that you shouldn’t try to force your views onto other people. Unless, of course, you feel that blindly following other people benefits the follower?
“(…when will I be punished for mine, then? *horrified*)”
That you fear punishment means that you aren’t Arrogant with a capital A. And I know you so well that I’m sure that you aren’t arrogant, you just sort people after ability and intelligence, and the fact that you place yourself high on that list don’t make you arrogant, it just make you an individual (what person would say that he himself don’t meet the criteria he sets for valuing people?).
26. October 2006 @ 22:14 ( Permalink )
“Unless, of course, you feel that blindly following other people benefits the follower?”
See, Lotta? This is one of those statements which MIGHT be true. It can probably be believed if backed up by proof. In any case, I suspect there are contexts where this statement is true, but I won’t take that for granted ’til I procure such evidence. (I’m not interested enough to do that, though, so I’ll just leave the statement uncommented, or as close to it I can get after this paragraph)
” (what person would say that he himself don’t meet the criteria he sets for valuing people?).”
A suicidal one? And thanks for your cheery view of me.
26. October 2006 @ 22:33 ( Permalink )
Yay! Comments! And an entertaining quarrel! Yay again!
27. October 2006 @ 00:49 ( Permalink )
You’re quite welcome.
27. October 2006 @ 01:51 ( Permalink )
I guess it’s my turn now?
Lotte/Lothair/Filthy namestealer: Giving Loki an excuse to argue with you proves that you deserved everything you got, so I can’t really see why I tried to defend you, except from the fact that you seemed like a relatively clever guy… Still, we can’t let that influence you overmuch, can we? Arrogance is punished. Always.
- Ole/Lothair
First thing first: I am very sorry for having exploited your good name. Had I known that someone already was using this beautiful name when i typed it in many months ago, I wouldn’t have typed it in. I always try to be original, so this is a hard blow to my imagined rep.
This whole argument started out with a silly joke that i KNEW would annoy either Terje or Loki. It was my first comment on this blog and I wanted to make myself noticed. I would say I succeded brilliantly in every respect other than winning the argument, which I frankly had no hope of doing. (Empirical evidence? What the frak is that? - this is not a good sign :p)
“Arrogance is punished. Always.”
Really?
(…when will I be punished for mine, then? *horrified*)
Hark… When I grow to powerfull for you to handle. Then I’ll smack you good!
27. October 2006 @ 10:13 ( Permalink )
You didn’t annoy me, so you didn’t succeed there. Quite the opposite, you amused me. However, you did get attention, so kudos.
27. October 2006 @ 12:01 ( Permalink )
“(I’m not interested enough to do that, though, so I’ll just leave the statement uncommented, or as close to it I can get after this paragraph)”
Heh, thanks. The “I could’ve won this argument but I’m not interested enough to do so”-defence is so bad that I’ll take the fact that you resorted to it as a victory.
” ”(what person would say that he himself don’t meet the criteria he sets for valuing people?).”
A suicidal one? And thanks for your cheery view of me.”
Well, you are in no way suicidal, so I’ll take the fact that you resorted to such an unnessecary comment as another victory. And for my view of you: If I had sorted people after the same criteria I said you sorted after you would be HIGH up on that list. And if that’s not cheery, then I don’t know what is… (Of course I do. But for the sake of melodrama, let’s ignore that.)
27. October 2006 @ 14:44 ( Permalink )
“Heh, thanks. The “I could’ve won this argument but I’m not interested enough to do so”-defence is so bad that I’ll take the fact that you resorted to it as a victory.”
What? Defense? No! I yielded! My reason for yielding was that I couldn’t be bothered - you know as well as I do that finding such examples would be relatively easily done - but that doesn’t change my yielding. No need to “take that fact” as anything, no interpretation needed, I yielded, plain ‘n’ simple.
“If I had sorted people after the same criteria I said you sorted after you would be HIGH up on that list. ”
So, basically you’re saying that in my scale of judging people, you recognize that I myself score pretty high…? Gee, thanks…
27. October 2006 @ 19:15 ( Permalink )