Thanks very much. I suppose you want to get back to being worshiped full time. Once again, I made a prediction. That's all! A prediction on a thread that asks for predictions. People challenged that prediction. I defended against the challenges (and not a little abuse), in good faith, and in no more than in kind.

And somehow that makes me eligible for post deletion?

GROUPTHINK GONE WILD!

it looks like people are getting fatigued with downvoting you

Is that Newspeak for "people appear to be coming round to your ideas, and I can't have that". Perhaps Obama didn't win. Perhaps the Republicans were just suffering from voting fatique. Perhaps McCain should be US President.

If you implement a voting system, you have to accept ALL the results. You can't REASONABLY or RATIONALLY interpret the results to suit yourself.

Meanwhile, I came, I debated, I won. I'm 1 and 0 for life on this site.

Whatever position I'm taking (away from this thread) is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. I've made a prediction. I invited no responses. Anyone who responds, trying to challenge my prediction, IS taking a position of some sort HERE. Again, I'm not taking any position. I'm making a prediction regarding the likelihood of evidence of my mortality being presented to me in 2010... or ever. I don't say either that I won't die, or that I believe I won't die. I make no statement regarding my position in that regard. My prediction has nothing to do with my actual mortality or immortality. It has to do with the impossibility of your presenting certain evidence to me. It should have led to an interesting discussion about why people accept their own deaths as inevitable, based on no real evidence. I suppose people don't want to discuss that here.

If there is "really no answer" to my prediction, then this thread should contain my prediction and zero responses. That it doesn't is not my fault, although unthinking people are claiming that it is.

You may say that my prediction is trite or obvious, but that's about the limit for reasonable critical response.

There are no such things as independent trolls. Trolls are created by the very people who purport to be responding to them. The act of trolling would always necessarily take at least two. Without a respondent, being a troll is impossible. Without a respondent, trolling would ever be mistaken for ignored posting. That said, "troll" appears to be an anachronism, held over from the period before the WWW. With over a billion having access to the Internet, and with many of those who post on forums lacking the ability to express themselves properly, and any incentive to conduct themselves sociably, "being a troll" should be seen as the rule, and not the exception. I find that "troll" is now a weapon word, used as a means of censorship, in the same way "denier" and "-phobe" are.

As I said earlier, do you guys ever say die at the outset. Or MUST you chase every thrown stick (not that I meant for my original post to be taken for a thrown stick), snapping and growling at the "thrower" when the stick somehow doesn't satisfy?

My negative "karma", accrued on this thread, appears to me as a reflection of the emotional imbalance (and, therefore, irrationality) that appears to permeate this site.

"The" environment?

Excellent question (is that why I'm looking at a -1 on it?) I don't know how to answer it.

Although it's obviously a very relevant point, it doesn't necessarily make my prediction illegitimate. The onus is still on you to provide evidence of my mortality and present it to me.

All you've done is to identify more difficulties. Which makes my prediction all the more likely to come true.

I have nowhere admitted that I have evidence of anyone else's mortality THAT I COULD PRESENT TO THEM. That is, I have no evidence for the mortality of people now alive, only for those already dead. And it's another question whether or not dead people may be considered mortal. Could it be that human beings may only be considered truly mortal at the exact point of death - and since such a point couldn't actually be quantified in time, human beings could never accurately be described as mortal.

I don't see many similarities between myself and any dead person; and any similarities we may have once appeared to share, diminish as time goes on. Leaving me to wonder if they were ever real. The main difference between us is that, while I'm apparently a human being, they're not.

Call me a troll, but I feel this line of thought expands my capacity for thought. I can't wait to get to a clear position of doubt about the fact that we can't be sure of anything.

I've explained to Jack. Perhaps you missed that. I didn't take it because I might die. Just as there is zero evidence for my mortality, there is zero evidence for my immortality. Jack wanted me to accept a bet of his $5 against my entire estate that I would die at some point (i.e., if I died, he'd win). Since the odds equate to a coin toss, the stakes were extremely out of balance.

I wouldn't accept an equal stake bet either, because whether I ever die or not is irrelevant here.

Is the fact that I appear to be alive today evidence of my mortality, my immortality, neither, both?

If you're being a troll: save yourself some trouble and go away. Eliezer's been irritable lately and is apt to boot you.

If I were a troll, would going away somehow be more beneficial to me than being booted? I mean, does this Eliezer actually physically kick suspected trolls? Or would the end result be the exact same? And if I were a troll, do you suppose saving myself some trouble would be my overriding concern?

If you're actually, sincerely trying to have a fun exchange about whether you might be immortal (quantum or otherwise):

1) The little numbers on your comments are, in fact, important and should interest you. They indicate how you're being received, on average.

Why should I care how I'm being received by anonymous faceless strangers, whose posts I may never even have read, and who may not even be taking part in the discussion? Are there Wrongie awards up for grabs? I believe the girl mentioned something about a... check? Please don't tell me that I should alter my thinking and the expression of my ideas to suit popular opinion! Is that what you do?

You may have corrupted public opinion of this account to the point where you can't salvage it...

So, public opinion is going to hold something I wrote on this thread against me forever, and use it against me on other threads, whether it agrees with me on those other threads or not? Have I stumbled into the Old Fishwives' forum by mistake?

If this is the venue you've chosen to have your discussion on, surely you think we make suitable interlocutors - and hopefully, that will let you find informational value in numeric disapproval too.

I began posting here about a minute after I arrived for the first time. I'm just beginning to learn about the mindsets of some of the participants here. I'm not overly impressed so far. I'm prepared though, to give it a chance. No point in going by first impressions. I'll need a few more listenings before I decide if I like it or not.

When people quibble with you over what words mean, that requires your attention too! They're trying to find a way to communicate with you.

I received a response that said (in its entirety) "Taboo legitimate". The word 'Taboo' was a link to an article about something or other that appeared irrelevant. Do you suppose that poster was trying to find a way to communicate? When I questioned him, he apologized for his brevity and expanded on his post, and I withdrew the word 'legitimate", as it was redundant anyway. Others chimed in (as you do here) telling me how I was the one at fault.

Pretty much nobody here will find themselves strangely compelled by protestations that a) your opponents have poor reading comprehension

Yet, Jack, for one, appears to have poor reading comprehension.

b) it is unfair to expect you to do any background reading even when links are supplied

I don't protest that it's unfair. I state that I'm not prepared to do it. If you don't like it, either stop providing such reading material in lieu of originally-phrased arguments, or don't engage me. Nobody is forcing you to respond to me.

c) you are winning

I didn't make this a competition, however, I am winning the debate. It's immaterial that people don't find themselves compelled by my stating such (in face of the many votes that state otherwise, and yet fly in the face of the rather obvious missing evidence of my mortality). Is humility big here?

d) we are engaged in groupthink

So, you're saying that the group, as a body, denies it is engaged in Groupthink? Is there any room for discussion on that?

e) you are an unheard-of non-quantumly immortal creature (although I'd be pretty impressed by certain sorts of video evidence!).

I didn't say that. I said I could be that. Part of your job is to present me with evidence that I'm not. America was unheard-of... until it was heard-of. And it was right there. The people just couldn't hear of it, at the beginning.

Right, enough fun. Let's stick to the topic at hand from now on.