Author Topic: ITT COLD, HARD, UNDENIABLE PROOF (Read 103767 times)

Bilan · « **on:** May 02, 2008, 12:54:08 pm »

That RPG -is- capable of work.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QULV71PR

I rest my case.

P.P.A. · « **Reply #1 on:** May 02, 2008, 02:14:05 pm »

MY EYES

OH GOD

Rick_242 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 02, 2008, 02:17:57 pm »

The prosecution has evidence to the contrary Your Honor!

W-W-What!? If the prosecution has contradictory evidence then by all means show the court this contradictory evidence.

Take a look at the link featured in this forum.

http://unofficial.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3367.0

In here it states that the defense will nag to Thorn which he clearly has not which means he is not capable of working!

Further more...

The chart in the file is missing several inputs in the "Observed Outputs" and in the "Results/Comments" sections of the graph! If the defense is as hard working as he says, why isn't this chart completed!? How does the defense respond to this?

douglas · « **Reply #3 on:** May 02, 2008, 02:28:07 pm »

Ah, I remember working in VB and writing reports like that :) All I can say is thank goodness for agile development.

Bilan · « **Reply #4 on:** May 02, 2008, 02:43:48 pm »

Clearly the prosecution has not paid a shred of attention to the evidence in front of them.

If they had they would clearly see logical reasons for the contradiction they claim to have found.

Let us examine each of the three test plans located in the file.

The first is a blank plan intended for use with the design, as stated above it and on the contents page.

If we examine the name of the tester of the second plan, we can clearly see that it was not the accused.

And lastly we have the plan filled out by the defendant himself. It is only natural that everything went as he expected and thus no additional comments were necessary.

The prosecution's argument is clearly flawed Your Honour!

Rick_242 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 02, 2008, 03:52:32 pm »

You've just helped to prove my case.

Let's take a detour into the chatroom first shall we?

Take a look at these particular lines from the chatroom.

Quote from: chatroom #soniccenter

<Douglas> good call not to use access btw
<Campy> Damn straight
<Campy> I was coding it in notepad before I did it in Access
<Campy> I had to learn VB and SQL as I went along just because I hate Access that much >_>

Seems like quite an awful lot of work just to type that file. An awful lot of unnecessary work.

Let's take a look at the chart shall we?

Quote from: Final Chart

Author: Daniel Siviter Tester: Daniel Siviter

Now look at the chart being filled in.

Quote from: Final Chart

Test Data: Tick the Off Peak box and press “Calculate” again.
Expected Output: The cost of the stay will decrease. Note this in the comments section.
Observed output: As expected.
Results/Comments: £615

Now, why is the Expected Output labled that it is in the comments section? There is enough room to put it in the comments section so why is it there? The answer is...

...because it was necessary.

Let's review the article in the chat room if you please.

Quote from: chatroom #soniccenter

<Douglas> good call not to use access btw
<Campy> Damn straight
<Campy> I was coding it in notepad before I did it in Access
<Campy> I had to learn VB and SQL as I went along just because I hate Access that much >_>

The defendant is fond of doing unnecessary work and is not fond of doing plain necessary work. Knowing this, everything filled out in the Results/Comments section was unnecessary and everything not filled out was necessary. Allow me to explain.

Quote from: Defendant

And lastly we have the plan filled out by the defendant himself. It is only natural that everything went as he expected and thus no additional comments were necessary.

If everything was expected, why did you make additional comments if it was not necessary? It is because it wasn't necessary. You are fond of doing unnecessary work and not interested in doing what is only necessary as shown in the chatroom article. Additional comments being unnecessary, what does that make the results and comments that weren't filled out? The answer is completely necessary.

You didn't leave the Results/Comments section blank because it was unnecessary but, because you weren't interested in doing the necessary work because you are a procrastinator who isn't capable of doing the necessary work!

Bilan · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2008, 03:59:12 pm »

You are clearly misinterpreting the facts!

The comments section is filled out by the tester during the test if they wish to make additional comments.

As the accused was carrying out a test he created himself, he had no comments to make that had not already been brought up throughout the rest of the documentation.

The only comments the defendant made throughout the plan where those where he was specifically directed to do so by the instructions in the test plan!

P.P.A. · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2008, 04:05:37 pm »

Best fad ever.

Rick_242 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2008, 04:33:50 pm »

I'm afraid you're helping my case even more.

You testify that tester could make additional comments if the tester wanted to. Additional comments being extra which in turn is...

Completely unnecessary!

The defendant did not make any comments not because the test instructions told him to do so but because...

Quote from: Document

and its features made it considerably easier to construct the test plans for my system

...he created the test plans in a way so that he didn't have to do as much work because he did not want to do any work!

... and before you even think about objecting to any of my statements, tell me, what is the defendant being tried for?

Crowbar · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2008, 04:46:36 pm »

A few years too late but I still lol'd a little.

Bilan · « **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2008, 04:53:29 pm »

You are attempting to accuse my client of not working and this is something I will not tolerate.

As the tester was the person that developed the program the test plan was for, there would clearly be no need for them to comment upon their own work as they have done at numerous places throughout the documentation.

The Prosecutions theory is nothing but baseless conjecture.

Rick_242 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2008, 05:12:39 pm »

In your testimony:

Quote from: Defense

As the tester was the person that developed the program the test plan was for, there would clearly be no need for them to comment upon their own work

You have just admitted that the defendant manipulated the test plans so that he wouldn't have to comment about it in the end!

Furthermore, this has no bearing on the case at hand! Why? Because...

the defendant is being accused of being incapable of working!

It is you who has baseless conjecture and is misinterpreting the facts!

Allow me to show you why:

Quote from: Case

ITT COLD, HARD, UNDENIABLE PROOF

That RPG -is- capable of work.

The case is that RPG is being accused of not wanting to work and not if he did not need to fill out the Results/Comments section! So far, all my evidence show that he, RPG, does not want to work while you are trying to prove the wrong thing!

Bilan · « **Reply #12 on:** May 02, 2008, 05:18:54 pm »

I believe that you do not understand the purpose of a test plan, Mr Edgeworth.

They are intended to be carried out by an individual with no prior knowledge to the system!

And subsequent test plans carried out by the user are simple error checks!

And I urge you not to forget about my secret weapon.

Your Honour, I believe a penalty may be in order for Mr. Edgeworth's convoluted and entirely pointless line of questioning.

Also I would like to request a recess due to the unfortunate state of the current Prosecution.

Court is adjourned for a twenty minute recess.

Rick_242 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 02, 2008, 09:40:43 pm »

Court is now in session.

The prosecution is ready Your Honor.

Bilan · « **Reply #14 on:** May 03, 2008, 07:35:30 am »

The Defence is ready Your Honour.

CosmicFalcon · « **Reply #15 on:** May 03, 2008, 07:42:57 am »

I object to this entire thread.

Bilan · « **Reply #16 on:** May 03, 2008, 07:45:32 am »

Objection overruled.

douglas · « **Reply #17 on:** May 03, 2008, 07:48:39 am »

I object to the defense and the judge being one person.

Bilan · « **Reply #18 on:** May 03, 2008, 08:28:26 am »

The Defence and the Judge are clearly not the same person!

Quote from: Rick_242 on May 02, 2008, 02:17:57 pm

The prosecution has evidence to the contrary Your Honor!

W-W-What!? If the prosecution has contradictory evidence then by all means show the court this contradictory evidence.

As you can see from the above, both sides involved are implementing the role of the judge where appropriate due to lack of an actual judge!

The Defence and the Judge are not the same!

Rick_242 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 03, 2008, 02:04:24 pm »

The defence makes a rather convincing point.

Before we continue the trial of RPG, I believe a recap of this trial is necessary. If the defence's assistant would be kind enough to tell us what has been established so far the trial may recommence.

P.P.A. · « **Reply #20 on:** May 03, 2008, 02:26:34 pm »

Quote from: Rick_242 on May 03, 2008, 02:04:24 pm

Before we continue the trial of RPG, I believe a recap of this trial is necessary. If the defence's assistant would be kind enough to tell us what has been established so far the trial may recommence.

I kept a summary of the trial so far and believe to have captured the essential points of it.

Quote

<RPG> SEE I DO CAN WORK
<Rick> BS
<RPG> no u
<Rick> no u
<RPG> no u
<Rick> no u
<douglas> bs, RPG and the judge are the same person!
<RPG> lies
<Rick> tl;dr, summarize plz

Bilan · « **Reply #21 on:** May 03, 2008, 05:57:31 pm »

I believe that was all the key points.

Rick_242 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 03, 2008, 06:26:01 pm »

Thank you very much. Although, there is something that is bothering me.

What is it Your Honor?

Mr. Gresham didn't support his claim even though he knew this was a court of law. Wouldn't that make him the one not capable of working rather than the defendant?

W-What!? I-Impossible!

What is the defence's view on this?

Bilan · « **Reply #23 on:** May 03, 2008, 06:35:40 pm »

The Defence would like an inquiry into the matter.

douglas · « **Reply #24 on:** May 03, 2008, 06:39:54 pm »

This is ridiculous. Clearly, at the time of my objection, the judge was under the control of the defense. I made no allusions to the permanence or exclusivity of this arrangement. That it happened at all, and the argument that the prosecution has an element of control too, shows this court is morally bankrupt. The judge should be an independent arbiter.

This "inquiry" would be nothing more than an attempt to gag my exposure of the corruption inherent in the current system. Free the TSC One!

Bilan · « **Reply #25 on:** May 03, 2008, 06:42:48 pm »

Then the Defence requests that you find an independant judge!

Rick_242 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 03, 2008, 06:48:05 pm »

The Defence's claim is sustained. Mr. Gresham please find us an independant judge. Does the Prosecution have any views on the matter?

The Prosecution agrees with the Defence.

douglas · « **Reply #27 on:** May 03, 2008, 06:55:36 pm »

I expose the corruption in the system, so it's my responsibility to do something about it? And I'm ordered to do so by the very entity I've exposed as corrupt? lolwut?

Bilan · « **Reply #28 on:** May 03, 2008, 06:57:20 pm »

I, er, believe thats fair, Mr Edgeworth?

douglas · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2008, 07:03:36 pm »

I agree with Mr Gresham's statements. Also he is hot <3

. . . what, there was no love for the female characters ok >_>

ITT COLD, HARD, UNDENIABLE PROOF

The Sonic Center > Forum > The Lounge > Wikkity! > ITT COLD, HARD, UNDENIABLE PROOF

Author Topic: ITT COLD, HARD, UNDENIABLE PROOF (Read 103767 times)