Editing Talk:2078: Popper

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
I think this might have to do with the President's claims regarding climate change, there's no evidence that I'm not wrong [[User:Zachweix|Zachweix]] ([[User talk:Zachweix|talk]]) 18:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) 
:I don't think you're wrong. I've never seen any evidence that you're wrong. I've never met the guy (I've definitely met the guy). 
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no evidence to prove that the comic's explanation is incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.112|172.68.90.112]] 18:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)SiliconWolf

: I haven't failed to find no evidence that doesn't prove that you're not incorrect. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 13:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This comic is almost doubly self-referential.  Has Randall done that before?  Has anyone asked if somebody has done that before?  What about asking that: has that been done before? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.64|172.68.174.64]] 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 : I haven't failed to find no evidence that doesn't prove that you're not incorrect. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 13:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
-This comic is almost doubly self-referential.  Has Randall done that before?  Has anyone asked if somebody has done that before?  What about asking that: has that been done before?
+This comic is almost doubly self-referential.  Has Randall done that before?  Has anyone asked if somebody has done that before?  What about asking that: has that been done before? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.64|172.68.174.64]] 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
-[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.64|172.68.174.64]] 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
-So how about that? There's no evidence denying that this comic exists and has an explanation, and there's no evidence denying that the explanation is correct [[User:DiceGuy|~DiceGuy]] ([[User talk:DiceGuy|talk]]) 13:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
-Is the transcript really incomplete? It doesn't seem like it.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.22|162.158.255.22]] 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
-: Doesn't seem incomplete to me either. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.43|162.158.107.43]] 17:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
-:: There certainly doesn't appear to be any evidence that the transcript is incomplete. [[User:Shishire|Shishire]] ([[User talk:Shishire|talk]]) 19:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
-::: As a counterargument, if a picture is worth 1,000 words, the transcript appears to be about 959 words short of completion. And I fail to see any evidence that the transcript is ''not'' incomplete. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.226.239|108.162.226.239]] 04:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
-: Negation by failure. Hey, it works perfectly in PROLOG. ;-)
-Every time I read this, it reminds me of Bad Lip Reading's Carl Poppa[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9aM9Ch97U8].
-Surely there's no such thing as "historical proof" as opposed to "scientific proof"? That's creationist talk.
-: There's no evidence that denies the existence of "historical proof". [[User:Dansiman|Dansiman]] ([[User talk:Dansiman|talk]]) 14:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
-: The fact something is used often by wrong/bad people doesn't make it wrong automatically. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.34|172.70.34.34]] 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)