THE NOSE ENCYCLOPIDEA: THE BIGGEST GIUDE ON THE WHOLE FORUM

[tomacōck]

i di

i ddint expect you to read all just some portions

I'm sorry bro... I had to do this.

 

[Nodal]

I'm sorry bro... I had to do this.

not problems its my fault i gatta find a away to make this readable

 

[Peco]

You can't say "no you didn't" as a statement, then go on to say that you have no way of proving it.
The burden of proof is on you for that.

What ? You can't prove you read it and I can't prove you didn't. How the fuck would someone prove that another user has not read the whole thread. Or how would you prove you have read it.
Just because I can't prove you didn't read it doesn't mean you did read it. What kind of logic is that.
The burden of proof belongs to the person who makes the claim. If you say you read it you gotta prove it. But you can't.

One can just go off of what's most likely, that's why I said the readers will decide what they think. I personally think it's unlikely you read this entire thing

Then why talk about me specifically? You made the assumption, you're mistook, keep that w/ yourself.

I've already done that, before the thread got nuked, I pointed out and discussed with @kingofearth (he can vouch) on the fact that I supported his belief (that the thread will flop) because nobody is discussing about it and just articulating "high iq" "mirin effort" knowing they haven't read it.

So you agree with me.

 

[ICL]

This is the most legendary..
View attachment 5187832View attachment 5187837
DEE-EN-AR!!!

caged.

 

[kingofearth]

I vouched at the bottom,

I'm regurgitating it because it's the truth, Peco and you are discussing how people aren't reading it and him forcefully applying his own projection onto you.

I think we all actually agree with each other, except arguing over pointless semantics.

Can't we all come to the conclusion that the thread is good, but will not prosper due to how much is packed into it?
You might as well go read a book on Anatomy.

@Peco

 

[kingofearth]

The burden of proof belongs to the person who makes the claim. If you say you read it you gotta prove it. But you can't.

You are attempting to debunk his claim, therefore the burden of proof fallacy is actually on you. He doesn't have to "prove" he read it, you have to prove he didn't.

@ICL

 

[kingofearth]

This thread is sticked, mirin G. @Nodal

 

[ICL]

The burden of proof belongs to the person who makes the claim. If you say you read it you gotta prove it. But you can't.

You made the claim brotha
That I "didn't read it".

Your claim is equally as false as mine.

The only reasoning going for me is that I had that I read it is that I actually discussed it's contents, which isn't visible evidence since that previous thread was nuked.

Just because I can't prove you didn't read it doesn't mean you did read it. What kind of logic is that.

I'll retract my statement if you wish, I don't believe I read it, nor do I believe I didn't read it, since I can't prove it to you, that belief is useless if I did believe in it.

Still, this has no impact on your assumption and baseless claim with a heuristic that "long threads are commonly ai bro"

What ? You can't prove you read it and I can't prove you didn't. How the fuck would someone prove that another user has not read the whole thread. Or how would you prove you have read it.

Then why are you saying that I have not read it?

So you agree with me.

I've done that before you made your reply, this whole exchange is over the fact that you made an assumption that it's A.I.

I disagreed, told you to not make speculations

You came back at me, saying I made one as well. Since you can't prove that I did or not, and neither can I, there's no point in arguing in that field anymore.

Regardless, if it was true, true that I did make an assumption, that doesn't save you from being mistook.

 

[Nodal]

This thread is sticked, mirin G. @Nodal

but it gonna flop i am gonna remake it i will think of methods to fix this unreadability problem

 

[Peco]

You are attempting to debunk his claim, therefore the burden of proof fallacy is actually on you. He doesn't have to "prove" he read it, you have to prove he didn't.

@ICL

Wtf are you saying. You don't understand what the burden of proof fallacy is.

Burden of proof fallacy is when you say for example: "god exists, because you can't prove he doesn't". That's a fallacy because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the one receiving it. You are trying to prove something by saying the other person can't prove the opposite

But here I'm not trying to prove anything. I stated in both of my replies that there is no way for me to prove what I say. But that doesn't mean that what I said is not true.

To take the example above if I say "god exists, because you can't prove he doesn't", and a person says "look man that's a fallacy", he would be right, but that doesn't mean god doesn't exist, it's just that my proof for it is wrong.

If I can't prove he read the thread it doesn't mean he read it. Therefore if he claims that he did read it he should be able to prove it

 

[kingofearth]

I'll retract my statement if you wish, I don't believe I read it, nor do I believe I didn't read it, since I can't prove it to you, that belief is useless if I did believe in it.

Holy fucking shit dude, what is going on.

BOTB: Schizophrenia edition

I must say ICL, you're one of the rare users on here who demonstrates self-awareness and intelligence.

 

[ICL]

BOTB: Schizophrenia edition

I'm doing anything to bump the thread tbf

I must say ICL, you're one of the rare users on here who demonstrates self-awareness and intelligence.

Okay man calm down just hop off my dick no offense

 

[Peco]

You made the claim brotha
That I "didn't read it".

Your claim is equally as false as mine.

The only reasoning going for me is that I had that I read it is that I actually discussed it's contents, which isn't visible evidence since that previous thread was nuked.

I'll retract my statement if you wish, I don't believe I read it, nor do I believe I didn't read it, since I can't prove it to you, that belief is useless if I did believe in it.

Still, this has no impact on your assumption and baseless claim with a heuristic that "long threads are commonly ai bro"

Then why are you saying that I have not read it?

I've done that before you made your reply, this whole exchange is over the fact that you made an assumption that it's A.I.

I disagreed, told you to not make speculations

You came back at me, saying I made one as well. Since you can't prove that I did or not, and neither can I, there's no point in arguing in that field anymore.

Regardless, if it was true, true that I did make an assumption, that doesn't save you from being mistook.

Wait are you trying to say there was no AI in this ? Are you being serious ? The tables. You think he made those himself ? There is obviously a large use of AI, it's impossible to make a thread this long otherwise. Besides in the original post OP said that he did in fact use AI for this.

Again like I said before that doesn't mean he copy pasted chat gpt. But it's obvious to anyone that posts as long as this one are made with the aid of AI

 

[kingofearth]

Wtf are you saying. You don't understand what the burden of proof fallacy is.

Burden of proof fallacy is when you say for example: "god exists, because you can't prove he doesn't". That's a fallacy because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the one receiving it. You are trying to prove something by saying the other person can't prove the opposite

But here I'm not trying to prove anything. I stated in both of my replies that there is no way for me to prove what I say. But that doesn't mean that what I said is not true.

To take the example above if I say "god exists, because you can't prove he doesn't", and a person says "look man that's a fallacy", he would be right, but that doesn't mean god doesn't exist, it's just that my proof for it is wrong.

If I can't prove he read the thread it doesn't mean he read it. Therefore if he claims that he did read it he should be able to prove it

You're mixing two separate things...

1) Whether your claim is logically proven

2) Whether your claim could still be true

Nobody said "You can't prove he didn't read it, therefore he definitely read it" the point was simply that both sides are making claims.

"I read the whole thread" = claim

"You didn't read the whole thread" = counterclaim

Both of you require evidence if asserted as fact.

You're correct that failing to prove a claim doesn't automatically make the opposite true, but the reverse also applies; failing to prove he read it doesn't automatically mean he didn't.

The only logical and safe conclusion we can come to without evidence is that neither side has demonstrated their claims. So, what the fuck are we even arguing about? Why am I mediating this?

All of these paragraphs towards each other arguing about whether he's read it or not, it's a complete waste of fucking time. We all seem to demonstrate reasonable competence, so it's far higher ROI if individuals like us actually came together instead of fighting against each other. There are tens of thousands of retards on here, and a back-and-fourth thread like what has just been witnessed here is suboptimal.

@ICL

 

[ICL]

Wait are you trying to say there was no AI in this ? Are you being serious ? The tables. You think he made those himself ? There is obviously a large use of AI, it's impossible to make a thread this long otherwise. Besides in the original post OP said that he did in fact use AI for this.

Again like I said before that doesn't mean he copy pasted chat gpt. But it's obvious to anyone that posts as long as this one are made with the aid of AI

Then so be it.

He possibly used an ounce of artificial intelligence to fasten up the process of making the thread.

Like you said, effort =/= quality. His thread would be the same whether he used AI or not, nothing inherently bad.

 

[Nodal]

Then so be it.

He used an ounce of artificial intelligence to fasten up the process of making the thread.

Like you said, effort =/= quality. His thread would be the same whether he used AI or not, nothing inherently bad.

yeah @Peco that one of the major flaws with claiming ai usage
i read studies fact checked everything i manualy cited most of the things specialy in the ideals part

for the claim this is made with ai usage to hold any significance you need to show the lack of quality of the thread which you really cant but still could by reading the highlighted text if its truly lower quality you would notice an error right?

 

[Peco]

Then so be it.

Ok so you agree with me again

He used an ounce of artificial intelligence to fasten up the process of making the thread.

Like you said, effort =/= quality.
His thread would be the same whether he used AI or not, nothing inherently bad.

Sounds like an assumption to me.

 

[Peco]

You're mixing two separate things...

1) Whether your claim is logically proven

2) Whether your claim could still be true

Nobody said "You can't prove he didn't read it, therefore he definitely read it" the point was simply that both sides are making claims.

"I read the whole thread" = claim

"You didn't read the whole thread" = counterclaim

Both of you require evidence if asserted as fact.

You're correct that failing to prove a claim doesn't automatically make the opposite true, but the reverse also applies; failing to prove he read it doesn't automatically mean he didn't.

The only logical and safe conclusion we can come to without evidence is that neither side has demonstrated their claims. So, what the fuck are we even arguing about? Why am I mediating this?

Did you even read what I said ? That is what I have been saying since the beginning. Because neither of use can prove it, those who read our replies will decide which they think he is more likely.

He is the one who brought out burden of proof and you the one who backed him up

All of these paragraphs towards each other arguing about whether he's read it or not, it's a complete waste of fucking time.
We all seem to demonstrate reasonable competence, so it's far higher ROI if individuals like us actually came together instead of fighting against each other. There are tens of thousands of retards on here, and a back-and-fourth thread like what has just been witnessed here is suboptimal.

@ICL

 

[ICL]

Sounds like an assumption to me.

Hence?

You think that proves your point? I said he possibly used an ounce of artificial intelligence, you said he definitely used artificial intelligence heavily. (not even a strawman)

Mine is an assumption that implies possibility due to the fact that my evidence is probability and nothing concrete.

Your is an assumption that implies it surely is AI, hence you'd need concrete evidence/





Regardless;

You assumed, I assumed, whatever. We're both wrong, do you agree with that?

 

[ICL]

He is the one who brought out burden of proof and you the one who backed him up

I brought it up due to this.

I mean dude, there has to be reason for you to do something like this. What is that reason?

If that reason doesn't exist, then neither should your statement nor your suspicion should.

 

[Peco]

Hence?

You think that proves your point? I said he possibly used an ounce of artificial intelligence, you said he definitely used artificial intelligence heavily.

Mine is an assumption that implies possibility due to the fact that my evidence is probability and nothing concrete.

Your is an assumption that implies it surely is AI, hence you'd need concrete evidenc


Regardless;

You assumed, I assumed, whatever. We're both wrong, do you agree with that?

I don't care about this mental masturbation. It's clear to anyone who skims the post that it was made with AI. For it's length especially but also for things like tables.



Obviously ,AGAIN, I can't prove anything. Maybe he did actually make those tables himself. But I think my educated guess makes sense and anyone with a bit of common sense realizes that too.

And again the fact that he used AI doesn't mean he copy pasted everything and put no effort into it. That is not what Im saying

 

[Peco]

I brought it up due to this.
View attachment 5187989
I mean dude, there has to be reason for you to do something like this. What is that reason?

If that reason doesn't exist, then neither should your statement nor your suspicion should.

Like I said in that screenshot I'm just saying what I think is more likely

 

[ICL]

I don't care about this mental masturbation. It's clear to anyone who skims the post that it was made with AI. For it's length especially but also for things like tables.



Obviously ,AGAIN, I can't prove anything. Maybe he did actually make those tables himself. But I think my educated guess makes sense and anyone with a bit of common sense realizes that too.

And again the fact that he used AI doesn't mean he copy pasted everything and put no effort into it. That is not what Im saying

"heavy use of AI" sounds like "copy pasted" in the non-traditional sense, which is bad. If you want to move on then you'd say that he used AI minimally and probably.

Like I said in that screenshot I'm just saying what I think is more likely

Then you should've not made such definitive statement at the start. I think we should move on, I need to log off regardless

 

[Eren]

so he doesnt talk about how to fix nose ?

Not really.
The document is much more of a "how to analyze a nose" guide than a "how to improve a nose" guide.
When it talks about fixes, they're usually surgical examples rather than actionable advice:

• Wide alar base → alar base reduction / Weir excision
• Dorsal hump → hump reduction + osteotomies
• Crooked septum → septoplasty
• Droopy tip → tip support grafts, septal work, muscle release
• Weak middle vault → spreader grafts
• Alar collapse → alar rim grafts
• Recessed chin making nose look big → genioplasty or chin implant
• Wide bridge → osteotomies (controlled bone cuts)

But the author almost never says:

• how to determine whether you need one of those
• which flaws matter most aesthetically
• which non-surgical changes help
• how much improvement each change gives

The most practical advice hidden in the guide is:

If your nose looks "too big"​

Check these before blaming the nose:

1. Chin projection
2. Facial proportions
3. Bridge width
4. Tip projection
5. Tip bulbosity
6. Skin thickness

A lot of people think:

"I need a nose job."

When the actual issue is:

"My chin is weak" or "My tip is bulbous" or "My bridge is too wide."

What can actually be changed without surgery?​

The guide barely covers this because anatomically most meaningful nose changes are structural.
Realistically:

• Weight loss can slightly reduce facial fullness around the nose.
• Better skin quality can improve appearance a little.
• Grooming, hairstyle, facial hair, and improving chin/jaw appearance can change how prominent the nose looks.
• If breathing issues are caused by allergies or swelling, treating those can improve function.

But things like:

• nose bridge width
• hump size
• tip projection
• nostril shape
• septum deviation

are mostly structural and generally require surgery to change significantly.
So the document answers "what is wrong?" much better than "how do I fix it?". It reads more like a rhinoplasty anatomy textbook written by someone on a forum than a treatment guide.

 

[Peco]

"heavy use of AI" sounds like "copy pasted" in the non-traditional sense, which is bad. If you want to move on then you'd say that he used AI minimally and probably

No I don't think it was used minimally. I would call it minimal use if you use it to correct grammatical and spelling mistakes. If you use it to get info, formatting and tables I would say it's heavy.

Then you should've not made such definitive statement at the start. I think we should move on, I need to log off regardless

To me it's definitely more likely that you didn't read it all than the opposite, so that's what I said