- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
ACT Barbarian Babes
- Thread starter frostwolfie
- Start date
- Status
UrbanKirasagi
Pooky
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 466
- Reputation score
- 66
Re: Barbarian Babes?
Boxxy?
Boxxy?
Boxxy?
Boxxy?
Boxxy?
Boxxy?
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,974
- Reputation score
- 1,864
Re: Barbarian Babes?
I like how the flame war already died down by the time people jumped on the "Hey look, a flame war" bandwagon.
I like how the flame war already died down by the time people jumped on the "Hey look, a flame war" bandwagon.
Lucas
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,304
- Reputation score
- 88
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,974
- Reputation score
- 1,864
Re: Barbarian Babes?
Next on the agenda is to steal her CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTEEEEEEEEEENESS!
Next on the agenda is to steal her CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTEEEEEEEEEENESS!
dragoonistix
Tentacle Monster
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 306
- Reputation score
- 21
Re: Barbarian Babes?
I’ve responded to your starting post further in, as it was more relevant in a later portion of my response.
I was unsure as to whether your initial post was literal or humorous in intent, and I could not assume either way without potentially being wrong, so I covered both possibilities. There really wasn’t any other way for me to proceed. Also, this is wrong:
You are confusing his advertising with what he added to the discussion. The discussion in question was determining what the BB site was like; the conclusion to this was that it focused very little on hentai, and was more like erotic fights. BB attempted to add to this discussion with “Barbarian Babes.com is a catfight website first and foremost, rather than a hentai/sex site.” This had already been pointed out, if not in so many words, and thusly added nothing to the discussion that it revived. The update to the status of BB’s games is, as I said, entirely valid, and related to the thread, but had nothing to do with the discussion that BB revived.
Though it isn’t reflected in this account, I have spent a considerable amount of time at ULMF, through all three of the different forums we’ve been on. While I cannot –know-, it is the opinion of someone that had been with this community for a good while that BB would not have been taken badly if his post had not been as poorly made.
Yes. I never said that it didn’t, only that he had no ability to change people’s opinions in excess of normal human levels. The statement was in order to point out that his expression of opinion was in no way a serious threat to other’s freedom of expression, following the possibility that you could have been incredibly mentally retarded and somehow thought that he was. When looking at your initial arguments and considering the possibility that they had your serious backing, it isn’t a farfetched interpretation.
There isn’t a problem with you responding to both. However, you are incorrect in the idea that your answer easily applies to both; the first sentence is clearly only addressing moomoo, while the second sentence only had any relevance to maikochan. Since you quoted maikochan and responded to moomoo’s argument, (which maiko did not make nor endorse in any way,) without noting that you were responding to moomoo, it looks like you are making the mistake of attributing moomoo’s argument to maiko. And really, that isn’t the important question regarding this. The real question is, why the hell didn’t you just separate the first sentence, only dealing with moomoo, into a part underneath a quote of his statement, and then responded to maikochan’s statement underneath her quote? Or, as you did with Slith, mark it with an “@(poster)”? Because that’s all the “credits” that you would need to do to make the arguments properly attributed – the things you were already doing, but for some reason chose not to do.
Your argument, further, does not serve as an adequate response to mine. You failed to address the fact that necro-bumping has nothing to do with the content of the post. As I said previously, necro-bumping is a simple case of time. BB posted that in a thread that had no activity for over a year; ergo, BB necro-bumped. The content of the post has no bearing on this status, so there is no if, and, or but to it.
Not a bad response to end this line of the argument with; people will interpret it for themselves however they will. I, also, will leave people to decide if Oni’s post was ‘attacking DarkWarp’s statement’, or if the attack was incidental to the meaning of the post.
I am not claiming that you called Oni a Nazi. I am claiming that you said that Oni thinks someone that is part of a minority does not have the right to speak their mind. You were very clear about separating what a Nazi is: “Nazism and fascism both used repressive measures to silence all non-conforming lines of thought, basically stripping people of their freedom of expression,”, and what you claim Oni thinks: “if you apply this to the idea SirOni has that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind, you might find a connection you earlier missed”.
The problem, as I noticed while writing this up, is that you meant that in a non-literal manner, instead meaning “the idea underlying SirOni’s response, that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind" (or possibly, ”the idea that could be constructed from Oni’s response, that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind”). Whereas, I took it to mean that you were arguing the literal interpretation of your words, i.e. “SirOni thinks all minorities should not be allowed to give an opinion”.
These are significantly different things, and it is all too possible to loose what you meant, when reading what you wrote. The reason I am redundant in my exposition, at the cost of being longwinded, as you noted in this quote:
And therein lies the main problem. You were trying to be elaborate, and in a subtle manner, on the Internet, while insulting someone. Unlike earlier in the argument, I’m now fairly sure you’re reasonably intelligent, so I’m not sure why you proceeded to go through with your first post, despite knowing, as your second sentence indicates, that people were almost certain to interpret it poorly.
Since you already know that the human subconscious will attempt to take the most offensive interpretation of something when given the possibility, why did you allow yourself to leave so many possible misinterpretations in your argument, instead of just saying “It isn’t nice to just discount someone offhand, and also you’re an asshole”(paraphrased)?
Your interpretation of my reasoning is incorrect. Hostility =/= violence. Being hostile, as I said, is not inherently wrong. Violence is wrong (by the markers of civilised society, for reasons that are not worth getting into), but hostility is not violence. You replied to my argument as if I had said that hostility is justified in all cases, and then split hairs between hostility that is justified and unjustified, but my argument was that hostility is “not inherently wrong”, i.e., it can be a correct response in some instances and can not be a correct response in some others. I also did not say it was a good thing; I said it was a neutral thing that can be used one way or another – effectively, all you did was agree with me.
Further, responding to something, which has neither offended nor distressed you, with hostility is not inherently wrong. It can be wrong in a given situation, to a given person, but is not inherently so. To say that something is inherently wrong is to say that it cannot be justified in any situation, imaginable or unimaginable. I can already think of one scenario that I have seen on media in modern society, which justifies this type of hostility: one person acts with hostility toward a second person. The second person, who is not offended, and instead amused, and who is not distressed, instead keeping a cool head, responds to the first person with hostility for his enjoyment; ‘this is portrayed in a positive light’, to use high-school English phrasing that I had hoped I would never have to write again.
Also, the way that you wrote your example, namely justifying it with “cause he is 2m tall, can lift 3 times his weight over his head, and is a blackbelt 9th Dan”, causes me to suspect that you misread my post. I wrote: “It isn’t the fact that he has more credibility that allows Oni to act in a hostile way. It is the fact that he is allowed to express his opinion, like all other people are, that allows him to act in a hostile way.” I’d post the whole bit of yours about checking your sources again, but it’s only funny the first time.
You are entirely correct. I confused the definition of ‘caring’ you were using, which had the meaning of finding it important, with the ‘caring’ that signifies emotional responses. Again, could have been prevented by being more anally retentive about the precise meaning of your words (‘finding it significant’ would have been more unambiguous), but this one’s almost wholly my bad.
I did not say that DarpWarp’s post was aggressive. I said that DarkWarp’s post was confrontational. While quite similar, these are not the same thing. Further, it doesn’t matter if he was polite by the relative standards of the Internet; by an objective standard, or by as objective a standard as is possible, what he wrote was not polite. And I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that DarkWarp’s opinion on the net worth Oni derived from chastising BB was incorrect. Just because it’s his personal opinion on the matter doesn’t mean that I can’t find it to be incorrect.
Sorry… I’d prefer it if my posts were less tiring, but there’s only so much I can do…
I’ve responded to your starting post further in, as it was more relevant in a later portion of my response.
I was unsure as to whether your initial post was literal or humorous in intent, and I could not assume either way without potentially being wrong, so I covered both possibilities. There really wasn’t any other way for me to proceed. Also, this is wrong:
What I said was that, because your argument was so over-exaggerated, you could only have made it in a truthful manner if you were taking him too literally – ala this:
See, problem is, I default to assuming that someone is arguing in a serious manner till I find reasonably concrete proof that they aren’t. The idea that you were posting frivolously, and making a meta-joke about the tendency of arguments to include comparisons to Nazi Germany, was second (and last) on my list of possible interpretations to your post – especially considering the seriousness to which you continued to discuss the topic with maikochan afterwards.
You are confusing his advertising with what he added to the discussion. The discussion in question was determining what the BB site was like; the conclusion to this was that it focused very little on hentai, and was more like erotic fights. BB attempted to add to this discussion with “Barbarian Babes.com is a catfight website first and foremost, rather than a hentai/sex site.” This had already been pointed out, if not in so many words, and thusly added nothing to the discussion that it revived. The update to the status of BB’s games is, as I said, entirely valid, and related to the thread, but had nothing to do with the discussion that BB revived.
Though it isn’t reflected in this account, I have spent a considerable amount of time at ULMF, through all three of the different forums we’ve been on. While I cannot –know-, it is the opinion of someone that had been with this community for a good while that BB would not have been taken badly if his post had not been as poorly made.
Yes. I never said that it didn’t, only that he had no ability to change people’s opinions in excess of normal human levels. The statement was in order to point out that his expression of opinion was in no way a serious threat to other’s freedom of expression, following the possibility that you could have been incredibly mentally retarded and somehow thought that he was. When looking at your initial arguments and considering the possibility that they had your serious backing, it isn’t a farfetched interpretation.
There isn’t a problem with you responding to both. However, you are incorrect in the idea that your answer easily applies to both; the first sentence is clearly only addressing moomoo, while the second sentence only had any relevance to maikochan. Since you quoted maikochan and responded to moomoo’s argument, (which maiko did not make nor endorse in any way,) without noting that you were responding to moomoo, it looks like you are making the mistake of attributing moomoo’s argument to maiko. And really, that isn’t the important question regarding this. The real question is, why the hell didn’t you just separate the first sentence, only dealing with moomoo, into a part underneath a quote of his statement, and then responded to maikochan’s statement underneath her quote? Or, as you did with Slith, mark it with an “@(poster)”? Because that’s all the “credits” that you would need to do to make the arguments properly attributed – the things you were already doing, but for some reason chose not to do.
Your argument, further, does not serve as an adequate response to mine. You failed to address the fact that necro-bumping has nothing to do with the content of the post. As I said previously, necro-bumping is a simple case of time. BB posted that in a thread that had no activity for over a year; ergo, BB necro-bumped. The content of the post has no bearing on this status, so there is no if, and, or but to it.
Not a bad response to end this line of the argument with; people will interpret it for themselves however they will. I, also, will leave people to decide if Oni’s post was ‘attacking DarkWarp’s statement’, or if the attack was incidental to the meaning of the post.
I am not claiming that you called Oni a Nazi. I am claiming that you said that Oni thinks someone that is part of a minority does not have the right to speak their mind. You were very clear about separating what a Nazi is: “Nazism and fascism both used repressive measures to silence all non-conforming lines of thought, basically stripping people of their freedom of expression,”, and what you claim Oni thinks: “if you apply this to the idea SirOni has that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind, you might find a connection you earlier missed”.
The problem, as I noticed while writing this up, is that you meant that in a non-literal manner, instead meaning “the idea underlying SirOni’s response, that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind" (or possibly, ”the idea that could be constructed from Oni’s response, that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind”). Whereas, I took it to mean that you were arguing the literal interpretation of your words, i.e. “SirOni thinks all minorities should not be allowed to give an opinion”.
These are significantly different things, and it is all too possible to loose what you meant, when reading what you wrote. The reason I am redundant in my exposition, at the cost of being longwinded, as you noted in this quote:
…Is for the very purpose of avoiding this kind of misinterpretation that occurs so frequently in arguments. …Well, alright, it’s really just that it happens to be the default way I write more so than something I decided to do, but the point stands. Even if it can end up backfiring as often as not…
And therein lies the main problem. You were trying to be elaborate, and in a subtle manner, on the Internet, while insulting someone. Unlike earlier in the argument, I’m now fairly sure you’re reasonably intelligent, so I’m not sure why you proceeded to go through with your first post, despite knowing, as your second sentence indicates, that people were almost certain to interpret it poorly.
Since you already know that the human subconscious will attempt to take the most offensive interpretation of something when given the possibility, why did you allow yourself to leave so many possible misinterpretations in your argument, instead of just saying “It isn’t nice to just discount someone offhand, and also you’re an asshole”(paraphrased)?
Your interpretation of my reasoning is incorrect. Hostility =/= violence. Being hostile, as I said, is not inherently wrong. Violence is wrong (by the markers of civilised society, for reasons that are not worth getting into), but hostility is not violence. You replied to my argument as if I had said that hostility is justified in all cases, and then split hairs between hostility that is justified and unjustified, but my argument was that hostility is “not inherently wrong”, i.e., it can be a correct response in some instances and can not be a correct response in some others. I also did not say it was a good thing; I said it was a neutral thing that can be used one way or another – effectively, all you did was agree with me.
Further, responding to something, which has neither offended nor distressed you, with hostility is not inherently wrong. It can be wrong in a given situation, to a given person, but is not inherently so. To say that something is inherently wrong is to say that it cannot be justified in any situation, imaginable or unimaginable. I can already think of one scenario that I have seen on media in modern society, which justifies this type of hostility: one person acts with hostility toward a second person. The second person, who is not offended, and instead amused, and who is not distressed, instead keeping a cool head, responds to the first person with hostility for his enjoyment; ‘this is portrayed in a positive light’, to use high-school English phrasing that I had hoped I would never have to write again.
Also, the way that you wrote your example, namely justifying it with “cause he is 2m tall, can lift 3 times his weight over his head, and is a blackbelt 9th Dan”, causes me to suspect that you misread my post. I wrote: “It isn’t the fact that he has more credibility that allows Oni to act in a hostile way. It is the fact that he is allowed to express his opinion, like all other people are, that allows him to act in a hostile way.” I’d post the whole bit of yours about checking your sources again, but it’s only funny the first time.
You are entirely correct. I confused the definition of ‘caring’ you were using, which had the meaning of finding it important, with the ‘caring’ that signifies emotional responses. Again, could have been prevented by being more anally retentive about the precise meaning of your words (‘finding it significant’ would have been more unambiguous), but this one’s almost wholly my bad.
I did not say that DarpWarp’s post was aggressive. I said that DarkWarp’s post was confrontational. While quite similar, these are not the same thing. Further, it doesn’t matter if he was polite by the relative standards of the Internet; by an objective standard, or by as objective a standard as is possible, what he wrote was not polite. And I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that DarkWarp’s opinion on the net worth Oni derived from chastising BB was incorrect. Just because it’s his personal opinion on the matter doesn’t mean that I can’t find it to be incorrect.
Aside from the fact that your point was framed in a positive, dismissive light, and mine in a negative one, I didn’t steal it – I pirated it! Pirating =/= stealing!
THIS. IS. TRUTH. And the opinion that all who argue should have.
Sorry…
I’d prefer it if my posts were less tiring, but there’s only so much I can do…
dragoonistix
Tentacle Monster
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 306
- Reputation score
- 21
Re: Barbarian Babes?
P.S. read without parenthesis first)
I have learned that when you think, you should think with, and only with the (valid)variables at hand,(includes first level safe assumptions) emotion is a variable usually unnecessary and disruptive of the process of thought;
for the sake rationality..
and I find myself quite Impressed with just how rational your points are, Douchebag,(I like being inserted in a vagina, but not to clean some yeast infection and/or left over sperm)
we(I assume here, that you Douchebag as well) do not really care if our post is faulty for as long as there is proof(we need to grasp on graspable things) and is valid(on grounds that it cannot be disproved).
any information that can be disproved is not true anymore,
this post is not meant to be a reply to anyone,
..but rather a way of releasing some of my tension to at least hinder misunderstanding, in ways be it great or puny.
I'm not really sure what i just did/typed
force of Impulse
cheers!
-dragoonistix
I have sacrificed most of my emotions ability to overwhelm me for the sake of thinking,
P.S. read without parenthesis first)
I have learned that when you think, you should think with, and only with the (valid)variables at hand,(includes first level safe assumptions) emotion is a variable usually unnecessary and disruptive of the process of thought;
for the sake rationality..
and I find myself quite Impressed with just how rational your points are, Douchebag,(I like being inserted in a vagina, but not to clean some yeast infection and/or left over sperm)
we(I assume here, that you Douchebag as well) do not really care if our post is faulty for as long as there is proof(we need to grasp on graspable things) and is valid(on grounds that it cannot be disproved).
any information that can be disproved is not true anymore,
this post is not meant to be a reply to anyone,
..but rather a way of releasing some of my tension to at least hinder misunderstanding, in ways be it great or puny.
I'm not really sure what i just did/typed
force of Impulse
cheers!
-dragoonistix
JohnDoe
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 770
- Reputation score
- 90
Re: Barbarian Babes?
A not-so-wise-as-he-would-like-to-be man once said, intelligent people says intelligent things to elevate themselves and those of their kind to be able to discern them from the masses.
Such arrogance is really disturbing, and makes people like that hated and despised everywhere they go, and i know that my behavior can be easily included in the "intelligent people"(and i mean it as an offense) category, beacuse my posts are ambiguous and hard to interpret, even more so in the internet. My first post was made under an heavy headache, so it was even harder to restrain myself than usual.
Making a point on the internet is pointless at best most of the times, in addition even if you are clear you will still be misunderstood most of the times unless your interlocutor really wants to understand your point. There is no real good reason to not be ambiguous, especially since being clear takes a lot of effort, time, a wall-o-text that no one would like to read, and it probably won't get any answer other than "wow, what was all that about?" or "Chill out man, no need to get all serious". While an ambiguous, sarcastic, evil post, will make everyone angry and make them want to express their opinion.
That way the effort to make the point clear, is a group effort, where people actually find interest in, be it for just making a joke on it or actually adding to the discussion, as a result people read, take a standing, develop an opinion, and why not, even learn new things(as i know i did), that's what a discussion should be like in my opinion, if i had just said "you're an asshole" it would really just have become a stupid flame war.
Adding new content to a site might alter the general quality of said site, since new content might be of better quality or because an higher quantity of content might make the monetary effort more worth it.
The amount of time you spend on the forum can give you a general idea of the kind of people that usually dwell in it, but you can't seriously belive that you can "guarantee" someone won't show up and be aggressive, especially since we are on the internet, the lawless land where the anonymous army reign supreme.
That's a much better explanation than the other sarcastic one and i'll accept it.
Since you want to go the synthax way, necrobump is not an official word, so in itself it means nothing more than what meaning people gives to it, as such it is more an opinion than an actual definition, you can google it all you want but it isn't more than internet slang, and it has no definite and clear meaning (something like love or justice i might add), or it specify an amount of time for it to be applicable. Definition by Urban dictionary:
So, ok, as you say you can consider it just a matter of time, so what?
Just cause you or this ravic guy say so i shoual think so too? (i have my opinion)
Or because most people think something i should conform?
I won't, since you forced me, i'll analyze the literal meaning of the word(damn you, look what you are making me do, i'm not even sure of the correct grammatical terms to analyze a word in english ), composite word, first part "necro", luckily this comes from ancient greek so it's gonna be simple, its a prefix referring to the deads(actually living beings that died, so it's improperly used on something that was not alive to begin with, but no one cares), second part "bump", funny onomatopeical origins, has many meanings, but the one we seek is "to bring a thread up to the top of the list".
Now, yeah, i'll admit he indeed bumped, but did he necrobump?
My answer is "no", because the discussion was not dead, it's a thread about opinions, as long as there exist an hermit in a lost corner of this world who might have an opinion on the target of such thread then that thread will always be alive, till every single idiot will have said what he/she/it wanted to say, till then the thread is just sleeping quietly in wait.
A dead thread you have when someone requests a game and that game is provided, my young padawan.
On the point of the moomaiko thing, i'll answer with math(i'll keep it simple):
One says: a + a = 4 so: a=3
The other says: a x a = 4 so: a=3
I say a=2
My answer applies to both even tho they said different things, since both confront me on necroposting and since my answer disproves the act of necroposting as a whole(in my opinion), so, as i see it i just ignored poor moomoo while just answering maikochan with a form that (in my opinion) disproves his theory about there being an act of necroposting.
Damn my right hand is starting to hurt...
Thanks.
Yeah, you're right, you were not claiming, you were insinuating.
Hell no, i never claimed to know what SirOni might think. I said (damn i have quoting myself):
I am stating a fact and implying SirOni might not have noticed that is behavior had similarities with said fact, suggesting (hmmm, bold, let's see how it works...) that he think about his behavior, and i'm very satified from his response, i never expected or wanted (nor cared) for him to be sorry.
I already answered this in the beginning so there is not much to say, but i understand your point and your way, it's just heavy for everyone else, hell i'm heavier than you are if i put some effort into it...
Hostility is in itself a form of violence, it's an act of aggression to others in which you try to make your point stronger not just by reasoning but through the force of your words. When you chose force there might be someone getting hurt (there might not be, but the chance still exist), imagine a simple minded polite and shy 10 years old kid, his parents got him a computer, so he's all excited, it's his first time on the internet, he knows nothing about how wild and dangerous the place is, he googles something, finds a forum, finds a thread he's interested in and speak his opinion, first answer is the rage of pissed off oldtimers in a bad mood. It can leave a scar.
This is just an extreme obviously but small things can leave small scars, like the fact that if everyone on the net is an asshole then i too should be an asshole, and it all brings us to a decadent spiral enrolling us in the anonymous army of doom(the dark side!!!).
And i answer you that even tho he is allowed to share his opinion he should not allow himself to share it in a hostile way.
There is no objective (starndard doesn't go with objective since the word is an absolute, while standard refers to a variable amount) definition of "being polite"(although there is for the word polite), certain people/cultures find polite certain actions while other people/cultures find them impolite, so whatever you might think in the context of the internet where people tell you to f**k your m****r, for saying hi, i found his post very polite, but you are free to have your opinion on the matter.
With the laws on copyright pirating is as stealing, i'll have my lawyer contact you.
Don't worry about it, the harder the post, the more rewarding is crushing it. Bwaaaaahahahahahaha...*cough*
I'm beat and hungry, meal time...
A not-so-wise-as-he-would-like-to-be man once said, intelligent people says intelligent things to elevate themselves and those of their kind to be able to discern them from the masses.
Such arrogance is really disturbing, and makes people like that hated and despised everywhere they go, and i know that my behavior can be easily included in the "intelligent people"(and i mean it as an offense) category, beacuse my posts are ambiguous and hard to interpret, even more so in the internet. My first post was made under an heavy headache, so it was even harder to restrain myself than usual.
Making a point on the internet is pointless at best most of the times, in addition even if you are clear you will still be misunderstood most of the times unless your interlocutor really wants to understand your point. There is no real good reason to not be ambiguous, especially since being clear takes a lot of effort, time, a wall-o-text that no one would like to read, and it probably won't get any answer other than "wow, what was all that about?" or "Chill out man, no need to get all serious". While an ambiguous, sarcastic, evil post, will make everyone angry and make them want to express their opinion.
That way the effort to make the point clear, is a group effort, where people actually find interest in, be it for just making a joke on it or actually adding to the discussion, as a result people read, take a standing, develop an opinion, and why not, even learn new things(as i know i did), that's what a discussion should be like in my opinion, if i had just said "you're an asshole" it would really just have become a stupid flame war.
Adding new content to a site might alter the general quality of said site, since new content might be of better quality or because an higher quantity of content might make the monetary effort more worth it.
The amount of time you spend on the forum can give you a general idea of the kind of people that usually dwell in it, but you can't seriously belive that you can "guarantee" someone won't show up and be aggressive, especially since we are on the internet, the lawless land where the anonymous army reign supreme.
That's a much better explanation than the other sarcastic one and i'll accept it.
Since you want to go the synthax way, necrobump is not an official word, so in itself it means nothing more than what meaning people gives to it, as such it is more an opinion than an actual definition, you can google it all you want but it isn't more than internet slang, and it has no definite and clear meaning (something like love or justice i might add), or it specify an amount of time for it to be applicable. Definition by Urban dictionary:
So, ok, as you say you can consider it just a matter of time, so what?
Just cause you or this ravic guy say so i shoual think so too? (i have my opinion)
Or because most people think something i should conform?
I won't, since you forced me, i'll analyze the literal meaning of the word(damn you, look what you are making me do, i'm not even sure of the correct grammatical terms to analyze a word in english
), composite word, first part "necro", luckily this comes from ancient greek so it's gonna be simple, its a prefix referring to the deads(actually living beings that died, so it's improperly used on something that was not alive to begin with, but no one cares), second part "bump", funny onomatopeical origins, has many meanings, but the one we seek is "to bring a thread up to the top of the list".Now, yeah, i'll admit he indeed bumped, but did he necrobump?
My answer is "no", because the discussion was not dead, it's a thread about opinions, as long as there exist an hermit in a lost corner of this world who might have an opinion on the target of such thread then that thread will always be alive, till every single idiot will have said what he/she/it wanted to say, till then the thread is just sleeping quietly in wait.
A dead thread you have when someone requests a game and that game is provided, my young padawan.
On the point of the moomaiko thing, i'll answer with math(i'll keep it simple):
One says: a + a = 4 so: a=3
The other says: a x a = 4 so: a=3
I say a=2
My answer applies to both even tho they said different things, since both confront me on necroposting and since my answer disproves the act of necroposting as a whole(in my opinion), so, as i see it i just ignored poor moomoo while just answering maikochan with a form that (in my opinion) disproves his theory about there being an act of necroposting.
Damn my right hand is starting to hurt...
Thanks.
Yeah, you're right, you were not claiming, you were insinuating.
Hell no, i never claimed to know what SirOni might think. I said (damn i have quoting myself):
I am stating a fact and implying SirOni might not have noticed that is behavior had similarities with said fact, suggesting (hmmm, bold, let's see how it works...) that he think about his behavior, and i'm very satified from his response, i never expected or wanted (nor cared) for him to be sorry.
I already answered this in the beginning so there is not much to say, but i understand your point and your way, it's just heavy for everyone else, hell i'm heavier than you are if i put some effort into it...
Hostility is in itself a form of violence, it's an act of aggression to others in which you try to make your point stronger not just by reasoning but through the force of your words. When you chose force there might be someone getting hurt (there might not be, but the chance still exist), imagine a simple minded polite and shy 10 years old kid, his parents got him a computer, so he's all excited, it's his first time on the internet, he knows nothing about how wild and dangerous the place is, he googles something, finds a forum, finds a thread he's interested in and speak his opinion, first answer is the rage of pissed off oldtimers in a bad mood. It can leave a scar.
This is just an extreme obviously but small things can leave small scars, like the fact that if everyone on the net is an asshole then i too should be an asshole, and it all brings us to a decadent spiral enrolling us in the anonymous army of doom(the dark side!!!).
And i answer you that even tho he is allowed to share his opinion he should not allow himself to share it in a hostile way.
There is no objective (starndard doesn't go with objective since the word is an absolute, while standard refers to a variable amount) definition of "being polite"(although there is for the word polite), certain people/cultures find polite certain actions while other people/cultures find them impolite, so whatever you might think in the context of the internet where people tell you to f**k your m****r, for saying hi, i found his post very polite, but you are free to have your opinion on the matter.
With the laws on copyright pirating is as stealing, i'll have my lawyer contact you.
Don't worry about it, the harder the post, the more rewarding is crushing it. Bwaaaaahahahahahaha...*cough*
I'm beat and hungry, meal time...
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: Barbarian Babes?
I said this thread is now about boxxy.
Also,
Your comparison to mathematics is also faulty. Mathematics is absolute; no matter how many people say that 3+3=4, 3+3 always equals 6. This is not the case with language. If everyone says that necroposting is posting in a topic with no posts for a month, then necroposting indeed does mean posting in a topic with no posts for a month.
Edit: I just read the rest of the post. I can't believe I fell for such an obvious troll. "Hostility is in itself a form of violence"?
I said this thread is now about boxxy.
Also,
is wrong. A thread is dead when there's no posts for a certain period of time. This is a matter of definition. Who decides the definition? Majority. If most people agree that a phrase means something, then that phrase means that, regardless of the original or intended meaning(although the original meaning doesn't go away; a phrase can have multiple definitions). Therefore, a thread is dead when no one posts in it for a certain period of time. That period varies, but is generally less than a year. Therefore, any thread with no posts for a year is dead. Necroposting means posting in a dead thread. Therefore anyone posting in a topic with no posts for a year is necroposting.
Your comparison to mathematics is also faulty. Mathematics is absolute; no matter how many people say that 3+3=4, 3+3 always equals 6. This is not the case with language. If everyone says that necroposting is posting in a topic with no posts for a month, then necroposting indeed does mean posting in a topic with no posts for a month.
Edit: I just read the rest of the post. I can't believe I fell for such an obvious troll. "Hostility is in itself a form of violence"?
Last edited:
JohnDoe
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 770
- Reputation score
- 90
Re: Barbarian Babes?
I'm no good with boxxy, i know, i suck at life...
If most people agree that a phrase means something, that does not mean i'll have to agree too, besides, if most people agree about something it does not make it inherently correct. Also following your reasoning based on majority, as long as i can reasonably express my opinion and convince the majority of people reading it that it is more correct than an opinion based solely on a time factor than my definition will become the right one. Just pointing out that something is wrong cause it's not what most people says, it's like saying that all ideas of all minorities are wrong.
So what?
The fact mathematic is not an opinion does not mean people won't have an opinion on it(Ok, this is ambiguous, better elaborate). The fact that 3+3 always equals "6", does not imply that there might be an idiot out there who might says "square", the math example is referred to the actual applicability of my answer as a solution to both equations, and it was made extremely simple for anyone to understand, but if you want i can use higher grade equations like "a^2 = 4" where the answer is not necessarily "2", but can also be "-2", or maybe a 10th grade equation with 10 solutions, or an integral, just to show off.
"Hostility is in itself a form of violence" makes this a troll?
Can you elaborate, cause i don't understand your point?
I'm no good with boxxy, i know, i suck at life...
If most people agree that a phrase means something, that does not mean i'll have to agree too, besides, if most people agree about something it does not make it inherently correct. Also following your reasoning based on majority, as long as i can reasonably express my opinion and convince the majority of people reading it that it is more correct than an opinion based solely on a time factor than my definition will become the right one. Just pointing out that something is wrong cause it's not what most people says, it's like saying that all ideas of all minorities are wrong.
So what?
The fact mathematic is not an opinion does not mean people won't have an opinion on it(Ok, this is ambiguous, better elaborate). The fact that 3+3 always equals "6", does not imply that there might be an idiot out there who might says "square", the math example is referred to the actual applicability of my answer as a solution to both equations, and it was made extremely simple for anyone to understand, but if you want i can use higher grade equations like "a^2 = 4" where the answer is not necessarily "2", but can also be "-2", or maybe a 10th grade equation with 10 solutions, or an integral, just to show off.
"Hostility is in itself a form of violence" makes this a troll?
Can you elaborate, cause i don't understand your point?
UrbanKirasagi
Pooky
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 466
- Reputation score
- 66
Re: Barbarian Babes?
This thread suddenly reminds me of this:
This thread suddenly reminds me of this:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: Barbarian Babes?
You completely missed the part where I said this applies to language. If most people agree that necroposting means posting to a thread with no posts for a month, then that's what it means, whether you agree or not, because then most people using that phrase will mean that meaning, which means that that phrase has that meaning. You can argue about it all you want, but if someone says "no" they're very unlikely to mean "yes" regardless of your opinion in the matter. And you can argue about it all you want, but it wont change anything.
You completely missed the part where I said this applies to language. If most people agree that necroposting means posting to a thread with no posts for a month, then that's what it means, whether you agree or not, because then most people using that phrase will mean that meaning, which means that that phrase has that meaning. You can argue about it all you want, but if someone says "no" they're very unlikely to mean "yes" regardless of your opinion in the matter. And you can argue about it all you want, but it wont change anything.
JohnDoe
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 770
- Reputation score
- 90
Re: Barbarian Babes?
I'll make this my signature.
EDIT:
You can argue all you want, but the fact is people don't always mean what they say, as Douchebag said, and as you said if someone says "no" they are unlikely to mean yes, but that sometime depends on the situatuation, funny as it might seem comunication doesn't work as math. When arguing about something being strict is a fault, because in the world of human minds there is no absolute truth, everything is an opinion. Your strict opinion of this being this and that being that, is close minded and limits your ability to grow and evolve your opinions.
I'll make this my signature.
EDIT:
You can argue all you want, but the fact is people don't always mean what they say, as Douchebag said, and as you said if someone says "no" they are unlikely to mean yes, but that sometime depends on the situatuation, funny as it might seem comunication doesn't work as math. When arguing about something being strict is a fault, because in the world of human minds there is no absolute truth, everything is an opinion. Your strict opinion of this being this and that being that, is close minded and limits your ability to grow and evolve your opinions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: Barbarian Babes?
You've spent about 2000 words arguing an opinion no-one else here shares and you're calling me closed minded? Communication indeed does not work like math, which I just pointed out to you in my next to last post. Communication works like democracy, and because no-one shares your opinion, that means you're wrong.
You've spent about 2000 words arguing an opinion no-one else here shares and you're calling me closed minded? Communication indeed does not work like math, which I just pointed out to you in my next to last post. Communication works like democracy, and because no-one shares your opinion, that means you're wrong.
SirOni
Demon Girls #1 Fan
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,206
- Reputation score
- 493
Re: Barbarian Babes?
Okay, okay, okay, to hopefully put an end to this heated discussion lets look at it from another point of view;
Common sense dictates that when a thread hasn't been posted in for more than a year, hell even more than several months, the thread is classed as being dead UNLESS it's a thread in an active RP OR a thread such as the Birthday's, Member Announcement's or Intro's threads. With that in mind common sense would also dictate that posting in a thread that has been dead for well over a year would be considered necro bumping.
Okay, okay, okay, to hopefully put an end to this heated discussion lets look at it from another point of view;
Common sense dictates that when a thread hasn't been posted in for more than a year, hell even more than several months, the thread is classed as being dead UNLESS it's a thread in an active RP OR a thread such as the Birthday's, Member Announcement's or Intro's threads. With that in mind common sense would also dictate that posting in a thread that has been dead for well over a year would be considered necro bumping.
- Status