People who act tough in threads, then cry like babies when I question their beliefs.

[CaptHayfever]

There are worlds beyond this one, worlds as we've never seen...nor can we. Our eyes do not open far enough...Try it; try holding your eyes open...you can try holding them open as much as you want, but you'll never see...never, ever see...The world beyond the veil...the Veil of Reality...It's there to protect us, from them: the Ancients...the Darkness...that which we CANNOT understand. Nor should we...Welcome the oblivion of ignorance, for to have knowledge...is to be CONDEMNED!!

And remember, "This can't be happening..."

[Zaden]

Join me in the flesh. The mass is all-knowing. Our biology yearns to join with yours. We welcome you to our mass. Shake the tyranny of the individual. Why do you fear that which is perfection? Why do you deny the joys of the mass? If you will not lie down with us, we will rend you to nothingness.

[PK FIRE!]

Close but he made no reference to techknowlogy or the adoptation there of, Though the only other being that I can think of with similar goals is the Demon Noh mask from Inu Yasha so odds are I'm probibly wrong.

- You stupid dog.

[Zaden]

"Why do you deny the joys of the mass? If you will not lie down with us, we will rend you to nothingness."

=

"RESISTENCE IS FUTILE."

[CaptHayfever]

It was a reference to something, I'll grant you that. I'll also let you know that the answer can be found somewhere in my post.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Rainbow Dash]

man it's kind of forever blackness in here

[Deepfake]

So, remember the lessons that this topic has taught.
1. People who explode when you question their beliefs are silly.
2. Boo and CaptHayfever can walk on water.
3. That Guy is the original guy who spoke in lowercase.
4. AI is fun to confuse with acted out insano-rage.
5. Few people understand the difference between doing what you say is wrong to prove a point and doing it unintentionally and looking silly in the process. (Although to some, the insano-rant was both.)
6. Electric mushrooms fry tonsils of evil geese radically by the radio sunshine.
[spoiler]7. Metal Man's mind is a portal to Lovecraftian insanity.[/spoiler]

You have yet to confirm my confusion, my good fellow. But it's cool, we can run with that.

[Rainbow Dash]

this thread is p dumb

[Metal Man]

You have yet to confirm my confusion, my good fellow. But it's cool, we can run with that.

Run, run to the moon, where the true meaning of my posts hides

this thread is p dumb

The dumbness of empty owl filled eternities consumes all the words thrown at it with its incandescent infiniteness of unfulfilled realities. The letter p is but one symbol in the brick wall of conscious thought that absorbs that which is thrown at it with the red greens of Jupiter's gravitational pull.

With its power it assimilates the energy given to ridicule its substance and powers beyond arise, made real by other's dislike.

[Rainbow Dash]

this thread is p dumb

thats really all there is to say on the matter

[Zaden]

[QUOTE=Metal Man][QUOTE=A.I.]
You have yet to confirm my confusion, my good fellow. But it's cool, we can run with that. [/QUOTE]
Run, run to the moon, where the true meaning of my posts hides[/QUOTE]

So what? Now you're just gonna let it fester?

A.I., try actually reading his posts rather than just saying "TL;DR" and if you did read them, try reading them again. I understand the basics of what Metal Man is trying to say, it's not all incoherent babble. If I can get something out of his rant, I don't see why you shouldn't, because I doubt I'm that much smarter than you. I'm probably not smarter than you at all.

Metal Man, if you have a problem with A.I., and a long rant just confused him, try spelling it out nice and simple. If you just try to forget whatever he did ever happened and he does it again later, it's gonna piss you off even more and things will just get worse.

If you guys seriously don't understand what the other is saying, I'll go back and read EVERYTHING and you can use me as a translator.

[encouraging tone]Come on, you guys are both adults, and you're both men.

[very encouraging tone]It's time for you guys to take frustration, bitterness, anger, and petty differences by the nutsack and kick their faces in. BECAUSE THEY SUCK AND YOU DON'T AND YOU PWN THEM.

[CaptHayfever]

^^I think it's q dumb. :mad:

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Metal Man]

thats really all there is to say on the matter

No! You have it all wrong! It's q dumb 3! It's like p dumb, only three times as powerful!

So what? Now you're just gonna let it fester?

A.I., try actually reading his posts rather than just saying "TL;DR" and if you did read them, try reading them again. I understand the basics of what Metal Man is trying to say, it's not all incoherent babble. If I can get something out of his rant, I don't see why you shouldn't, because I doubt I'm that much smarter than you. I'm probably not smarter than you at all.

Metal Man, if you have a problem with A.I., and a long rant just confused him, try spelling it out nice and simple. If you just try to forget whatever he did ever happened and he does it again later, it's gonna piss you off even more and things will just get worse.

I'll humor you this time, but I doubt it'll do much of anything.

AI, I found your statements here perplexing.

Then again, you aren't omniscient, either. Your seeming inability to grasp your unintended arrogance is actually something you tend to share with other-MM. I wouldn't worry about pissing off a few people, as long as you're not totally belligerent. Guys like that are fun to piss off, and you're basically missing the point if you expect them not to get pissed.

If, on the other hand, you piss off someone like Boo, or Hayfever, you're probably the one being a prick. There are plenty of people who have invested a lot of their energy and time actually using their heads. Just because they haven't come to what you perceive as a flawless conclusion doesn't give you any particular right to stick it to them.

Why is it okay for me to nitpick the arguments of everyone except those few people? Isn't nitpicking arguments to death annoying in general?

And why do you think my statements are arrogant? What makes them any different from the ones you just made?

There. It's simple. Now just watch as AI goes tl:dr; again. While he does that, I'm going to go make some sentences about electric velociraptors ice skating on Chunky's lack of punctuation. Somehow I think that'll get slightly more accomplished, as at least the nonsensical sentences are amusing.

[Deepfake]

I really appreciate the mini-modding. It's a nice touch to the Absurdist practices tying this thread together. It really doesn't aim to accomplish much, though, more or less Guernica all over again. It could almost liken to an illustration of that familiar bourgeois struggle; desperate to liken itself to something larger than men, and more akin to the circumstance of their nature.

Still, it falls short and merely parallels some negligible adolescent iconoclasm; devoid of any more reason than that repeating power struggle between the shifting cultures of the young and the old. It coalesces, truly, around that youthful resentment of being rather than the universal trappings of survival.







Or, you know, we can stop gloating over our amazingly bighuge brains and say something that makes conversation worthwhile.

That there should be any pretense that we all communicate to accomplish the same ends is the issue I've presented. Choosing to argue with people who do not want honesty but the respect of being seen as correct, while going on and expecting it to have a fantastic outcome could be seen as arrogant.

Compounding that with ignorance of the pretext of your opponent's purpose in communicating doesn't make it less so, and you will make it worse should you choose to press a point that is not on the table. (IE; Someone's cause of interest in the NRA, or their partipation in the Catholic Church) Your lack of omniscience does not lend you brevity, you are likely to make false judgements.

Striking up and focusing an argument on an assumption of another person's motive or belief is a dick move, and an action which both you and MMario have done before. Still, you're not nearly so self-centered as he is to imagine that you're not capable of being arrogant in such a fashion.

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

Zaidon, trying to "mediate" doesn't help. Particularly between a SuperMod and a veteran member. You probably don't intend on being incredibly condescending, but that's how it's coming across. These two members are more than capable of dealing with each other in a respectful and understanding fashion, and no one really needs a third-party declaring themselves the ideal solution to "translating" any prior posts. If someone had a legitimate point, they can clarify it themselves. When you know what you're trying to say, you can say it more than one way.

Also, it should be pointed out that "tl;dr" doesn't actually mean you didn't read it. It's an offhand way of telling someone "you took way too long to get to your point". It's an expression of impatience for the length of their relating. It's the internet's way of saying you should be more concise. People put it at the end of their own long winded posts as a single-line summary of their entire story.

Now, if anyone genuinely believes MM's original point was confusing or somehow misinterpreted (as is being claimed, here), you're not seeing things very clearly. We all know exactly what he was saying. It's overwhelmingly clear. People make a big fuss out of simply opinions all the time. So, if you'll kindly note, AI's first response was a directly reply, addressing certain statements MM made. There was no confusion from his end. It was conversational and an honestly shared opinion.

A problem lies therein; MM was obviously not sure how AI's comments applied to his original post, and instead of asking for clarification of those statements, he just goes off on this supposed "intentional" rant to make his point clear to those of us who (though never said as much) apparently didn't get it.

In case it wasn't obvious (to everyone who didn't think it hilarious, mind ;) ) my other post was 100% sarcastic; no one really thinks you were doing that intentionally, MM, because 1. we didn't have any trouble understanding you in the first place, and 2. it wasn't even relevant to your original statements. It was a tangent of inconsolable rage directed at AI because you were uncomfortable with what he said, and probably thought he was saying something he wasn't.

The problem here is, MM, you really do have trouble being humble enough to admit in the first place that you didn't understand what AI was getting at and how it applied to your original post. It took you this long, with plenty of transparent frustration, to outright ask what he had intended by that post. If you really wanted to illustrate a point, it wouldn't have been to make some far-fetched "demonstration". You would have clarified (maybe even used "little words" for us of lesser mental prowess than yourself).

Point being, MM, you're pretty much proving what AI said in the first place: unintentional arrogance led you to believe none of us knew what you were talking about, and you've taken it upon yourself to believe we somehow misunderstand your standard communication. Trust me, nothing you've ever said has been a stretch to understand, from the perspective of your language. Sometimes you don't appropriately convey your ideas, or use words in a weird context, but that doesn't mean you're expressing things above our heads. So come in, have a seat, and leave your preconceptions at the door. They hinder your attempts at communicating. We don't need it.

[Metal Man]

Or, you know, we can stop gloating over our amazingly bighuge brains and say something that makes conversation worthwhile.

That there should be any pretense that we all communicate to accomplish the same ends is the issue I've presented. Choosing to argue with people who do not want honesty but the respect of being seen as correct, while going on and expecting it to have a fantastic outcome could be seen as arrogant.

Compounding that with ignorance of the pretext of your opponent's purpose in communicating doesn't make it less so, and you will make it worse should you choose to press a point that is not on the table. (IE; Someone's cause of interest in the NRA, or their partipation in the Catholic Church) Your lack of omniscience does not lend you brevity, you are likely to make false judgements.

Striking up and focusing an argument on an assumption of another person's motive or belief is a dick move, and an action which both you and MMario have done before. Still, you're not nearly so self-centered as he is to imagine that you're not capable of being arrogant in such a fashion.

Then we have our disagreement right here. The assumption I made was a hasty one, intended to deflect a class of poster that doesn't appear here.

It is not an every-argument thing for me.

And from this comes my rebuttal. I believe you made the same kind of hasty judgment I made: you assume my intent in all arguments is to use that mean-spirited tactic.

It isn't. Most of the time, I couldn't care less about the other person's intent. Usually I just prop up an argument out of sources which conflict the other person's viewpoint.

So while you have a valid point that I was a dick when I assumed he had some nefarious intent that time...

...you seem to be making the same assumption about my argument style.

Furthermore, I reject your classification of my typing style as to project 'omniscience.' My intent of replacing "I", "Me", and also "That person" and "*Person name Here*" with "Some people" and "Others" is to be indirect and avoid mischaracterizing people. Ironic, isn't it?

I'll sum it up in case that was too long for you.
1. My intent in arguments isn't always to jump on people for assumed affiliations/plans.
2. In your judgment on my argument style, you appear to have made an assumption in the same style you just said was bad.
3. Contrary to what it may look like, I speak indirectly to try and avoid shoe-horning opinions into people's mouths. Taking it to mean I'm trying to be omniscient is the exact opposite of my purpose. You're free to do that, but believe you me--when I really am speaking for a group, I tend to use we.

Alternatively, the actual problem with my indirect speech is that it uses weasel words, which only suggests that someone out there believes it, and not who. I find it hard to consider it 'omniscient' if it cannot even state the names of whoever is being read by the omniscience.

The problem here is, MM, you really do have trouble being humble enough to admit in the first place that you didn't understand what AI was getting at and how it applied to your original post. It took you this long, with plenty of transparent frustration, to outright ask what he had intended by that post. If you really wanted to illustrate a point, it wouldn't have been to make some far-fetched "demonstration". You would have clarified (maybe even used "little words" for us of lesser mental prowess than yourself).

Point being, MM, you're pretty much proving what AI said in the first place: unintentional arrogance led you to believe none of us knew what you were talking about, and you've taken it upon yourself to believe we somehow misunderstand your standard communication. Trust me, nothing you've ever said has been a stretch to understand, from the perspective of your language. Sometimes you don't appropriately convey your ideas, or use words in a weird context, but that doesn't mean you're expressing things above our heads. So come in, have a seat, and leave your preconceptions at the door. They hinder your attempts at communicating. We don't need it.

Hm, that gives me the missing piece in the puzzle, because I have waffled between "Do they even understand what I am saying?" to "Are they intentionally ignoring what I mean in order to confuse me?" to "I don't care anymore, it's velociraptor ice skating time."

Truthfully, I was just confused out of my mind. Then, taking the braniac's way not-out of the problem, I decided to modulate what I was saying until something clicked. However that didn't work because it came off as arrogance (or hilariously wall-chewing ridiculousness)... when in reality I was just totally confused and then too dumb to ask what was going on. I didn't really think my words were above everyone, but rather felt that suddenly nothing I was saying made any sense anymore to the targets who I actually wanted to talk to and became frustrated.

For all his faults in trying to mini-mod between two ancient members who don't need the help, Zaidon was slightly helpful--I was skeptical that actually asking would get me any information, as my stance had waffled between "They can't understand a word I say, by god, what is wrong with these people?!?!" to "They don't want to understand, so who cares?" Then, using my brain to further impair my ability to reason anything, I would overthink over and over again what other people were doing, until I essentially drowned in my own verbiage.

But it is good to see I know the answer now--the act of being confused appears to translate to being arrogant, so instead of being confused again, I'll just ask about things more often.

Sheesh. Only took me 3 years to bother to ask. Would have saved me a lot of annoyance and wasted topics.

Although my other comments to AI still apply, as I am still baffled by some of his logic.

Alas, I'd say more, but it's 4 AM, so I'll just reply to your replies to this tomorrow.

Still, I'm going to be smacking my face into the wall for days over this one. It was this which led to that whole time everyone hated me 3 years ago, and that was terrible.

[Deepfake]

Unfortunately, you're off your mark again.

I'm not speaking of your intent, or your tactics, but the subject. You are not all-knowing of a person's intent of communication. You occasionally misfire in your judgment of the subject, and instead are making argument toward a facet of the subject that is not legitimate. You're arguing against your preconception of someone else's preconception of the subject at hand, as does everyone. This is muddling your ability to communicate. Sometimes, as a result of that, you are likely to provoke a negative reaction, even in dealing with reasonable and respectful people. Unfortunately, you would be unaware while this occurs, and it can be frustrating to deal with the aftermath. That doesn't mean you're a MMario. Hayfever is an ideal eample for this, because he is reserved and polite, in that he also respects that your personal perceptions are not open for argument, unless you present them as such.

At other times, there are those people - ones who argue for the sake of arguing, the chance of winning. They will take exception to anything they think they can make an argument against. Those people are the ones you've made your complaint about. They're certainly a place to focus a complaint, I sympathize, but if you can identify them prior to argument, it doesn't have to be an issue. If you accept that they exist, you can make arguments just to get them hot under the collar. If you're a bastard like me, you'll let them make these arguments one after another until something they've based an argument off of is in contradiction of any new statements they've made. Your gripe is valid, but those people won't actually learn from being shown that they are wrong.

It's possible to mistake the two scenarios for one another. There are few ways to avoid them, especially when the accuracy of a person's argument is related to your understanding of their perceptions of the argument.

[Rainbow Dash]

Also, it should be pointed out that "tl;dr" doesn't actually mean you didn't read it. It's an offhand way of telling someone "you took way too long to get to your point".

okay then say that

Urban Dictionary: tl;dr

[Greenmarioman]

dear tg

you are my idol and i strive for your smugness

not you chunky, you poser

[Rainbow Dash]

dear tg

you are my idol and i strive for your smugness

not you chunky, you poser

:mad: