Ronald

Which one is it?

I hope FU is a practicing Lakota...

I dunno, I'd pretty much put on ignore everybody with a) more than two of the same letters consecutively at the end of the given person's name (here's looking at you, kid) B) anybody with numbers in their name Or some variation of the above rules. I dunno. As of right now I'm too inebriated to notice. edito: If any of you truly feel that I am so obnoxious as to be ignored, perhaps a PM explaing your point of view for my edification would be a bit more productive than making mean-spirited comments about it on the board?

That's pretty much one of my fondest arguments to use when I'm approached by evangelicals: "We're both atheists, sir/madam; I simply choose to believe in one god fewer than you do" At worst it devolves into an argument, at best I get them to shut up and to question their faith.

There aren't any monotheists in this thread, so your point is?

Now, which one is ad hominem, and which one is arguing? Pardon me. From now on, before addressing another person on the internet in any way, I will make sure to discern their ethnicity and nationality. Your culture is irrelevant when, in the context in which your comment was written, the inescapable conclusion is that it was an insult. To my culture, at least, if you want to play this game.

Aside from this being highly subjective, as well as a baseless assumption, your point is? In all honesty, nobody who posts on an interweb message board is in the correct position to judge how others utilize their time, myself included. This tidbit doesn't mesh well with the rest of your post, which is very well-thought out and intell... no, wait, the rest of your post is equally stupid, in my humble opinion.

Do you have any examples to back up this assertion?

No, since all the matter and potential energy was in the alleged thimble-sized particle to begin with, the Big Bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Copout. You could admit your defeat a bit more graciously, you know. How about "You know what, Ronald? I really am sorry that I addressed all your logical, well-thought points with personal insults, red herrings, and other broken crutches generally utilized by kindergarten debate champions."? More ad hominem, wheeeee.... Two questions, nino. (1) Unproven? How so? I merely called you on all the ad hominem, etc. (2) What others? Feel free to come back and pretend that your opinion is fact. Existentialism, while a fine philosophy, is not well-regarded by society in general. My kind? You mean the people who argue you into a corner without breaking a sweat, and find your pitiful attempts at dodging the point utterly hilarious? You're absolutely correct, my kind never does warrant a reply because your kind never is keen on making a post to save face. Ooh, more highschool psychology. I already called you on that one. Did you even read my post before deciding that you would look so kewl by attempting to, and failing to, emulate Roshambo? I'm lord of the board? Attacking my education now, are you? For one thing, my level of education is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Not only that, it speaks volumes of your idiocy if you have more education than me and still can't debate your way out of a paper bag. Chucklehead? That's icing on the cake, honey -- pretty much undeniable proof that you're pretending to be Rosh. Here's a hint -- Rosh's technique is comprised of actual arguments sprinkled with some colourful insults. Not only do you lack the actual argument, your insults are without colour.

Bummer that that beautiful series of posts by yours truly in which I educated Role-Player on the nuances of debate and social interaction are, in fact, gone. But good thing I saved the thread right after RP's last post, eh? Again, it was a humorous statement with a tinge of facetiousness. You need a therapist. Biizzzaaaarrrrroooooo how many psychology Ph.D's we have per capita here, isn't it? I'd recommend going with an actual argument instead of mindlessly reciting what you paid attention to during high school psychology. Guess what internet fora are for? That's right, RP, they're for expressing one's opinion. For example, here you express your opinion that everybody needs to see Crimson Room, which was responded to by my opinion that you are an idiot. Then again, I wasn't the one spamming, now, was I? Besides, this point is highly subjective. I'm sure that with your histrionic personality disorder (typically found in females, btw, but that doesn't surprise considering your behavior) you equate your opinion with fact, but it isn't. I don't know. Responding to a joking comment like mine with "Yes, well, excuse me for not receiving the Online Flash Games Monthly Digest. " sure is pretty inciteful, no? You don't exactly rival Ann Landers either, hypocrite. Again, an interweb forum is for people to discuss their opinions. Another dubious at best argument courtesy of Role-Player. You truly are a shining example of the RPG Codex school of debate, ie, ad hominem, red herrings, straw men, lies, and good old fashioned BS. The strangers on the internet you aspire to be like, ie Saint P and Rosh, would doubtlessly be ashamed of you. thank you irvine good night

That's cute, but not an effective argument. Even if you were to present hard facts stating that prepubescent males play video games and think females are gross, what does that mean? Absolutely nothing, because there is no correlation whatsoever, be it negative or positive, between masturbation and playing video games. U LUZ

I'm not a game designer. besides, a cthulhu religion makes a good front -- not that I'd ever do this, you silly feds -- for an anarchist organization, which is kind of not legal D: