RE: *Sigh*
>>>You still persisted in claiming your
>>>definition of a gaming term
>>>to be correct, despite the
>>>not only obvious, but also
>>>common use on the term.
>>Common use matters not, I belive
>>it to be right and
>>it is right. It
>>is all of you who
>>are wrong because your opinion
>>does not conincide with mine,
>>and you think I am
>>wrong because my opinion does
>>not conicide with yours
>
>So technically you can make any
>word fit *your* definition and
>you will be right.
>As proven to MatuX about
>"hackers" a few weeks before,
>common use ALWAYS takes prededance.
> Whether or not you
>choose to walk out of
>your virtual world and accept
>reality is up to you,
>that is, unless you are
>ignorant of the more common
>meaning.
Yeah so, whats the problem there? Now why does Common use take Precidence?
>>>I'm talking apples here, and discussing
>>>
>>>various things about them. You
>>>then go off talking about
>>>oranges and insiting that's the
>>>correct point of discussion.
>
>
>>Then when I correct you
>>by saying that I'm talking
>>about apples,
>>you say that
>>they are both fruit, so
>>you are correct by talking
>>about another fruit.
>>I am though, they are both
>>fruit, like our opinions are
>>both opnions. Your opinions
>>are the apples, mine the
>>oranges. I am correct
>>in talking of my opinions,
>>and you yours. although you
>>belive I am wrong in
>>talking of my opinions and
>>I belive you are wrong
>>in talking of yours, because
>>I do not belive them
>>to be the truth, and
>>you do not see mine
>>to be the truth.
>
>I really hate it when people
>get caught up in the
>idea that their opinion is
>sacred. It is one
>thing to HOLD an opinion,
>yeah, everyone can do that,
>it is another to put
>it forth for public scrutiny.
I do not belive my opinion is sacred I belive it is the truth, and you belive yours is the truth.
>
>By even writing your message you
>have given anyone who reads
>it a right to contest
>and/or agree to it.
>That's the whole point of
>discussion boards. Don't feel
>that we should or need
>to respect your opinion, we
>don't. If you don't
>want your opinion argued or
>ripped apart, don't state it.
I don't really care what you think, I know I am putting my opinion up to Mangled, ripped, teared, and virtully blowen apart, and how much do I care: NIL, if I cared I would not be here
>>>See the parallel?
>>>
>>>If I talk about Cross-Genre and
>>>Hybrid as two different entities,
>>>then deductive logic would conclude
>>>that the meaning of Cross-Genre
>>>would not be the exact
>>>same one used for Hybrid.
>>> For you to continue
>>>insisting that they are one
>>>and the same, despite the
>>>commonly-used definitions as pertaining to
>>>the discussion and despite the
>>>phrasology of "cross-genre movement", is
>>>*stupidity*.
>>I understand that they are not
>>EXACTLY the same, but generally
>>they can be.
>>>"cross-genre movement", would make most hairless
>>>apes conclude that the meaning
>>>of "cross" would be the
>>>one like "crossing a bridge".
>>
>>Apes belong to Primate family Humans
>>to the Homindae family.
>
>And that relates to the topic
>how..? It's not impressive
>if you didn't realize that.
Just being Ludicrous
>>>Though, I could be wrong.
>>>
>>>>But then again I have
>>>>questions for you. One, Why
>>>>do you seem to hate
>>>>me, what have I done
>>>>do, you? You call
>>>>me stupid, yet have you
>>>>seen any of my work?
>>>
>>>No, I said your defnition in
>>>light of all else evidence
>>>was stupid. It would
>>>be like going outside and
>>>saying the sky is chartreuse,
>>>despite having perfectly functioning eyes.
>>> QPS101 bullshit aside, with
>>>facts in plain view, and
>>>going contrary to all given
>>>and possible evidence, that is
>>>stupidity.
>>The sky could be chartreuse, If
>>I belive it to be.
>>
>>And my definition could be right
>>if I belive it to
>>be.
>
>And you could also believe that
>you're actually the son of
>a mermaid and the Loch
>Ness monster. In both
>cases you'd be called a
>moron.
I you want to belive that, fine. Although I don't, you stay in your reality, and I'll stay in mine.
>You can make up whatever you
>want in your dreamworld and
>you'd still be wrong.
Why would I be wrong? IF I decided to belive it it would be right. We all have a different view of reality, no one has the same view of it, we all look from different perspectives, what you call my "dream world" is merely my perspective of reality.
>>>No, it was a sarcastic point
>>>that you were still in
>>>left field, and couldn't be
>>>excused as "ignorant" anymore.
>
>>Actually stupidity is a branch of
>>ignorance, stupid is the quality
>>of having a lack of
>>intellegence, and lack of intellengence
>>is also Ignorance. Ignorance
>>is the ultimate evil.
>
>*Knocks on Skynet's head*
>
>No it isn't stupid.
>
>Ignorance is simply a lack of
>knowledge. It does not
>involve intelligence but rather experience.
>
>
>Stupidity is a willingness to be
>ignorant and/or act in such
>ways opposing better judgement.
A willingness, to be Ignorant, It is ignorant. Anyone who is willing to be ignorant IS ignorant.
>Ignorance is not evil. You
>for instance are probably ignorant
>of the fact that I
>am listening to the "Cantique
>de Jean Racine" by Faure.
Yes I am, but that does not mean it cannot be evil, Ignorance blocks Knowledge and Knowledge is pure, whereas the thing that blocks it is evil (metaphorically).Everything except God is Ignorant, and God is pure and therefore not ignorant. Ignorance is simply to great and Advesary to destroy, or even TRY to fight now. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT, I AM MERELY ANSWERING HIS ARGUEMENT.
>>>>Two, why
>>>>will you not answer my
>>>>question, Why don't we give
>>>>this game a chance?
>>>
>>>Because of...shit games, it leads one
>>>to be a skeptic.
>>>Years of computer gaming, and
>>>running into over-hyped bullshit like
>>>Final Fantasy 7&8 (and on),
>>>does tend to make someone
>>>pessimistic until they see it.
>>> So just because it
>>>has the name of Fallout,
>>>does not mean I would
>>>buy it.
>
>>So you are not even going
>>to give it a chance?
>> (Shakes Head) I am
>>truly suprised.
>
>Did he state that? No
>he did not. He
>is merely stating that he
>doesn't buy products simply for
>the fact that it has
>a product name slapped on
>it. As my English
>teacher says: "Tie it to
>the text."
I was infering, I asked why don't we give it a chance and He gave a negative answer so I inferred my answer from the facts stated.
>>>It's better to be skeptical and
>>>be pleasantly suprised, than continually
>>>optimistic and dissapointed.
>
>>A skeptic is one who disaggres
>>with the generally accepted conclusion,
>>and one who doubts everything
>>or you belong to a
>>school of greek philsophy (which
>>I doubt), You are
>>not a skeptic because you
>>are not going against the
>>genreally accepted conclusion, and you
>>do not dobt anything.
>>Whereas a pessimist is one
>>who stresses the negative or
>>unfavorable view or one who
>>takes the gloomiest view possible,
>>also a person who espects
>>the worst. You, my
>>worthy opponent, are not disaggreing
>>with the generally acctpted conclusion
>>(there is no GENERALLY accepted
>>conclusion is this case)
>>you, my worthy opponent, are
>>expecting the worst and are
>>stressing a unfavorable and negative
>>view (that the game will
>>be horrible). You, my
>>worthy opponent, are a pessimist.
>> Please do
>>not take offense.
>
>He most certainly is skeptical.
>From what other's have said
>about how FOT:BOS will be
>a quality game, that it
>will fit right into the
>Fallout lineup, etc. He
>is skeptical that the product
>will meet expectations stated.
Give me proof of this generally accepted conclusion, I see most are split b/t either side and there is no GENERALLY accepted conclusion. Give me hard evidnece and I will belive you.
>He is also pessimistic because he
>predicts a worse than expected
>outcome for this game.
>
>Skepticism is to not give yourself
>wholeheartedly to a certain outcome.
> It is holding back
>because of the fear that
>the outcome is too good
>to be true.
I am guessing here, but I belive that is actually Neutralism, To not give wholeheartlty to either side, or a certain outcome, to remain in the middle, just waiting. You cannot be a Neutral Pessimist, becasue them you have an opinion, or a Neutral Optimist, you have an opinion still. >Pessimism is predicting that the outcome
>will be worse than what
>is expected.
>
>Now try to keep your unnecessarily
>complicated definitions to yourself.
Why? Whats wrong with complicated definitions, they help me support my arguement.
Now my question for you (a simple yes or no, you can Have an explination but at least put Yes or No as a clear answer), Xotor is: Are you going to give this game a chance?
>-Xotor-
>
>[div align=center]
>
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
>[/div]
