2.0 Grass: please change!

[Ingolf]

Is it really that complicated? Really? I'm sure if other people WISHED to subject themselves to having to deal with you, that they could explain to you what my point was, but frankly I'm a little astonished. Honestly, I don't believe you tried. There's a few key words in my statements that you apparently merely skimmed over. Go ahead, give it another go around, think a little harder. I have faith that you can get those old cogs rolling and figure it out without me having to give you the cheatsheet.

I've broken down your post. If you have another point the burden of proof is on you to explain it. The whole "You're too stupid to get my point!" argument is a logical fallacy as it stands, but lets not delve into that, shall we?

I'll wait.

[Punainen]

I've broken down your post. If you have another point the burden of proof is on you to explain it. The whole "You're too stupid to get my point!" argument is a logical fallacy as it stands, but lets not delve into that, shall we?

I'll wait.

Oh, my faith in humanity has died a little.

Well I'm about to get off here anyway as this has totally derailed and thereby become no longer fun; so as a farewell present, I'll explain what my point was.

My point was that he had stopped contributing to the debate about the grass, and had boiled down into mere insults; thus I informed him that he couldn't expect to win and have me go away just because he insults me, and that he needs to provide a substantial argument toward the subject of his debate if he's going to expect to win it. But you stepped in and quite immediately went into the 'no substance, all insults' stance as well, and thus I was not going to dignify that with serious responses. You may have noted, that in the instances in which you DID attempt to debate the TOPIC of this thread, I also responded in kind. With sarcasm when you dealt sarcasm, and seriousness when called for. But the majority of your comments were irrelevant to the topic, and thus didn't warrant any more of a respectful response than the one I gave Neptune.

Case in point, I wasn't complaining about him throwing insults, I was complaining about his use of insults and LACK OF SUBSTANCE as an attempt to win the debate. I was not insulting you as an attempt to win a debate over grass. He WAS insulting me as an attempt to win a debate over grass.

Now, I really do hope that you have the capacity to grasp my point now that I've laid it all out for you.

And with that, I bid you adieu and good day.

[Ingolf]

My point was that he had stopped contributing to the debate about the grass, and had boiled down into mere insults

You did the same thing.

he needs to provide a substantial argument toward the subject of his debate if he's going to expect to win it.

You said "u mad" which is about the worst possible argument to use on the internet.

But you stepped in and quite immediately went into the 'no substance, all insults' stance as well, and thus I was not going to dignify that with serious responses.

There was substance mixed with the insults, like a delicious cocktail.

You may have noted, that in the instances in which you DID attempt to debate the TOPIC of this thread, I also responded in kind.

Actually you tried to deflect with sarcasm:

Yes, give me lagging and low framerates! I WANT BETTER GRASS!!

Case in point, I wasn't complaining about him throwing insults, I was complaining about his use of insults and LACK OF SUBSTANCE as an attempt to win the debate.

He used both sparingly. He countered with insults when you said "U mad" like the lyrical assassin that you are.

Now, I really do hope that you have the capacity to grasp my point now that I've laid it all out for you.

And with that, I bid you adieu and good day.

I know you're reading this