Just cleared Turn 1

[wonka11]

So you're bragging about tanking the first boss fight in coil - which at five stacks is admittedly impressive - but nobody worth listening to said you can't. I was with you up until you began to demonstrate an impressive degree of ignorance... perpetuating amounts of exponentially useless configurations of the alphabet.

So for context sakes, and by your own admonition, perhaps you should illuminate as what specifically you were "up with me" until my "impressive degree of ignorance". Grammatically, are you "up with me" in the aspect that I'm bragging about five stacks and you're saying that is impressive? Or were you "up with me" about my position that Warriors are fine and 2.1 is going to send us over the threshold and make us more competitive than Paladin tanks, or that Paladin tanks should be nerfed and warriors not buffed; because one of those qualifies as an argument.

Lets say you're not with the later, but the former. Yet, if this is the case, how would any sort of misguided information or logical fallacy that I may commit somehow deter you from thinking that the idea of a Warrior tanking 5 stacks is now somehow unimpressive? I mean, if I am being charitable I have to assume you wouldn't propose a change of position based on this particular subject because of a lack of logic. It is clear that whatever my position may be, as invalid as it may be, in the correct context tanking T1 with 5 stacks as a warrior is still to you 'impressive'. Only a bumbling, temperamental, dunce would make such an emotional shift in position between two variables which are not related in this example.

I must then, logically, irrevocably assume your comment is then directed toward my assertion that Warriors are fine as they are, and 2.1 will draw the unwashed masses of skilless dps complex bard and horrible dragoons to the class. There really is no other interpretation for your comment within the context of the presupposed statements; unless of course neither is the issue and you're just spamming the entire thread with nonsense so inane and inconsequential that one would be led to believe that you're living with assistance for your mental aptitude.

logically at this point we can assume only one of three outcomes:

A) You're letting your emotions cloud your sense of logic
B) You really are proposing ad-hominem in regards to sentence context
C) You're just posting useless rubbish out of content and displaying a lack of cognitive ability of which an 8th grader possesses.

Yet, do you know what the beauty, the inexplicable and exceptional detail as to which defines your whole interaction in context to what I am writing?

None of this has anything to do with the point I am trying to convey using you as the example. You haven't even the faintest idea as to what I am attempting to accomplish nor the hints I'm even giving you throughout this entire thread to illustrate the satire.

I'll point some out since you can't put it together and maybe another poster can deduct exactly what this puzzle's answer is (and let us be honest, you're here because you're killing time, you may as well try to figure it out):

Stick Man argument
Intentional use of one liners with a common trait shared by each
Use of Jpeg/Youtube in a specific manner
Reference to internet crusading
Reference to inane comments
Ad-Hominem

There is a 150,000 gil bet riding on this right now, and it looks like I'm going to win it.