Thread: 2.0 Grass: please change!

Originally Posted by Punainen

Look, you clearly have NO idea what I was saying, so... Just learn to accept that there's just some things you can't understand, okay?

Originally Posted by Punainen

Apparently you missed all of his other comments

I missed his other comments (I didn't).

Originally Posted by Punainen

which were implying I was stupid and didn't know how to read or understand what he was saying.

He wasn't (you are.)

Originally Posted by Punainen

This isn't too hard, so try to keep up, big guy.

You're doing the same thing that you're condemning him for, which turned this post:

Originally Posted by Punainen

So let me get this straight... You win arguments by having a God-complex, and attempting to belittle the intelligence of the competition. Noooot exactly a way to win against people who ACTUALLY think for themselves. You've spent too much time debating against children. Welcome to the bigleagues, where 'hinting' that you think I'm stupid wont cover the fact that you can't carry your argument on real merits.

Come back when you can actually make a competent argument as to why, after complaining about the copy-paste environment, you think they should make all the plantlife look identical, all be the same color, and magically rotate; and should waste countless hours UNDOING what they've already done to 'fix' an issue that no one ever complained about until you just now.

GRASS will not spell the life or death of this game. Ever.


Edit: Also there was absolutely nothing wrong with my 'phrasing'. Try actually knowing how to construct a proper sentence and use words in their proper context before you attempt to lord over me with your 'superior intellect'. For that matter you may as well just stop trying if you don't know how; as a flamboyant sentence structure and eloquent (misused) phrasing doesn't actually convince me that I'm being outwitted.

Into delicious irony.

Originally Posted by Ingolf

I missed his other comments (I didn't).



He wasn't (you are.)



You're doing the same thing that you're condemning him for, which turned this post:



Into delicious irony.

Its not delicious or irony, nor even hypocrisy for that matter, because the point I was making flew so far over your head that you apparently can't even begin to comprehend its existence, much less what it actually was. And I'm not going to spell it out for you, because if you need to be told, then that's just sad. When you actually contribute to the debate at hand, maybe I'll dignify you with a respectful response. But until then, I'll only respond with what your comments warrant, which is a mixture of amusement and pity.

Originally Posted by Punainen

Its not delicious or irony, nor even hypocrisy for that matter, because the point I was making flew so far over your head that you apparently can't even begin to comprehend its existence, much less what it actually was. And I'm not going to spell it out for you, because if you need to be told, then that's just sad. When you actually contribute to the debate at hand, maybe I'll dignify you with a respectful response. But until then, I'll only respond with what your comments warrant, which is a mixture of amusement and pity.

You called someone out for calling you stupid.

You called someone stupid.

There is no other point, I would say that you're using subverted support, but you're not even trying to explain the phenomenon. (it doesn't exist.)

Originally Posted by Punainen

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.

Originally Posted by Ingolf

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.

Originally Posted by Punainen

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.

Originally Posted by Punainen

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.

Originally Posted by Punainen

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.

Originally Posted by Punainen

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:

Originally Posted by Punainen

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

Originally Posted by Punainen

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.

Originally Posted by Punainen

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

Originally Posted by Punainen

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

I know you're reading this