Search results

In my defense, this is my thread. I post all my controversial, unpopular thoughts here, where they won't bother the normies. That's what this thread exists for.

Good thing I never made that claim, then. In fact, my claim was exactly that opposite: That if it was someone's stupidity leading them to believe that obvious satire was someone's actual stance, that it SHOULDN'T count as Poe's Law. You know, since Poe's Law is intended to highlight how...

No, I'm pretty good with where things are now. Turns out I was right and that that article was not an example of Poe's Law after all. Very, VERY weird that you would dig up an argument you had already won just to tell me you were wrong all along and my original stance was actually on point...

I'm absolutely positive you didn't.

I'm still reeling that you admitted you were wrong, frankly. So what the fuck was I wrong about then? I never claimed the definition of Poe's Law was arbitrary. I never claimed the definition of Poe's Law makes assumptions about the stupidity of the reader. What was I wrong about? You've...

Wait a minute wait a minute stop the execution. I admitted I was wrong and you were right, according to the very logic you used to show me that the actual definition of Poe's Law doesn't make exceptions for stupidity on the reader's part. I had to admit you were right, and that the case in...

Of course you can. Poe's Law just says that that if somebody interprets satire as someone's legitimate stance, it's Poe's Law. Period. The definition says nothing about whether that person just interpreted it that way because they're an idiot. That was Jhodi's entire argument. That's why I was...

That has never been any part of my argument, let alone the crux. I never said that "falling for a Poe" implied any of that. In this particular case, anyone who thought that article was legit is stupid. That's not a statement about Poe's Law. It's a statement about the obvious nature of the...

No, that's not what I'm saying. That makes no sense. Have you readthis article?It starts off ridiculous, but how far did you get before it became blazingly obvious it was satire? For me it was right here: There is no ambiguity there. It is not subject to misinterpretation as someone's actual...

All right, Jhodes, we've reached the fun part of the cycle again. You're just going to hang your hat on your straw man and copy-paste it for the next whatever days. I'll go back to ignoring them while I post about whatever the fuck else I want in here, you can giggle to yourself about how...

His standard wasn't determining I was wrong. There's your problem. His standard was objecting to how I admitted I was wrong. Since, you know, that's explicitly what he's talking about. It's also explicitly what I am responding to. You are adding meaning that isn't there. Doesn't matter how...

Claims I said Poe's Law's implies stupidity on the part of the reader. Posts my satirical response to how Jhodi chose to invoke Poe's Law, highlighting his repeatedly-stressed point that the definition of Poe's Law allows for stupidity on the part of the reader. You know how you can tell it's...

In fact, for fuck's sake, here: This is, I swear to Christ, NO EXAGGERATION, what Jhodi believes is me claiming the definition of Poe's Law is "arbitrary'. THIS! Despite neither the post itself nor the post it's directly responding to mentioning anything about Poe's Law or its definition...

You're asking for proof of a negative. The onus is on you to show where I said the definition of "Pe's Law" implied stupidity on the part of the reader. You won't be able to, because I never said it. NEXT! Yes, your claim that I called the definition of Poe's Law "arbitrary" has been...

Your fallacy is straw man. Your fallacy is straw man. Your fallacy is straw man. Your fallacy is straw man.

No, it simplyallowsfor it. nobody ever said it implied it. The straw man was you saying that I claimed the definition was arbitrary. I objectively never said that, as I haveproven with my own words. Now, let me get this straight: Your current problem, after I admitted I was wrong and that...

I was wrong, your definition of Poe's law is not arbitrary, it is the only available definition. The people who fell for that article (of which there were only one or two) were absolutely stupid and gullible, but the definition of Poe's Law still allows for that.

There is no alternate definition of "Poe's Law" for which I would be right. This is why I was wrong. I can't be any clearer. The actual definition of Poe's Law, as you clarified many times, does not exclude cases where the reader is too stupid to recognize obvious satire. Afterthis article...

It's not arbitrary. Your definition (which is to say, THE definition) is not arbitrary. I never claimed it was. I was wrong. You were right. Why are you still arguing?

I wanted to give Phantasy Star 1 a run-through, but I made the mistake of playing the GameBoy Advance port, which has a very unfortunate bug that, every time you save the game, either saves the game normally or crashes the game completely (without saving). Needless to say, it made the game...

OK, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. You made a simple, let's say honest mistake. I will patiently, and with complete and total honesty, explain that quote. Doc said this: Do you see how he is criticizing not my actual argument but HOW I admitted I was wrong? According to Doc, if...

I have read and understood your post. I will respond to your query, as well as address your closing point. I used "arbitrary" to describe Doc's criteria for what makes an acceptable admission of being wrong, NOT to describe the definition of Poe's Law. My reply is entirely relevant...

I didn't lie about anything, you slimy shitheel. Those were all cases where I admitted I was wrong. AGAIN: why don'tYOUlink a post whereYOUadmittedYOUwere wrong? Then we can compare it to mine.

PS3 is actually the only one I spent any significant amount of time playing, and I loved it. Guess I should try 4.

Holy fucking shit, Jhodi, take your medication. Everything you've just said has already been acknowledged by me. Denaut's post doesn't contradict me in any way, by the way. Not my claim. My claim was that there needed to be a lack of OBVIOUS tipoffs that the content was satire in order for it...

This is wrong. The intended purpose is to highlight how some extreme views are so ridiculous they are indistinguishable from satire. What was actually happening was that some people were too stupid to recognize obvious satire. The reason I was wrong, at least according to YOU, was specifically...

Hmmm... Better play it safe. I apologize for not admitting I was wrong according to your arbitrary standards that one time. Now, is there a problem with any of the other times I admitted I was wrong? What are we comparing these to again?

I was gonna post this in the GB thread, but that would be pushing my luck, right? Pretty much. The movie didn't warrant any of the supposed controversy. Some shitty journalists were able to get shitloads of clicks because busybodies love looking for things to complain about. Or, you know...

OK, so I put in a good 8 hours or so. It's clear there's a lot to do, which I love. The world feels lived-in and exploring it is a joy. Collecting everything you find is as satisfying as in Skyrim. The story is interesting enough for me to want to move forward, and I dig the many, many...

Hmmm... Where have I seen that scenario before?

My NES and my SNES are currently hooked up, and I can play any of a plethora of fantastic titles at any given moment and have a great time. My N64 I can't play because the analog stick on every controller I have is broken... Those controllers were shit. My GameCube is fine. but it's not worth...

Heh. He legit doesn't realize I haven't been responding to those posts at all. How sad.

Bye.