This is to keep our little war out of the otherwise quality-filled thread. (Oh, I guess I should actually make notes when I use satire because some people seem to be completely convinced I have no clue of the concept).
A few spare minutes found in the office. Time to lay it down.
[Disclaimer: I am going to be an ass where I could otherwise choose softer words. The reason being that I have been directly attacked, pushed, and shoved by someone who deserves no less. Any cockiness found in this post is otherwise out-of-character for the author, and should not be taken as part of the true nature of said person.
I have a second reason, too, but that will be revealed after Jari replies. 
]See, just claiming that you have a sense of humor does not mean you have one, anymore than me claiming I'm the King of Norway makes me one.
Except that I
claim to have a sense of humor
because I have one. But I’ll get into that later (remember this, because I won’t get to it until
after your reply).
And in one more post you managed to show yet again that you seem to have problems gathering the context out of written language.
Allow me.
Lesson 1: Address the Issues at HandQuite the contrary, I have assumed all this time - and continue to do so - that your tirade was written totally seriously.
Ah, but you’re addressing the wrong issue. I never doubted that you thought my post was written entirely seriously. I said you think I’m trying to
claim it wasn’t. Missed a big key word there, did you?
Lesson 2: Context is a Tricky ThangAh, so, a shortage of Wii machines managed to cause a bit of “shoving and grapplingâ€.
As expected.
Nuh uh, no you don't.
Since it was the "violent and sexist" games that made people fight over PS3, I'm waiting for your explanation about why Ninty-fanboys do it. With Nintendo games being all "wholesome", and supporting "family values".
I didn’t bother to reply to this simply to avoid making you look stupid.
Like this guy. You didn’t even get the context of my reply, so why should I bother?
You thought I meant that I expected violence on the Wii side, and you thought that because you were looking for a way to claim this:
with you it's merely a case of apparently turning your coat to appease the crowd after having your ass handed to you once already, and trying to score minuscule "victories" by "cleverly" hinting what you really think.
Notice those clever little quotation marks meant to emphasize the “shoving and grappling†(also a direct quote from the article, to add to my point).
Normal people understood my meaning as, “As expected, the violence on the Wii side was nothing compared to that on the PlayStation 3 side.â€
So when you say, “Nuh uh, no you don't,†I say, “Yessum, it’s
exactly what I expected. Knives and guns for Sony and a
bit of pushing for Nintendo.â€
Yeah, I just didn’t want to reply because there would be no way to point out that you are on a completely different planet without making you look like an idiot for being there.
Man, I try to get along, even
avoid pointing out your errors in the name of peace, and you just want to crap all over it.
Or is it because I wanted to see just how far you’d go on a context that doesn’t even apply to anything. Or both.
Lesson 3: If you Can’t Understand the Correct Context of a Sentence, Don’t Pick Fights that Don’t ApplyOh, and speaking of which, I guess that means I never turned my coat in the first place, and never tried to go back and claim my old post was all a big joke, so when you go off and say “No, with you it’s merely a case of apparently turning your coat to appease the crowd after having your ass handed to you once already, and trying to score minuscule ‘victories’ by ‘cleverly’ hinting what you really think,†well, that goes out the window, yet again showing just how far you are willing to go on contexts that don’t even apply.
That’s strike 3 already.
And it’s worse because you’ve been sitting here attacking me from some other tangent that only you acknowledge. Eh, well, we all make mistakes, right?
Don’t worry about it mi amigo, I did the same to Qhimm in that thread about the Sony ads. The difference is, I sincerely felt bad for it, admitted my wrong, and apologized to him multiple times.
I know the idea of admitting you made a mistake is altogether lost on you though, and you will just reply by gathering together a bunch of past incidences with the idea of assaulting my
character rather than address the actual issues here and now (read
Lesson 1), because, according to you, proving a faulty character is the basis for poving that that person must therefore always be at fault in all incidents, even though neither the past nor my character have
anything to do with your poor reading comprehension and the fact that you have so much faith in your abilities to gather the correct contexts from sentences that you are willing to make youself look like a total jackass by attacking people on grounds that only work if your contexts were the right ones.
Or you’ll go the old route of “calling bullshit†once again on false pretenses (I won’t hide the keyword this time; it’s
again).
Call bullshit all you want. How much of it can you prove? And if all you have is your hunch, why don’t you just admit it’s a hunch? By going off on these tangents, you’re assuming your hunch is fact (sound familiar? *cough* religion *cough*), which
still makes you
wrong. Except twice as wrong, since you were wrong in the first place to call bullshit.
I could list all the times you’ve been wrong to call bullshit too, but in most cases you wouldn’t be convinced by my word alone, and most cases don’t actually apply to the issues at hand, which are your poor reading comprehension skills.
I do have to give honorable mention to the one time you
didn’t call bullshit when you should have, but that’s not the issue at hand.
Lesson 4: Err, Context is a Tricky Thang?You’ll notice the lack of satire in my actual post.
Please, do not try to pretend that you are capable of humor of any kind.
I've had the "privilege" of observing you for more than half a decade already, and considering that you haven't been familiar with the concept thus far, it's rather obvious that you haven't figured it out now, either.
No, with you it's merely a case of apparently turning your coat to appease the crowd after having your ass handed to you once already, and trying to score minuscule "victories" by "cleverly" hinting what you really think.
Heh, and here you go again.
I said, “the lack of satire
in my actual post,†which most people understand as separating a post from its topic. In other words, if I thought there would be people who couldn’t put two and two together, I would have wasted time typing, “the lack of satire in my actual post, rather than having satire in both
the topic and the post.â€
Ah, yes, that makes perfect sense to everyone here but you.
My previous sentence had been about the topic of the post, which means it would be entirely illogical for my second sentence’s context to switch from the satire in the topic to the “satire†in my other thread.
Yet, you chose to overlook this logical connection, deciding for yourself that I was trying to use “satire†to refer to my old topic, and then claiming I was turning coat and trying to appease a crowd.
So, you misunderstood my sentence and attacked me.
I did this to Qhimm too, then I apologized multiple times to him on Yahoo! Messenger.
Class Dismissed, But…Well those are the lessons for reading, but some points were raised that should be addressed.
Unfortunately, I won’t address them here, because our fight this time was caused by your poor reading, making up your own contexts, and then flinging poo that should never have been flung. The other issues are not related to this, and bringing them up here would be to detract from the point of this topic, and to raise dead issues needlessly.
So why did I mention that there are things that are left open based off this post?
Why, that’s simple! I’m leading you into a trap!
You’re a predictable human being. I’ll tell you that I
know for a fact you will
not acknowledge that you are in the wrong for misunderstanding my (very simple) sentences and attacking me based off your own misunderstandings.
Now, you have the option of not replying to this topic at all, but that’s actually not the best way to go.
But you won’t select the best route for this situation due to personality flaws.
Obviously, I can’t just tell you what I know you will do, but I can tell you a bit.
After you reply, I will take tidbits of this post and quote them below, proving my point and what I (and everyone else) knew all along.
lsirpo
Show Posts
