Assume Nothing

Banned for bending over backwards.

Do you happen to be a voluptuous, elegant woman in her late teens who wears a short, skimpy skirt? I can't say it's unexpectable if that's the case.

Can't you twist the situation to give yourself the edge? I'm not sure how, but as long as he's the bad guy, then everything's fine. Even if it ends up with a jail sentence for your brother.

Banned for ban-evading.

Banned for valuing (in)human life. *sends wild, hungry pigs to eat you alive*

*jams said gun with some goo* *subsequently, you are placed into one of the Saw traps* Life or limb, make your choice. How much blood will you shed? Banned for choosing to die.

*kicks you in groin* Banned for getting kicked in the groin.

Feminism. They're not pro-equality, they're pro-women, and in the same vein, anti-men. They want exactly what they were fighting against, except in their favour. The same could be said about pro-life, PETA, etc. EDIT - Heh, I've found that this post echos an old one.

Not by necessity. It's not really about what the author concludes - rather, it's about how to get there. The objective is to bring to light what should have been obvious in retrospect, but was not at the time. I believe bot-destruction is more destructive than the bots themselves, to a certain extent. It does depend on context though.

If that's the case, then the claim is redundant. What benefit do we get out of asserting that science doesn't know everything, when that's already established to be the case? Semi relevant: Mysterious answers to mysterious questions

Banned for lacking a nightmare fetish.

Science is like the ocean. It's moving, changing, all-encompassing. It draws its data from findings, numbers, and other such devices that's quantifiable/measurable. The numbers don't lie - rather, we misinterpret them, often. Why? Because humanity is predisposed to doing so, especially when it comes to a controversial, highly emotional subjects. Your little statement about science being wrong does not give the 'ghosts exist' theory any more weight, like the way that it doesn't give religious 'faith' any more weight. We don't truly understand the Universe - that's the beauty of science; to unravel as much as we can. Is it too much to accept that we can't always explain everything immediately, given our limited resources? The objective ought to be learning about what we don't know, as opposed to attributing it to superstition like 'Ghosts', or 'God'. One day, we might even explain why we came up with such ridiculous ideas in the first place.

Banned for not watching High Octane Nightmare Fuel. In addition to that, I'll place a back-up ban for self-proclamation of 'utterly fast typing skills' [sic] despite a lack of evidence.

Banned for thinking - or rather, in this case, lack thereof.

Banned for projecting your own reality.

Banned for assuming sexism.

There seems to be a lack of civil discussion in controversial topics now. It seems to be an 'us or them' attitude.

Banned for looking cute in skinny jeans.

Banned for being cognizant of smiley usage.

I'd say that's upper-tier low-level. Mid-level is closer to having average levels of approx 60-70, with combat levels of approx 90-110. Low level content aren't designed to be good, or efficient.

It seems that we have differing views of what the terminology refers to. Could someone please objectively define terminology like 'mid-level', 'end-game', 'moderate competition', 'high competitiveness', etc. in non arbitrary/vague terms?

1/10

The tif-clique that seems to be emerging.

Belief in Ghosts would be a violation of Occam's razor - it assumes the existence of Ghosts in the first place, which we have zero data/evidence for. There's very plausible alternate explanations, so what gives the ghost argument any more bearing? Personal experience is insufficient - it's not discounted because personal experience has to do with 'deadly serious encounters', rather - it's discounted because it fails to deliver what it should to classify as credible evidence. @Kimberly - Do you honestly think my personal experience in the matter would be of any relevance at all? Do you honestly think my experience in it would change the truth value of 'the existence of Ghosts' at all? What difference does it make? Has there been any conclusive study that goes beyond the pseudo-science of 'ghost-busting'? To ascribe the unknown to superstitious phenomena like 'ghosts' would be similar to ascribing the unknown to a non-existent deity. It's fruitless. Your vain attempts of oh-so-infallible arguments are nothing more than a poorly composed straw-man and personal attacks. The hilarity of that is self-evident. Try again.

EDIT - woot. Quoted instead of edited.