Lmao you guys are still arguing about this haha XD

Lmao you guys are still arguing about this haha XD

 

 

 

 

In the words of a sometimes-wise TIFer, my least favorite mythical creature is the troll.

You have WAY too much free time buddy :shame:

You have WAY too much free time buddy :shame:

 

I'm making $17 an hour right now. What's your excuse?

Hello.

 

 

 

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

 

 

 

Goodbye.

Hello.

 

 

 

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

 

 

 

Goodbye.

 

I'm afraid quite a few different studies dispute your findings. Source please? I'll start off with http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

 

 

 

That being said, I'm assuming it's *probably* more accurate then either a 32 year old computer consultant or an 18 year old with no outstanding intelligence characteristics.

Hello.

 

 

 

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

 

 

 

Goodbye.

 

I'm afraid quite a few different studies dispute your findings. Source please? I'll start off with http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

 

 

 

That being said, I'm assuming it's *probably* more accurate then either a 32 year old computer consultant or an 18 year old with no outstanding intelligence characteristics.

 

 

 

wat.

 

 

 

I didn't say I was disputing anything, nor did I mention any findings. I'm just saying that a web encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone is probably not the best source to use to back up an argument.

 

 

 

I agree with your second statement.

 

wat.

 

 

 

I didn't say I was disputing anything, nor did I mention any findings. I'm just saying that a web encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone is probably not the best source to use to back up an argument.

 

 

 

I agree with your second statement.

 

Yeah, 'cause it's only more accurate then the Encyclopedia Britannica. Tight moderation and credentials work wonders.

In the words of a sometimes-wise TIFer, my least favorite mythical creature is the troll.

Hehe, I'm still working on usually wise, give me some more time. ;)

 

 

 

I have a suggestion though, as this topic has expanded so rapidly with so little progress. Maybe some simplification, such as arguing single facts one at a time, is in order. It may be just me, but it looks like there are too many issues being discussed at once.

I have a suggestion though, as this topic has expanded so rapidly with so little progress. Maybe some simplification, such as arguing single facts one at a time, is in order. It may be just me, but it looks like there are too many issues being discussed at once.

 

Fastest way to settle it. Would you rather it was 2 pages of 40 posts with 6 issues each, or 12 pages of 240 posts with 1 issue each ;)

 

 

 

That being said, the discussion on the first post expired between one and two minutes after it was posted. Since then I've been hard at work looking for anything to argue with in the responses. Behold, the results!

 

 

 

(Also, I thought it was pureprayer who said that. Was it really you? :? )

Oh compfreak, you and your annoying use of reason and logic. Immaturity and assumptions are the way to go dont'cha know?

Oh compfreak, you and your annoying use of reason and logic. Immaturity and assumptions are the way to go dont'cha know?

 

It's developing into a pattern for any first time debater

 

 

 

#1: Assume Comp is an idiot

 

#2: Get really, really angry when he keeps arguing

 

#3: Realize he's right, and hate him ever more but give up the argument

 

#4: Slowly realize he was just arguing for fun and wasn't out to get you

 

#5: Treat him as a friend, following him around and making remarks on threads he's debating on

 

 

 

At least, that's for relatively mature players. Totally immature players go through #3, then leave TIF forever upon realizing I'm not going to take crap from them.

 

 

 

I'm trying to get this down to a science. I love debating :thumbsup:

Clearly.

 

 

 

Good thing I don't know anyone like the people you described.

 

 

 

 

 

*sobs loudly*

Of course. Can all kids always think carefully about everything? 'Cause if not, my statement's still correct.

 

 

 

No one said they always can. He just said that they can. Do I really have to post the definition of can? It means possible - it doesn't mean it will always happen.

 

 

 

"Smoking can lead to cancer."

 

"No, it can't."

 

 

 

The second person is saying it can never lead to it, but the first person is only saying it is at least possible.

 

 

 

*ahem*

 

 

 

THE NUMBERS LIE, I TELL YOU! THEY LIE! WHO ARE THESE MEN IN WHITE COATS?

It's developing into a pattern for any first time debater

 

 

 

First time debater? :lol:

 

 

 

I don't know what the point of your last post was, but anyways here is the definition of can:

 

 

 

a. Used to indicate possibility or probability: I wonder if my long lost neighbor can still be alive. Such things can and do happen.

 

 

 

In other words, he was just saying it's possible and you said it's not possible.

 

First time debater? :lol:

 

Haven't been in a serious argument with you before ;)

 

I don't know what the point of your last post was, but anyways here is the definition of can:

 

 

 

a. Used to indicate possibility or probability: I wonder if my long lost neighbor can still be alive. Such things can and do happen.

 

 

 

In other words, he was just saying it's possible and you said it's not possible.

 

Since you edited this in, guess I'll respond to it.

 

 

 

Yes, and I meant it. The 10 year old is not going to be fully mature, as he has underdeveloped frontal lobes that are directly linked to maturity, including psychological.

#1: Assume Comp is an idiot

 

 

 

I'm not assuming you're an idiot. I wish to challenge your usage of the sentence, "No, they can't think carefully," and this was my goal the whole time.

 

 

 

#2: Get really, really angry when he keeps arguing

 

 

 

I'm not angry. :mrgreen:

 

 

 

#3: Realize he's right, and hate him ever more but give up the argument

 

 

 

You're assuming that you're going to be right all the time. This is a biased and unfair assumption. I can say that I always think I'm right too, but it does nothing to further my argument.

 

 

 

#4: Slowly realize he was just arguing for fun and wasn't out to get you

 

 

 

Why else would we argue?

 

 

 

#5: Treat him as a friend, following him around and making remarks on threads he's debating on

 

 

 

I take issue with stalkers.

 

 

 

Since you edited this in, guess I'll respond to it.

 

 

 

Instead of just editing it in? What's the logic behind this one?

 

 

 

Yes, and I meant it. The 10 year old is not going to be fully mature, as he has underdeveloped frontal lobes that are directly linked to maturity, including psychological.

 

 

 

Not fully mature - but he can still think carefully, be sensible, and be at least somewhat mature. This is all we were getting at.

 

I'm not assuming you're an idiot. I wish to challenge your usage of the sentence, "No, they can't think carefully," and this was my goal the whole time.

 

 

You were a bit wordier about it then most:

 

 

If being ignorant and pretending you are perfect and will never even admit a mistake is a good approach to debate then I must be in the wrong dimension. You taught me a very valuable lesson. Never talk to someone who doesn't know how to talk. I might decide to talk to you again sometime when you learn proper grammar and logic, but until that day, so long.

 

Quite a few other examples like "Does being thick on purpose really help your cause?", but it's convincing enough.

 

 

 

 

I'm not angry. :mrgreen:

 

 

The context the other guy was talking about WAS NOT ABOUT BRAIN DEVELOPMENT. He specifically said he wasn't talking about that kind!!

 

 

Yes, he mentioned them both BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT THE ONE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT - PSYCHOLOGICAL - NOT PHYSICAL!

 

Multiple exclamation points and capitals generally indicate strong emotions and or anger ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

For people who cry about taking things out of context, you sure do it a lot. Plus I didn't even take things out of context.

 

Many accusations and obvious personal insults also show anger or resentment.

 

 

 

 

You're assuming that you're going to be right all the time. This is a biased and unfair assumption. I can say that I always think I'm right too, but it does nothing to further my argument.

 

No, really? When I'm in an argument I think I'm RIGHT? Gee, what a shocker. Next I'll be making the biased and unfair assumption that I disagree with the person I'm arguing with and even *gasp* think that he's wrong!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why else would we argue?

 

Because you didn't quite seem to be having a party. You haven't quite reached that step, though. I'll give it a few days.

 

 

 

 

I take issue with stalkers.

 

Just referring to backing me up on any debate without fully understanding the issue. It's standard, but not one of the admirable traits.

 

 

 

 

Instead of just editing it in? What's the logic behind this one?

 

Keeps topics separate, avoids confusion, and prevents overlooked posts. Plus it makes that little number under my avatar look more impressive.

 

 

 

 

Not fully mature - but he can still think carefully, be sensible, and be at least somewhat mature. This is all we were getting at.

 

Good. I believe I said this, oh, around the second post into this argument.

Fastest way to settle it. Would you rather it was 2 pages of 40 posts with 6 issues each, or 12 pages of 240 posts with 1 issue each ;)

 

 

 

That being said, the discussion on the first post expired between one and two minutes after it was posted. Since then I've been hard at work looking for anything to argue with in the responses. Behold, the results!

 

 

 

(Also, I thought it was pureprayer who said that. Was it really you? :? )

 

In all honesty, I'd prefer the long thread that's easier to keep straight, but that's not my call here.

 

Yes, that is my line. Every time I log on here, I mentally thank Ravennaka (whose name I'm likely butchering) for the publicity. :P

 

In all honesty, I'd prefer the long thread that's easier to keep straight, but that's not my call here.

 

 

It's harder to keep straight though. Say he posts 6 different points in response to my argument - do I go through them 1 at a time, or post 6 posts and get (even more) fed up with the flood control?

 

 

 

Yes, that is my line. Every time I log on here, I mentally thank Ravennaka (whose name I'm likely butchering) for the publicity. :P

 

Yeah, I know who your talking about. I thought it was pureprayer, but I guess not. Wonder what my line is...

You were a bit wordier about it then most

 

 

 

Do I need to bring up your posts?

 

 

 

Nope, both of them are tied together. You seem to be having a hard time grasping that concept.

 

 

 

I though it was amply obvious, but apparently it wasn't to you. That's why I quickly informed you that that was indeed not what I meant (10 times, now), and you seem to be having a hard time accepting that.

 

 

 

I see that you've given up on your previous argument. A little statement like 'sorry, you were right' would go a long way.

 

 

 

Does this clearly mean you think I'm an idiot too?

 

 

 

Multiple exclamation points and capitals generally indicate strong emotions and or anger

 

 

 

Yeah. Generally. ;)

 

 

 

No, really? When I'm in an argument I think I'm RIGHT? Gee, what a shocker. Next I'll be making the biased and unfair assumption that I disagree with the person I'm arguing with and even *gasp* think that he's wrong!

 

 

 

"Comp, stop putting up a front. We all know you're wrong, and I'm always clearly right. Search through the forums and find one time where I was wrong. I dare ya."

 

 

 

^^Gets annoying doesn't it?

 

 

 

Good. I believe I said this, oh, around the second post into this argument.

 

 

 

"I believe I said this" =/= "No, they can't."

I love it when a minority of players complain and rant about something a private company did in order to attract more customers :lol: advertising is just a simple way of showing your product off to the world. by your logic, after advertising on miniclip, the runescape population boomed, causing more people to get attracted to it. now instead of every one hearing about an online (IT'S ON THE INTERNET! NOTHING IS SECRET ON THE INTERNET)game through their friends, they can just go to google and find runescape to be one of the results when they type in java games. Jagex made flash games way before they made runescape, so isn't it common sense that if you want your game that appeals to people who play flash games, to ADVERTISE on a website that is loaded with flash games??? by the way- i noticed that you speak more about the present in runescape more than the past. what i'm also finding is you gave something that sounds horrible in rsc than what todays game provides. also the dragon medium, dba, and the dlong being the only dragon items that were out (as i'm being told from the story) during that period makes it seem like a really bland, predictable, boring game. f2p wilderness combat is the most boring because you're not -somewhat- entertained by the occasional special attack that can speed stuff up a little. it also gives greater variability when you're fighting against some one with the thought of so many weapons and armors out at the present time. there's a few simple reasons i don't pk. the first: it's been around long enough for people to perfect it to a fine tune, second: the items that you have to use now to even be so much as a threat to some one is worth over 10m so if you die or make a tiny mistake, you're out at least 13m.

 

GOD i hate your example of runescape. it's of the worst i've seen. if i want better i can go read some reminiscer on the tip.it

 

Do I need to bring up your posts?

 

 

 

Nope, both of them are tied together. You seem to be having a hard time grasping that concept.

 

 

 

I though it was amply obvious, but apparently it wasn't to you. That's why I quickly informed you that that was indeed not what I meant (10 times, now), and you seem to be having a hard time accepting that.

 

 

 

I see that you've given up on your previous argument. A little statement like 'sorry, you were right' would go a long way.

 

 

 

Does this clearly mean you think I'm an idiot too?

 

Not an idiot, just stubborn and bull headed. No assumptions made about your intelligence 8-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Generally. ;)

 

Yep. Opinion arugment, so I can't prove anything, but you didn't sound friendly :ugeek:

 

 

 

 

"Comp, stop putting up a front. We all know you're wrong, and I'm always clearly right. Search through the forums and find one time where I was wrong. I dare ya."

 

 

 

^^Gets annoying doesn't it?

 

That would indeed be the point. Then again, as mentioned earlier, I've been wrong before and I openly admitted it.

 

 

 

 

"I believe I said this" =/= "No, they can't."

 

Nope. And if "No, they can't." was the sole factor in the discussion, you would indeed be right. Fortunately, you completely failed to read the previous posts and tried to accuse one out of context quote. he 10 year old is not going to be fully mature, as he has underdeveloped frontal lobes that are directly linked to maturity, including psychological.