ACT Barbarian Babes

[JohnDoe]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

I haven't read any of this, but here's my opinion

I find myself in agreement!

 

[handofdoz]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

wait should we not necro threads and make a new one for updates?

 

[SilentSilth]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Necroing threads is when you update a thread with useless information and not caring about it.

If you can update a dead thread (say, RPG Maker H Games) with something useful like... say, a brand new game, I'm pretty sure no one will care.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Well, not to take any sides, but aside from the current disagreement, I've seen nothing that notes JohnDoe might be a troll.

 

[Lucas]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

 

[UrbanKirasagi]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Then maybe we should all stop posting?

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Then maybe we should all stop posting?

Indeed!
I'll keep answering only as long as someone will address me or my opinion.

Btw Toxic, whatever your reason or opinion on the matter, i appreciate it.

 

[Dundarach]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Thanks for the tip.

Will check out these games.

Would also like some good recommendations on good platform-based flash-games.

 

[Douchebag]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

This is almost fun, sure easier than wall-o-texts.

*Grin*

Making a point on the internet is pointless at best most of the times, in addition even if you are clear you will still be misunderstood most of the times unless your interlocutor really wants to understand your point. There is no real good reason to not be ambiguous, especially since being clear takes a lot of effort, time, a wall-o-text that no one would like to read, and it probably won't get any answer other than "wow, what was all that about?" or "Chill out man, no need to get all serious". While an ambiguous, sarcastic, evil post, will make everyone angry and make them want to express their opinion.

Heh, I noticed something amusing… you observe politeness, but not courtesy (i.e., the courtesy of making a post as easy to understand as one can, and to not intentionally cause anger in others), while I observe courtesy, but not politeness. We’re playing each other’s foils!
I feel I have an obligation, to the argument itself, to make my post as likely to further the argument towards its natural conclusion – that is, the point at which no more arguments can be made because everything relevant has been said, and all that is left is for readers to choose based on their opinion – as quickly as is possible. While there is a chance that people will ‘drop out’ because of the size of the post, or the time between responses, all those with a legitimate interest in allowing their opposition to be heard will hopefully surpass their apprehensions about the post and respond anyway. The effort it takes me is more considerable, (or would be if I didn’t naturally tend towards responding like this in arguments,) but in the same vein as those who ‘enjoy’ exercise, I ‘enjoy’ it, focusing only on the end result of furthering an argument to its natural conclusion.

an ambiguous, sarcastic, evil post, will make everyone angry and make them want to express their opinion. That way the effort to make the point clear, is a group effort, where people actually find interest in, be it for just making a joke on it or actually adding to the discussion, as a result people read, take a standing, develop an opinion, and why not, even learn new things(as i know i did), that's what a discussion should be like in my opinion, if i had just said "you're an asshole" it would really just have become a stupid flame war.

I agree with your opinion on what an argument should be, but not with your method of getting people involved in it. All sides should be doing their best to make the argument as clear as possible, but this should be happening naturally, not because you angered or tricked them into it - and I find that people will attempt to understand your misinterpretations and clarify their posts just fine in even ‘normal’ arguments. What’s more, adding in unnecessary hatred and confusion has a good chance of causing the argument to shoot over ‘passionate discussion’ and end up well into ‘flamewar’ territory. You could also end up polarising someone who would otherwise have accepted your argument into discounting it due to the confusing or overly hostile aspects of it.

In practice, when it comes down to it, both options have positive and negative aspects to them, and are valid opinions.

Adding new content to a site might alter the general quality of said site, since new content might be of better quality or because an higher quantity of content might make the monetary effort more worth it.

Damn miscommunications… how can I write this that you’ll understand where I’m coming from…
Perhaps it would be better if I were to state that there were two discussions in this thread: 1. “What is the site about?”, and 2. “What games do they have?”. The first one is a ‘discussion’, and is what I mean when referring to ‘the discussion’, while the second one is not a discussion so much as information, and while relevant to the thread, had nothing to do with ‘the discussion’. Hence, ‘BB revived the discussion but did not add anything to it’; the advertising is totally in place if obnoxiously abrupt.

The amount of time you spend on the forum can give you a general idea of the kind of people that usually dwell in it, but you can't seriously belive that you can "guarantee" someone won't show up and be aggressive, especially since we are on the internet, the lawless land where the anonymous army reign supreme.

Now, now. I didn’t say that someone wouldn’t be aggressive – in fact, I assumed that contingency (look where being redundant to avoid confusion gets you… I already have something ready to post! ):

the response would have been considerably nicer. (Someone would likely still have posted his or her annoyance at the advertising/resurrection, but the argument would be one-sided in favour of BB.)

That, above, is what I said I believe I can guarantee.

Yeah, you're right, you were not claiming, you were insinuating.

Now, now (again). You’ve made a small error with large implications. The way you’ve got it written currently means “Douchebag insinuated that I claimed Oni was acting like a Nazi”. The truth is “Douchebag claimed that I insinuated Oni was acting like a Nazi”. The first would be me being stupid, the second is valid.
Saying “Nazi’s are X, Oni is X, Oni is like a Nazi” is ‘claiming’.
Saying “Nazi’s are X, Oni is X…” is ‘insinuating’; and that’s exactly what you did. It wasn’t the point of your post, and probably wasn’t even intentional, but it undeniably occurred.

I am claiming that you said that Oni thinks someone that is part of a minority does not have the right to speak their mind.

Hell no, i never claimed to know what SirOni might think. I said (damn i have quoting myself):

So, basically if someone was to find this forum barely interesting only for its hentai section, his/her opinion, for reasonable and politely exposed it could be, would be reduced to "moot", completely stripping said person of any human dignity along with the freedom of expression. This is feature of radical and authoritarian dictatorships, like nazism or fascism. I suggest you try to be a little more considerate about other people opinions,

I am stating a fact and implying SirOni might not have noticed that is behavior had similarities with said fact, suggesting (hmmm, bold, let's see how it works...) that he think about his behavior, and i'm very satified from his response, i never expected or wanted (nor cared) for him to be sorry.

Hey. Yes, this gets a hey, not a ‘now now’, because this is considerably more egregious than the other mistakes. Your response totally ignored my next paragraph, wherein I pointed out that I had argued this because of a misconception as to the meaning of something you had written (“the idea SirOni has that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind”, which is far from the post you elaborated on in your response), ala this:

The problem, as I noticed while writing this up, is that you meant that in a non-literal manner, instead meaning “the idea underlying SirOni’s response, that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind" (or possibly, ”the idea that could be constructed from Oni’s response, that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind”). Whereas, I took it to mean that you were arguing the literal interpretation of your words, i.e. “SirOni thinks all minorities should not be allowed to give an opinion”.

These are significantly different things, and it is all too possible to loose what you meant, when reading what you wrote.

Everything that you put in that post, I already knew, as was detailed in the post beneath the part you responded to. I was pointing out that I had ended up with the previous interpretation through a miscommunication, but your post ignored this elaboration for reasons I cannot fathom.

i'll analyze the literal meaning of the word(damn you, look what you are making me do, i'm not even sure of the correct grammatical terms to analyze a word in english ), composite word, first part "necro", luckily this comes from ancient greek so it's gonna be simple, its a prefix referring to the deads(actually living beings that died, so it's improperly used on something that was not alive to begin with, but no one cares), second part "bump", funny onomatopeical origins, has many meanings, but the one we seek is "to bring a thread up to the top of the list".
Now, yeah, i'll admit he indeed bumped, but did he necrobump?
My answer is "no", because the discussion was not dead, it's a thread about opinions, as long as there exist an hermit in a lost corner of this world who might have an opinion on the target of such thread then that thread will always be alive, till every single idiot will have said what he/she/it wanted to say, till then the thread is just sleeping quietly in wait.

You would be correct, but you’re taking the far too literal interpretation of the idea of ‘dead’. When we say a discussion is ‘dying down’, we don’t mean that it is undergoing necrosis and parts of it are falling off; we mean that it is ‘becoming inactive’. When it is said that a thread is ‘dead’ or ‘dying’, it is a metaphorical use of the term that has the meaning ‘inactive’. (Now, if one were to think literally, a thread is inactive in every moment that someone is not posting in it, but this is overly literal and typically a more metaphorical meaning of ‘active/inactive’ is used, which is determined by the period of time between the posts made.) Thusly, when it is said that a thread or discussion is ‘dead’, it doesn’t mean that it is never going to be posted in again – it just means that it is currently inactive, and can be made active again, by ‘reviving’ it. This becoming active and inactive is, when thinking metaphorically, similar to dying and coming back to life, and so we use those terms when speaking about it.

Thinking that a thread being ‘dead’ holds the meaning of ‘no-one will ever post in it again’ is like saying that because you could call your penis a stick, they must grow on trees, be made of wood, and people must commonly toss penises around parks for their dogs to fetch, or that campfires are commonly built out of gathered penises. You’re taking the meaning of a metaphorically used term and treating it as if it were supposed to be used literally.

Now, as for the period of time that must pass before a thread is considered ‘dead’, as was previously noted, it depends on what the thread is. For an annually updated thread, like a forum birthday thread, a year can pass without people considering it inactive, since it hasn’t missed the point at which it was supposed to be active; for a ero-game maker’s update thread, a week or two can potentially pass without the thread being inactive; for a discussion, generally not more than a day or three.

In relation to the newer argument:
Language is an abstract concept with no absolute, but it doesn’t need one. It has relative correctness and wrongness pertinent to the interpretation of the groups using it. Of all those who use the English language, someone who believes ‘no’ to mean ‘yes’ is correct within the confines of his own mind, but incorrect within the confines of all those who utilize the word ‘no’. As language has no objective existence, this relative correctness is the closest alternative to actual objective truths; in reality, right and wrong do not apply to uses of words, but are allowed to do so relative to the groups that use them so as to allow for coherent conversation.
Relative to our use of necro-bump, you are wrong. For the sake of coherent conversation, you must recognize our interpretation of the term as the correct one.

On the point of the moomaiko thing, i'll answer with math(i'll keep it simple):

One says: a + a = 4 so: a=3
The other says: a x a = 4 so: a=3

I say a=2

My answer applies to both even tho they said different things, since both confront me on necroposting and since my answer disproves the act of necroposting as a whole(in my opinion), so, as i see it i just ignored poor moomoo while just answering maikochan with a form that (in my opinion) disproves his theory about there being an act of necroposting.

As far as the math goes, that is not how I would interpret it.
I see:
(Moomoo/maiko: Where: d = 4, a = 2, b = 2, i = 2, u = 2)
Moomoo: a(a post) + b(some other event) = d (a necro-post)
Maiko: a(a post) + i(another, different event) = d (a necro-post);
a(a post) – u(the current thread) =/= d (a necro-post)

Corpseboy (JohnDoe): b=/=2 (b value is incorrect), u=-2 (even if it isn't in the current thread it is still a necro-post).

For reference, these are their posts, and then below that is the post that you used to reply to their posts, with emphasis added to show how I see you responding to them.

Moomoo:

Except that it was NOT new information, while I agree with with you that it seems as tho Sir-oni was venting, his/her point was valid. I have read through this thread and every game listed in the bump post is previously listed elsewhere in the thread. Which in fact had not been posted in for quite some time, so yes it was a nercro-bump

maiko:

The guy necrobumped this thread, there's no way about it. It looked like he was trying to pick up a conversation that had been dead for over a year as though nothing had happened. It's bad forum ettiquette to necro threads without good reason. In this case, he could have just as easily made a new thread advertising his games, and I'm sure people would have been completely fine with it, as 99% of the people on this forum had likly forgotten this thread and it would have been treated like new information.

JohnDoe’s response:

I checked the thread too, for small it is, and no, they are no the exact same things as far as the thread is concerned, since there are no references to the cowgirl thing sequels or the spartika game, if you really need to make a statement, double check your sources with a cooler head, if you are too angry you might miss something. Also making a new thread for the same thing an existing thread already is talking about is as good as necrobumping.

Remembering that all of this was addressed to maiko (as it was under a quote of her argument).
Yes, maiko did not actually give an obvious argument as to why she considered it a necro-bump, but she didn’t adopt moomoo’s evidence either. None of your post responded to any argument that both of them shared, only to the specific argument used by moomoo, and then a sub-argument used by maiko. Therefore, since each half of your response was directed wholly to separate people, you should have addressed each response to the person who had made the corresponding argument.

Hostility is in itself a form of violence, it's an act of aggression to others in which you try to make your point stronger not just by reasoning but through the force of your words. When you chose force there might be someone getting hurt (there might not be, but the chance still exist), imagine a simple minded polite and shy 10 years old kid, his parents got him a computer, so he's all excited, it's his first time on the internet, he knows nothing about how wild and dangerous the place is, he googles something, finds a forum, finds a thread he's interested in and speak his opinion, first answer is the rage of pissed off oldtimers in a bad mood. It can leave a scar.
This is just an extreme obviously but small things can leave small scars, like the fact that if everyone on the net is an asshole then i too should be an asshole, and it all brings us to a decadent spiral enrolling us in the anonymous army of doom(the dark side!!!).

It is entirely possible to be hostile without trying to make a point; someone that you work with who doesn’t like you might speak to you with hostility, but will not have any ‘point’ in mind beyond showing their hatred.
Hostility is not a form of violence. Hostility is a form of expression. It is entirely possible to be hostile without being violent. All statements are made with degrees of force; hostility is not necessarily made with more force than any other statement and thusly can be equally as violent as ‘hello’, which is to say, not at all. As for the thin-skinned who can be hurt by offensive/aggressive behaviours, while you take the “to protect their safety, it should not be done” side, I take the “to protect their safety, they should be taught to be less thin skinned, and to be kept off of the net until they are” side. When it comes down to it, it is of greater benefit to people to learn to deal with people being hostile rather than attempting to remove everyone hostile from existence. Much like with germs, it is for the good of the individual that they are exposed to hostility early and learn to deal with it rather than being left at emotional risk.

I believe in the right of a person to be an asshole. (Especially to telemarketers.) It’s a bad idea more often than not, and being an asshole comes with inherent social drawbacks due to people like you who disapprove, but the option to be one needs to remain.

And i answer you that even tho he is allowed to share his opinion he should not allow himself to share it in a hostile way.

And so, this line of the argument is ended in a matter of opinion; on your side, the above, on mine, “I support the right of a person to be an asshole.”

There is no objective (starndard doesn't go with objective since the word is an absolute, while standard refers to a variable amount) definition of "being polite"(although there is for the word polite), certain people/cultures find polite certain actions while other people/cultures find them impolite, so whatever you might think in the context of the internet where people tell you to f**k your m****r, for saying hi, i found his post very polite, but you are free to have your opinion on the matter.

You are thinking too much on the practical application of politeness; the words used and actions done as opposed to the purpose underlying ‘being polite’. In hat manner, being polite does have an objective definition: it is that what you are doing had the intention of making the person you are talking to feel at ease. Even if one were to use polite speech towards another person, if the thing that they were doing overall was insulting or belittling, they would not be ‘being polite’; and, potentially, if someone was using ‘impolite' speech, but was doing it to make the person they were talking to feel more at ease around them, than they would be being polite. That is not to say that you cannot question someone without automatically being impolite; if I was to rephrase DarkWarp’s original post in a manner that is polite, it would be “Oni, I don’t really think he deserved to be treated that badly.”

My base opinion on the matter is this: I don’t believe that there is any culture in the world wherein it is polite to be confrontational.

With the laws on copyright pirating is as stealing, i'll have my lawyer contact you.

There was a picture/couple of comic panels, quickly and powerfully detailing the difference between pirating and stealing that was a response to all those ‘PIRATING MOVIES IS STEALING’ videos, which I was referencing, but I can’t find it.

 

[UrbanKirasagi]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Oh damn it...

Originally I was going to include Douchebag in my list of names, but since he hadn't posted in a few pages, I thought I could leave him off. Obviously not -_- as the above textwall shows.

 

[BarbarianBabes]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Necroing threads is when you update a thread with useless information and not caring about it.

If you can update a dead thread (say, RPG Maker H Games) with something useful like... say, a brand new game, I'm pretty sure no one will care.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Douchebag]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Oh damn it...

Originally I was going to include Douchebag in my list of names, but since he hadn't posted in a few pages, I thought I could leave him off. Obviously not -_- as the above textwall shows.

Sorry, UK. I'm contratcually obliged by the argument to respond until satisfied.

 

[Archer]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

You must be registered to see the links

Quiet! This isn't about you! ............wait.

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Quiet! This isn't about you! ............wait.

Well, it isn't. This thread is about definition of necroposting. I don't see how what this thread was originally about is relevant.

 

[Dundarach]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

BarbarianBabes

I tried the Boxing and the Drinking-games out, they were quite fun but it would be nice with bigger games with more options!

For the boxing game, you could be able to control it with the arrow-keys or WASD + buttons for high, mid and low punch (let's say I, O and P), being able to block and string combos together etc.

Very nice idea though!

 

[Kathy]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Quiet! This isn't about you! ............wait.

Describes the entire thread since the necropost. Epic Job. +5 Win for you.

 

[lurker]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Urist Tukatis cancels Set Fire: Interrupted by Carp

 

[Sponge]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

Oh oh! You know what I see when I keep looking at this thread?

Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.Alot of words.
SOME WORDS IN CAPSLOCK!Alot of words.

Honestly I'm just paying attention now to see how many funny pictures and sayings people can post. I love the one where it says STOP POSTING and he's beating the crap out of that guy.

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

OMG, Douchebag!!!
Thought you were dead(or inactive)!!!
Been so long since your last post, i missed you so.

Heh, I noticed something amusing… you observe politeness, but not courtesy (i.e., the courtesy of making a post as easy to understand as one can, and to not intentionally cause anger in others), while I observe courtesy, but not politeness. We’re playing each other’s foils!
I feel I have an obligation, to the argument itself, to make my post as likely to further the argument towards its natural conclusion – that is, the point at which no more arguments can be made because everything relevant has been said, and all that is left is for readers to choose based on their opinion – as quickly as is possible. While there is a chance that people will ‘drop out’ because of the size of the post, or the time between responses, all those with a legitimate interest in allowing their opposition to be heard will hopefully surpass their apprehensions about the post and respond anyway. The effort it takes me is more considerable, (or would be if I didn’t naturally tend towards responding like this in arguments,) but in the same vein as those who ‘enjoy’ exercise, I ‘enjoy’ it, focusing only on the end result of furthering an argument to its natural conclusion.

I agree with your opinion on what an argument should be, but not with your method of getting people involved in it. All sides should be doing their best to make the argument as clear as possible, but this should be happening naturally, not because you angered or tricked them into it - and I find that people will attempt to understand your misinterpretations and clarify their posts just fine in even ‘normal’ arguments. What’s more, adding in unnecessary hatred and confusion has a good chance of causing the argument to shoot over ‘passionate discussion’ and end up well into ‘flamewar’ territory. You could also end up polarising someone who would otherwise have accepted your argument into discounting it due to the confusing or overly hostile aspects of it.

In practice, when it comes down to it, both options have positive and negative aspects to them, and are valid opinions.

I commend you for your dedication and efforts, that i'm sure make you proud and satisfied, but can you really say that you would have been drown so much to this discussion, as you clearly are, without all the sociology and nazism references?
Using big words, might look laike a trick to you, most people at least do know them, if i just went and gave a sociological explanation of of complex concepts, it would by no mean be more clear, it's like posting an electric bill, or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it's not clear to the majority of people(not implying people are stupid as a default), and i'm not so good at simplifying thing as it would take for everyone to clearly understand my point.
You may think what you want, but in my first post, i did try to be as clear as i could be, in expressing my view on the matter. In my mind at least it was crystal clear, since i can only think using my mind, i would have to wait for at least one response to elaborate the possible ambiguity in my reasoning.
Besides, the natural end to a discussion is usually when all participants get bored, or have something better to do, since a discussion, or argument, evolves as new topics are added, be it for misunderstandings or haywire examples. In forums this is evident in the tendency of wall-o-texts to grow toward infinite as the discussion close in on boredom. In addition you might never know when someone might show up with another different point of view, regardless of how asinine(quoting maikochan, just to make sure you don't make a point out of it) or erudite it might be, the conclusion of a discussion should not be the objective of an argument, as long as someone have something to say there is room for improvement(not for the conversation in itself, but for the minds, ideas and opinions of those following it).

We have pretty much exausted this topic between the two of us, although we could still go on forever with small details.

Damn miscommunications… how can I write this that you’ll understand where I’m coming from…
Perhaps it would be better if I were to state that there were two discussions in this thread: 1. “What is the site about?”, and 2. “What games do they have?”. The first one is a ‘discussion’, and is what I mean when referring to ‘the discussion’, while the second one is not a discussion so much as information, and while relevant to the thread, had nothing to do with ‘the discussion’. Hence, ‘BB revived the discussion but did not add anything to it’; the advertising is totally in place if obnoxiously abrupt.

The funny thing is that you are trying to make something as vague and hardly meaningful out of this topic's title and first post, sure if you really want you can see it your way, but the title is "Barbarian Babes?", couldn't be less concrete or explanatory (could refer to the folklore of women of barbarians tribes during the disruption of the western roman empire), and first post goes like this:

Has anyone tried the flash games at this site?

You must be registered to see the links

Most of the interesting ones are subscription only, but there's a few flash demos. I'm wondering if anyone has played the full ones, and if so, if they were good.
Reply With Quote

Yes, indeed, BB has tried those games, he made them so it's obvious he tried them, just by this he/she/it is justified in responding and give his opinion, while adding new information since it's been a long time and the "quality" of the product changed.

Now, now. I didn’t say that someone wouldn’t be aggressive – in fact, I assumed that contingency (look where being redundant to avoid confusion gets you… I already have something ready to post! ):
Quote:
the response would have been considerably nicer. (Someone would likely still have posted his or her annoyance at the advertising/resurrection, but the argument would be one-sided in favour of BB.)
That, above, is what I said I believe I can guarantee.

Approved!

Now, now (again). You’ve made a small error with large implications. The way you’ve got it written currently means “Douchebag insinuated that I claimed Oni was acting like a Nazi”. The truth is “Douchebag claimed that I insinuated Oni was acting like a Nazi”. The first would be me being stupid, the second is valid.
Saying “Nazi’s are X, Oni is X, Oni is like a Nazi” is ‘claiming’.
Saying “Nazi’s are X, Oni is X…” is ‘insinuating’; and that’s exactly what you did. It wasn’t the point of your post, and probably wasn’t even intentional, but it undeniably occurred.

Wrong, "you were insinuating that i was insinuating Oni was acting like a nazi", as insinuation is something that can be there or can not on the internet, since it's usually denoted by a tone of the voice which lacks in written language, it is usually substituted with the use of emotes or the use of "...", which lack in my first post(in regard to the matter at hand, obviosly the ending is not relevant), you can claim, but you can't prove, thus your claim is worthless.
In case you are wondering how can i claimthat you are insinuating, i'm not, it was mostly a joke, but it turned out nice.

Hey. Yes, this gets a hey, not a ‘now now’, because this is considerably more egregious than the other mistakes. Your response totally ignored my next paragraph, wherein I pointed out that I had argued this because of a misconception as to the meaning of something you had written (“the idea SirOni has that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind”, which is far from the post you elaborated on in your response), ala this:

Quote:
The problem, as I noticed while writing this up, is that you meant that in a non-literal manner, instead meaning “the idea underlying SirOni’s response, that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind" (or possibly, ”the idea that could be constructed from Oni’s response, that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind”). Whereas, I took it to mean that you were arguing the literal interpretation of your words, i.e. “SirOni thinks all minorities should not be allowed to give an opinion”.

These are significantly different things, and it is all too possible to loose what you meant, when reading what you wrote.
Everything that you put in that post, I already knew, as was detailed in the post beneath the part you responded to. I was pointing out that I had ended up with the previous interpretation through a miscommunication, but your post ignored this elaboration for reasons I cannot fathom.

Come on, the answer was to the whole thing but the copy paste process failed, happens to the best, you're so fussy...
What i said once again stands even if you put in the second part, since you shoot in all directions in that post, so i was clarifying for you which was the correct one.

You would be correct, but you’re taking the far too literal interpretation of the idea of ‘dead’. When we say a discussion is ‘dying down’, we don’t mean that it is undergoing necrosis and parts of it are falling off; we mean that it is ‘becoming inactive’. When it is said that a thread is ‘dead’ or ‘dying’, it is a metaphorical use of the term that has the meaning ‘inactive’. (Now, if one were to think literally, a thread is inactive in every moment that someone is not posting in it, but this is overly literal and typically a more metaphorical meaning of ‘active/inactive’ is used, which is determined by the period of time between the posts made.) Thusly, when it is said that a thread or discussion is ‘dead’, it doesn’t mean that it is never going to be posted in again – it just means that it is currently inactive, and can be made active again, by ‘reviving’ it. This becoming active and inactive is, when thinking metaphorically, similar to dying and coming back to life, and so we use those terms when speaking about it.

Thinking that a thread being ‘dead’ holds the meaning of ‘no-one will ever post in it again’ is like saying that because you could call your penis a stick, they must grow on trees, be made of wood, and people must commonly toss penises around parks for their dogs to fetch, or that campfires are commonly built out of gathered penises. You’re taking the meaning of a metaphorically used term and treating it as if it were supposed to be used literally.

Now, as for the period of time that must pass before a thread is considered ‘dead’, as was previously noted, it depends on what the thread is. For an annually updated thread, like a forum birthday thread, a year can pass without people considering it inactive, since it hasn’t missed the point at which it was supposed to be active; for a ero-game maker’s update thread, a week or two can potentially pass without the thread being inactive; for a discussion, generally not more than a day or three.

Your opinion as been recived, my opinion you already know, we're done here, nothing more can be said, between the two of us, without arguing details.

In relation to the newer argument:
Language is an abstract concept with no absolute, but it doesn’t need one. It has relative correctness and wrongness pertinent to the interpretation of the groups using it. Of all those who use the English language, someone who believes ‘no’ to mean ‘yes’ is correct within the confines of his own mind, but incorrect within the confines of all those who utilize the word ‘no’. As language has no objective existence, this relative correctness is the closest alternative to actual objective truths; in reality, right and wrong do not apply to uses of words, but are allowed to do so relative to the groups that use them so as to allow for coherent conversation.
Relative to our use of necro-bump, you are wrong. For the sake of coherent conversation, you must recognize our interpretation of the term as the correct one.

I must do nothing, i can, if i find it corect.
Coherent conversation would be nice, wouldn't it?
Too bad this is the internet, a community that is not a community, where everything is everything and the complete opposite of everything, here your rules are as good as the rules of the internet, more jokes than guide lines, but i won't use this as an excuse. Even in the real world the coherent conversation you aim for is only possible within your own mind, many people give varying definitions(be it small details or foundamental factors) of the same words, everytime you discuss with someone you will inevitably find something you completely disagree about, trying to force your way in won't get you anywhere but to rejection.

As far as the math goes, that is not how I would interpret it.
I see:
(Moomoo/maiko: Where: d = 4, a = 2, b = 2, i = 2, u = 2)
Moomoo: a(a post) + b(some other event) = d (a necro-post)
Maiko: a(a post) + i(another, different event) = d (a necro-post);
a(a post) – u(the current thread) =/= d (a necro-post)

Corpseboy (JohnDoe): b=/=2 (b value is incorrect), u=-2 (even if it isn't in the current thread it is still a necro-post).

Man, you don't understand the meaning of keeping it simple, right?

Moomoo:
Quote:
Except that it was NOT new information, while I agree with with you that it seems as tho Sir-oni was venting, his/her point was valid. I have read through this thread and every game listed in the bump post is previously listed elsewhere in the thread. Which in fact had not been posted in for quite some time, so yes it was a nercro-bump
maiko:
Quote:
The guy necrobumped this thread, there's no way about it. It looked like he was trying to pick up a conversation that had been dead for over a year as though nothing had happened. It's bad forum ettiquette to necro threads without good reason. In this case, he could have just as easily made a new thread advertising his games, and I'm sure people would have been completely fine with it, as 99% of the people on this forum had likly forgotten this thread and it would have been treated like new information.
JohnDoe’s response:
Quote:
I checked the thread too, for small it is, and no, they are no the exact same things as far as the thread is concerned, since there are no references to the cowgirl thing sequels or the spartika game, if you really need to make a statement, double check your sources with a cooler head, if you are too angry you might miss something. Also making a new thread for the same thing an existing thread already is talking about is as good as necrobumping.
Remembering that all of this was addressed to maiko (as it was under a quote of her argument).
Yes, maiko did not actually give an obvious argument as to why she considered it a necro-bump, but she didn’t adopt moomoo’s evidence either. None of your post responded to any argument that both of them shared, only to the specific argument used by moomoo, and then a sub-argument used by maiko. Therefore, since each half of your response was directed wholly to separate people, you should have addressed each response to the person who had made the corresponding argument.

Approved, your math example was useless, and too complicated as a joke, did you really have to do it???

It is entirely possible to be hostile without trying to make a point; someone that you work with who doesn’t like you might speak to you with hostility, but will not have any ‘point’ in mind beyond showing their hatred.
Hostility is not a form of violence. Hostility is a form of expression. It is entirely possible to be hostile without being violent. All statements are made with degrees of force; hostility is not necessarily made with more force than any other statement and thusly can be equally as violent as ‘hello’, which is to say, not at all. As for the thin-skinned who can be hurt by offensive/aggressive behaviours, while you take the “to protect their safety, it should not be done” side, I take the “to protect their safety, they should be taught to be less thin skinned, and to be kept off of the net until they are” side. When it comes down to it, it is of greater benefit to people to learn to deal with people being hostile rather than attempting to remove everyone hostile from existence. Much like with germs, it is for the good of the individual that they are exposed to hostility early and learn to deal with it rather than being left at emotional risk.

You are a mindless worm crawling in the swamp of ignorance, MOTHAFUCKHELLYEAH.

Wasn't trying to make a point out of it, was just stressed out from writing a wall-o-text.

Now, let's get to the answer, hostility without a reason is even worse, since it leaves you worndering what you might have done, or generally put you in a bad mood, you can deny it, won't make it false.
Hostility is a form of violent expression.
Indeed you are right, in saying people need to learn how to handle hostility not to get hurt, since getting hurt makes us stronger.
Now, i'm gonna do something i don't like doing, but since we are stuck i'll have to use heavy counter-measures.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Now, since these are commonly accepted definitions of terms, chose your poison, you can deny them and come on my side of the necroposting argument or accept them and give up on a far more meaningful subject than an internet term.
I'll say it again, i don't like doing this, but you leave me no choice.

I believe in the right of a person to be an asshole. (Especially to telemarketers.) It’s a bad idea more often than not, and being an asshole comes with inherent social drawbacks due to people like you who disapprove, but the option to be one needs to remain.

Quote:
And i answer you that even tho he is allowed to share his opinion he should not allow himself to share it in a hostile way.

And so, this line of the argument is ended in a matter of opinion; on your side, the above, on mine, “I support the right of a person to be an asshole.”

Freedom for the sake of freedom of self against self restraint for the sake of others. The eternal holy war or rights. If you are on your own you can do as you like, if you are part of a community your freedom ends where someone else's begins.

There was a picture/couple of comic panels, quickly and powerfully detailing the difference between pirating and stealing that was a response to all those ‘PIRATING MOVIES IS STEALING’ videos, which I was referencing, but I can’t find it.

Aww...

Oh damn it...

Originally I was going to include Douchebag in my list of names, but since he hadn't posted in a few pages, I thought I could leave him off. Obviously not -_- as the above textwall shows.

ROFL

 

[Mamono Assault Force]

Re: Barbarian Babes?

If Douchebag and Johndoe had the same name, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.