Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Wow.. Testy Nai.. Firstly, it is funny how you constantly attempt to insult me for pointing out your continuous inability to understand certain terms. So no "dude", I don't fit the description of a troll, or perhaps you would like for me to repost the definition so you can get a clear understanding of the word?
According to your own definition:
An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war
Outrageous messages to bait people to answer - check.
Delights in sowing discord on the forums - check.
Inspiring flame wars - check.
Purposely provoking people - check.
Or shall we use a "better" definition:
"In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls."
Looks like your KMC forum biography...
Also, should I explain to you the context into which everyone said I got outdebated, since you love to take it out of context to prove your point? Did you happen to conveniently forget that it was purely and ONLY talking about my argument with lightsnake about a specific quote, which I later said that he was right, or are you going to continue to ATTEMPT to ridicule me?
Irrelevant missdirection and obviously a lie.
"Really Sexy (tdtd) with every post you make you climb one more rung down the latter of intelligence. At this point you must be nearing the bottom, since you have quite a few posts." -> Clear reference to your general behavior. Not out of context.
"You are in denial... I suggest you get out." (page 17)
-> Clear reference to your general behavior. Not taken out of context.
Swirly Girl:
"To be honest tdtd, you've effectively been out debated." (page 16)
-> Answer to your thought that your "arguments" outweigh those of Lightsnake. Also not out of context.
Generic Hero:
"Sexy, you're clinging to logical deduction when factual evidence (From the mouth of the co-creator himself) points to Yoda being on par with Exar Kun and the Ancient Sith." (page 17)
-> Reference to your attempt argue factual evidence. Not out of context.
Sama:
"I haven't seen anything firmly supporting Kun > Yoda" (page 14)
-> Reference to topic of "Kun vs Yoda" in general. Againt not out of context.
Anything else to say ?
I'm glad you have to point out to yourself how I am getting ridiculed, and how I am supposedly getting my ass kicked daily on a SW forum. Considering the fact that other than you, Escape, and Sama, nobody on here seems to debate or know how, so your illogical assumption about how "I get my ass kicked every day" is invalid.
Petitio principii and argumentum ad hominem. So...your personal opinion is that nobody here with the exception of Escape, Sama and me is capable of debating ? Since that obviously isn't a "logical" statement you can't use it to disprove my suggestion. Aside of this: The mere fact that Escape ("Antithesis of Ragnos" thread), Sama (this thread) and I (this thread) are consequently disargreeing with you should give you a little hint that you might be wrong. And by the way: If you suggest yourself that I'm capable of debating and I destroy your argument my former statement is still valid - so nice selfownage again here, friend.
And again, I argue from what I know, so if you prove me otherwise you don't see me crying over it, or personally attacking you like a middle school social outcast(which is exactly what you are doing). I had no knowledge of events like Yoda living an avalanche, Yoda taking the Darkside out of something, etc. So if you're going to tell me I lack the arguing abilities to events I know, maybe you should reread these arguments instead of busying yourself with futile attempts to "ridicule" me, "Dude".
And again a nice irrelevant missdirection.
When I said that the concept of logic is clearly beyond you and that your self estimated "debating abilities" are non-existant I was refering to two facts:
a) That you've tried to base "logical deduction" on an opinion
b) That you've tried to argue factual evidence
And this two facts are totally independent from the question if you have a lack of knowledge on certain topics. Aside of this I love how "irrelevant stuff" turned into "relevant knowledge" mysteriously over night. Now you can nail here [x] to receive a new monitor.