Originally posted by Sorgo X
Oh no. I'm scawed.
I'm not trying to make fun of you Sorgo (well, maybe a tiny bit) but if you actually take me a bit serious (or most people) then your perception of the otf isn't correct ..or maybe not the same. Lana is correct …
Originally posted by Lana
this is the OTF. People **** around because they can. If you start a thread about how you think people act like badasses, of COURSE someone's going to come in and try and do just that.
Just let it go and move on .. look at my sig for christ sakes ..you take me serious? Shit ...
In fact, this IS the OTF. So I'll just indulge your thread and reply here;
Beautiful!
Wait, hold on. Why is it being denied that I know a lot about certain things? What is it you're trying to debate? That I don't know a lot about anything? What's the deal here?
If you proved yourself to be as well versed on say, movies, as I am on...music for example, I would never begrudge you the right to admit that to yourself. Why would I? It'd be true. Not sure what exactly you are trying to prove. Self-belief is something everyone needs, mine is justified, I know this for a fact. Whether you agree is not of concern to me.
I've reviewed your knowledge on music, seen you post, believed that you did not use a search engine that time when I tested you and I believe you do contain a good knowledge with music. I don't have a problem with self-belief either. Hell, I encourage it.
BUT, as the saying goes, "Everything in moderation".
Self-belief is good in moderation. You are not using it in moderation. You're saying that you are intelligent and that is a FACT. You're saying you stay relevant in a large percentage of your debates and that's FACT.
You need to stop dismissing that as fact. It's not.
Oh the hypocrite arrives. I tell you that your post suggest you try too hard to look smart, and you say "Regardless what you read, I don't mean it that way.", and I can't disagree. Yet when it's me, you get to say that exact same thing with some kind of added fact? No, Soggy, you don't. I don't care about figuring "people" out. I try to figure out debates and reply accordingly. I don't fail, as much as you try hard to believe I do.
Maybe if I repeat myself, you'll understand this time. What you've been doing is APPARENT. You do debate a lot but a large number of the time, you're always trying to say a specific debating pattern than someone is trying to perform without evidence. You did it on our first debate. You didn't know me and you tried telling me what I was doing. Same thing happened with the "Perpetually" debate. You couldn't find any evidence that I was using that word specifically to look smart.
This scenario is NOT parallel (Repeating myself at this point) because I've seen you do this before. You know you've done it before. I'm not saying you're failing. You win an abundance of debates, but the ones you lose, your fall-back plan is the same and you cannot admit a loss.
Here, show me an instance where you've lost a debate, AC. Why don't we review what the debate looks like?
Let's step there, AC. You came in this thread, you tried to degrade me and I'm going to make you pay for it. Ride along with me, AC.
I don't, really. Nothing to hide or be ashamed of. You making things up and having wishful thinking isn't my problem.
How am I making things up?
Our first debate, regarding TFT, you kept on bouncing off with a stupid metaphorical front about "Basketball" and then you went on about how you were "stomping" me via PM and providing proof about how elitist and how much of a cult TFT was when you, in fact, had ZERO evidence.
I'm TELLING you that you occasionally use insults and patronization to back off during losses in a debate. Why? I have proof. You've done it before.
At your request, I can display posts of you, in fact, DOING this because I save my PM's. I don't want to embarrass you, so if you grant me permission, I will publicly display these PMs.
Yes, because it's the kind of thing both a friend and I say, in a homage to certain TV shows in Britain, certain people here are aware of the fact that me typing in an over the top way does not mean it reflects my mood.Assumption. YOU do not get to decide my mood.
A) I never decided your mood. You went off about how I was trying to figure out moods through text, which I never display (Even vaguely).
That's great, but stop pulling this vague crap. Be more elaborate. I'm not British. I don't know what the hell you're going on about.
Non-existent, and yes, it was there. You assumed I needed to relax. I don't.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inexistent
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0122500.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inexistent
It was my opinion (Still is) that you need to relax because you had used several exclamation marks and even used a word that was inexistent. Not to mention you did not elaborate on your "British TV" joke.
A) You're right, a retard saying it doesn't make it true. Me saying it isn't what makes it true, it being true is what makes it true.
A) You didn't quite catch the analysis.
B) No, anyone can say they're intelligent and label it as truth. A *RETARD* could do the same. I'm not trying to be an ass, but you're getting irritating. Intelligence is subjective, and self proclaimed intelligence is ridiculous. Do you know how many people think they're smart?
B) Precisely, and in the opinions of many people more credible than you, I am intelligent. I believe I am, I prove I am. This is not arrogance, there are millions more intelligent than I am, millions and millions, it's called self-belief. There are also people I am smarter than. I'm not gonna call myself equal to people lesser intellectually inclined than I, simply because I wish to be "polite".
No, this is where you're wrong. You're not smarter than people. Everyone is smart and everyone is stupid. For example: Can you fix a car? Rewire an electrical device? Fix a computer? Solve a rubix cube? Direct a movie? Build a house?
Everyone is intelligent in their own way and everyone is stupid in their own way. The thing that's bothering me is you're saying that you're intelligent and it's FACT. You stay relevant in MOST of your debates and that's FACT.
You cannot say that you're intelligent for a FACT.
Not really, I'm not gonna lose sleep if you disagree. Your opinion isn't something I value. I don't consider you intelligent, I think you're an idiot. Round world and all that.
"True intelligence is knowing that you know nothing."
You have a lot to learn. This is why I cannot believe you when you say you're this intelligent person. You don't have much respect for others and you're arrogant. You have this attitude that you're superior to others and you prove that with your translucent patronization maneuvers during debates.
You think I'm an idiot because I'm challenging you, messing with your terribly abundant pride and arrogance. You came in here and degraded me and I didn't call you stupid for it. Why?
I'm not a complete dolt, that's why. You, on the other hand, seem to like to pull off such things. Or try to, at least.
Though if there's any topics you wish to intellectually discuss. Music forum, GDF, Philosophy forum. Pick your topic and let's get going. Yeah, that IS a challenge.
Don't you remember, AC? I'm stupid. Why would you waste time debating someone who is stupid. Wouldn't that be, ironically, a stupid thing to do?
Don't worry, we'll debate something with a point, but not yet.
Not yet.
Saying it many times a day won't make it true. Someone once said that.
It's a metaphor. It means you're not getting it, because ... You're not getting it.
Precisely. You believe it's better to debate about shit like each other and mistakes in syntax? That doesn't make you smart. It makes you anal.
Not at all. If someone can formulate a decent debate on any subject, good. Doing it on more credible subjects than Star Wars is what gives them more credit in my eyes. Debating and knowing your stuff regarding world issues is much more intellectually worthwhile.
Knowledge is knowledge. Period. Hell, Star Wars can effectively be considered a world issue. You probably know over a hundred people who's lives have been influenced by that movie. I consider every subject important and I don't have prejudice for certain subjects. Why?
I'm not prejudice. Prejudice holds no room for reason.
No, but you are here, so you must want to. Additional evidence suggesting you just need to reply to me.
Wow, I wish this was actually a world where what you say can be dismissed as evidence just because you say it is.
Damn, wouldn't it be nice?
I don't have insulting down to an art, I do it or I don't. I don't have the time to craft my insulting techniques, I concentrate on debating.
I don't really need to put time into insulting techniques. It's improvised. I concentrate on discussion rather than debating.
Well, usually. Hahaha.
Denied? I said I don't insult anybody PERSONALLY. As in, personal insults. If I call someone an idiot, it's because they are acting like one in this case.
Why can't that be considered a personal insult? You know, someone who believes in them-self might take that very seriously.
Right, AC? Right?
No, you factually haven't. I don't know what you THINK you've seen me do, but I am telling you for a fact that I do not do that. My word over me, as yours was over you.
Read my previous post. I'm still awaiting your permission to post PROOF you've done this.
Please, give me the word, AC.
I am one person who will agree that last post does not give the edge or the win, it's something people here don't understand. "Most of the time."? I don't get to that point, you're acting as if everyone I debate against ends up crushing me, and that's laughable. As I said, I didn't get the respect I have by being bad at debating. The only thing I'm guilty of is giving idiots too much of my time, as I'm doing now.
No, you're doing it right now! As we speak!
You patronize your opponents and attempt to degrade them when your precious pride is being questioned or your hardened arrogance is being exposed.
And no, I don't act as if everyone who debates you crushes you and I explained the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.
You're already getting back to your insulting ways, hell, you never left. Look at your first post in this thread.
Or maybe I just don't do it, and you try to pass it off as something you'd like it to be (That's what it is.).
No man, stop covering your ass. You've CLEARLY done it before.
I didn't make this debate about me, you did. I don't have nearly as much interest as discussing me or my mannerisms as you appear to. Flattering, but kinda needless.
Doesn't matter. It does not change that you're an ego monster. Self proclaimed intelligence, the works.
Most of the time, you waltz into a thread and make some joke about me or insult me.
I've held my tongue long enough with the crap you pull off. So, I guess not anymore.
Right, AC? Right?
Huh? Me saying I'm smart does not equate to me thinking I am the "greatest" anything, and regardless of how OFTEN I am telling people I do not have these opinions of myself that people love to say I have, they ignore it. Rather than you saying "Well, fair enough.", you are insisting I believe things about myself. It's tragic.
Yes, it is extremely tragic. Even in this thread, you said you losing is "laughable" and you've proclaimed how intelligent you are and how you're most of the time being relevant during a debate. You're dismissing this as "Other people" saying it? This is not my opinion, this instance. You said it moments ago! In this thread! It's all right here, I'm just shining a light on it.
Oh give it a rest. You are pinning opinions on me that I do not have of myself, fact. You are saying "YOU THINK...", and follow it with something I do not think at all. Or you claim I am something I do not believe I am. It's desperation, man. It's desperation.
No, you're dismissing it as such. You think being in denial exempts you from this? Hahaha!
It's clear what you do. It's not about what's up. You can say what you want about yourself. Hell, watch!
"I'm 200 LBS of athletic body. I'm the King of Germany. I have an eighteen inch dick. No one else can tell me what I think. What I am saying is fact."
^ That's what you sound like. No one can question the almighty AC. That's all it is, brother.
I don't do anything to cover loss. If someone proves me wrong, I admit it. It rarely ever happens. Besides, if you think you're so good at doing it, where are you in the other forums debating me? OH, nowhere.
"If someone proves me wrong, I admit it. It rarely ever happens."
Read what you said there. Read it a hundred times over. Maybe you'll understand my point soon enough if you do.
Oh, so because you can't control your emotions, because you dislike me, you wish to point out how you don't like me...and why...and furthermore, throw opinions onto me that I do not even have of myself?
Did I say I didn't like you? How am I unable to control my emotions?
Who's saying stupid shit now? Oh look, you're trying to figure me out again, thinking I can't control my emotions, making assumptions ...
You're proving what I've been saying all this time. Is it so difficult for you to comprehend? Look! Right there! In that post of yours! See?
Right, AC? Right?
Fed up of me? Tough shit, stop reading my posts then.
I don't think so, son.
Originally posted by Sorgo XLike I've said before, inexistent and other words like it are not legitimate words.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inexistent
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0122500.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inexistentIt was my opinion (Still is) that you need to relax because you had used several exclamation marks and even used a word that was inexistent. Not to mention you did not elaborate on your "British TV" joke.
A word is added to a dictionary if it is used frequently enough or used somewhat regularly over a period of 5 years. How else would we get "words" like D'oh or muggle? They are technically words now, but would you argue that they are legitimate words?
Originally posted by Strangelove
Like I've said before, inexistent and other words like it are not legitimate words.A word is added to a dictionary if it is used frequently enough or used somewhat regularly over a period of 5 years. How else would we get "words" like D'oh or muggle? They are technically words now, but would you argue that they are legitimate words?
Oh f*ck.
No other word is legitimate, then. Every word in existence was created because someone used it and over time, it became popular and was labelled as an actual word.
Inexistent is a word whether you like it or not. I don't care how stupid you think it is, go look in ANY dictionary you find and search for the word. It is an ENGLISH WORD and there is no such thing as a classification for "Legitimate words" like you seem to think.
Originally posted by Sorgo XYou are taking it to an extreme. I am not saying that all words are illegitimate. If there are two words that mean exactly the same thing, then the word that came first is 'legitimate.' I mean, say inexistent and then non-existent. Which one sounds right?
Oh f*ck.No other word is legitimate, then. Every word in existence was created because someone used it and over time, it became popular and was labelled as an actual word.
Inexistent is a word whether you like it or not. I don't care how stupid you think it is, go look in ANY dictionary you find and search for the word. It is an ENGLISH WORD and there is no such thing as a classification for "Legitimate words" like you seem to think.
Like the word you used before: "irrelevancy" A noun form of the adjective irrelevant. Except there is already one of those. Irrelevance. And it's rather obvious that it came first. And irrelevancy just sounds idiotic. Same with "ironical," which I also mentioned before.
You follow me? I use "legitimate" because I can't really think of a word that fits better.
Originally posted by Strangelove
[B]You are taking it to an extreme. I am not saying that all words are illegitimate. If there are two words that mean exactly the same thing, then the word that came first is 'legitimate.' I mean, say inexistent and then non-existent. Which one sounds right?
To counter your paragraph:
I'm not taking it to an extreme and both sound right because both are right.
That's it. That is truly all there is to it.
Like the word you used before: "irrelevancy" A noun form of the adjective irrelevant. Except there is already one of those. Irrelevance. And it's rather obvious that it came first. And irrelevancy just sounds idiotic. Same with "ironical," which I also mentioned before.You follow me?
No, you're just being biased and don't even try using "Ugh, you wouldn't get it." as an excuse because that'll enforce your bias.
You're biased to the original word. Either way, the other one applies. The other one is a word, modern or not.
Both apply, so your argument is (And I mean this) truly pointless.