Not every program has bordered text as an option. And I, for one, don't feel like installing GIMP or running my shit through memegenerator.

What about black with black outline in a black background?

what a coincidence that none of the colors match up with the background colors.

dark colors?

. . .

not black text with black outline on a black background...

Black text with a black outline can't be read on black.

Can black with black outline be read on black? I guess not.

what about black on black filled with black?

Black with a black outline on a black background

But how the fuck do you do that?

But I actually want to know.

Back with black outline can't be read on black. Checkmate.

Anything's possible when you're this high

Read the bottom left corner.

any colour can be used - black isn't a colour

double checkmate, sweet thing

Black is the absence of color and light. Light is color, and white is all colors

But on the picture that you posted it says "Doesn't include black" implying that black is a colour, you contradict yourself making you lose no matter what. And although you are technically correct, the definition of the word colour is irrelevant as text is not limited to being written over "colours" but also shades and images among others.

TL;DR: You lose.

WRONG!
It said anything not any color! The shade black is something.

Did you even read it? "Anything with a black outline can be read on any color" You douche.

But did it say that black was a color? Exactly.

I misquoted (I forgot the small text) It says "Doesn't include black" implying (with the earlier use of the word color) that black is in fact a color.

Were I to say, I hate all microwaves... oh except Televisions, sure it would be incorrect but I am still implying that Televisions are microwaves. He said "Anything with a black outline can be read on any color, doesn't include black" Implying that black is a color.

But that's not my point D:

I said it says anything which can range from red to zebra print with puppies shooting red lasers out of their eyes. Implications are usually either spot on or wrong,meaning that what he said may be interpreted different ways: Literal to the T or Inferred.

He needs to shed some light on this.

Define implied: "Strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated): "the report implies that two million jobs might be lost".

When I say that he implied it, I meant his phraseology implied it, the way he worded it implies that he believed at the time of posting/creation that black was a colour. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. He was giving someone else shit for saying that black was a colour while implying it himself. That is hypocritical and as such he has no argument.

Now you are here saying the that that isn't the point. Again, irrelevant. Your point doesn't matter, if the argument is already over. You are just drawing it out. If I were to say "God doesn't exist because God can't exist without Allah to create him", sure it would be ridiculous but I'm ridiculing someone for believing in god, while implying it myself (sorry about the poor comparisons, it isn't easy).

Oh wow. Lemme help you out.

Going on your definition of implied, it means suggested strongly. Here's a scenario for clarification:

Person 1: Wanna go to my place and have some fun?
Person 2: Sure!

Person 2 thinks that Person 1 was implying sex, but what Person 1 actually wanted to do was play TERA Online. See where implications go wrong? Implications are just speculation put out and thought about by another individual. Thus proving my point that Implications are "Spot on or wrong" and that "what he said may be interpreted different ways"

Also, you misread my last post. I said that wasn't MY point. My point was that, and I quote,"It says anything which can range from red to zebra print with puppies shooting ed lasers out of their eyes"

Yes, suggests strongly, "wanna go have some fun" is not a strong suggestion for sex exclusively, in fact it would only be an implication at all if there were some background information. For example if Person 1 has previously asked an identical or at least similar question to Person 2, or perhaps even one of Person 2's friends, then Person 2 may have a good reason to assume that Person 1 meant sex.

However, without it Person 2 would have very little if any reason to believe this were the case so by my definition (Strongly suggest) it was never implied, only assumed.

Also I did not misread what you wrote, I simply stated that is made no difference, that it was not relevant. You said your point was that "it says anything which can range from red to zebra print with puppies shooting red lasers out of their eyes". What I found funny, was that is was another assumed implication. The difference being that mine was more reliable. You are assuming (Suppose to be the case, without proof) that by using the word color he meant something else entirely which would still defeat his purpose.

He ridiculed others for attempted to break his argument (about Black outline with any 'color' filling being readable over any other colour) with "Black outline, with black filling on a black background". In fact by saying that by color he meant any variety of different prints, entailing "anything which can range from red to zebra print with puppies shooting red lasers out of their eyes" then he had no reason to ridicule others for breaking his argument in which case he is being hypocritical and therefore has no argument.

Again, we are working in circles. To quote myself "Now you are here saying that that isn't the point. Again, irrelevant. Your point doesn't matter, if the argument is already over".

I already said half the things you typed up. The rest is just contradiction to what you said earlier or in that post.

The first part was not agreeing with you, it was drawing a comparison between the implication I talking about and the assumed implication that you gave.

I have information you don't. The comparisons were on two ends of the 'implication spectrum' so to speak. One is an assumption (that being your example) which doesn't suggest anything. The other is the example I gave, which is what we are arguing about which has virtually no other meaning than the implication which is expressed. The point you gave about it being any variety of print defeats his purpose. By claiming that colour refers to any print, black would be including. If black is included then his exclusion of black as an example would become obsolete.

What are you trying to argue exactly? Because it seems to change alot.

Holy fuck can i even grammar? I should have turned my music off before i tried to word that. Do you get my point though?

So you agree with me? And there is no contradictions, only two separate reasons why I am correct using your logic to prove my point.

Okay, well this conversation has taken a turn for the confusing so lets call it a stalemate and move on.

Agreed.

your face

Won't deny it

Well, even if it was, read the lower left hand corner