Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

placeholder    

Rank #21566 on Subscribers
placeholder Avatar Level 0 Comments: Untouched account
Offline
Send mail to placeholder Block placeholder Invite placeholder to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:12/22/2010
Last Login:8/22/2012
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Thumbs: 0 total,  1 ,  1
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 7.27% (4/55)
Level 0 Comments: Untouched account → Level 1 Comments: New Here
Subscribers:3
Total Comments Made:16
FJ Points:0

latest user's comments

#18 - I guess not. :/ Sorry. 12/10/2011 on placeholder's profile 0
#15 - Who the **** are you? Just kidding; of course I r…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/09/2011 on placeholder's profile 0
#16 - Jameshaich (12/09/2011) [-]
#13 - Yepp. :D If my memory serves me correctly; you were really nic…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/09/2011 on placeholder's profile 0
User avatar #17 - CossetteXRose (12/10/2011) [-]
Psshaw, I would never forget you! I still remember that you were gonna draw a comic for me, but guess what never happened? :c
User avatar #18 - placeholder (12/10/2011) [-]
I guess not. :/ Sorry.
#34 - Comment deleted 12/08/2011 on Explaining RoseCorp 0
#33 - Comment deleted 12/08/2011 on Explaining RoseCorp 0
#27 - Comment deleted  [+] (4 new replies) 12/08/2011 on Explaining RoseCorp 0
User avatar #30 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
You founded the original Rosecorp. Don't bullshit.
#33 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #31 - nommas (12/08/2011) [-]
He used to have something to do with RoseCorp. I'm the reason it's back. I told Placeholder that I restarted it so he came to visit. He has nothing to do with the current RoseCorp
User avatar #32 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
I know. But the new target differs little, if at all, in it's fundamental basis, so he may as well be the one who is doing it still. That will probably change later.
#26 - Comment deleted  [+] (2 new replies) 12/08/2011 on Explaining RoseCorp 0
User avatar #29 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
So you assume that I cannot judge you because you're a good actor, and I'm angry. You also make the illogical leap that 'the true difference' is that you're replying because you find it funny, as if I'm not replying for equally mundane a purpose.

You continue to say ''you are trying to prove yourself.'' How do you know? Did you not just previously state that the best actor is the one you can't identify?

You persistently point out how angry I am, and pretend that that makes a difference to what my arguments are. You aren't addressing any of my argument (which I will again point out, wasn't against you, you just decided to get involved) you're just saying I'm angry. As if having an emotion in response to a thing negates validity. It doesn't.

Then you say that my world views are messed up. You don't know my world views, only my funnyjunk views, which are an infinitesimally small portion of my Weltenschung.
Continuing, you say ''you're showing how angry you are,'' as if I ever hid it. It makes zero difference.

I am mad, you got one thing right. But I'm not mad with you, because I understand how it is to talk to children. You just can't expect someone with an underdeveloped brain to understand a developed statement. I'm angry at your arrogance. And maybe, you may have had a point on the mental issue state. However, that's only at second glance, and only when you factor in that your arrogance only gets me mad because it reminds me of all over arrogance, which I hate. Maybe I'm overassociative.

That doesn't matter. Your arguments are weak, you repeat discredited statements ad nauseam, you assume things which have no basis in fact, you can't argue stronger than a 12 year old, you have a lack of linear thinking understanding, and you can't seem to grasp the value of philosophy. There is hope though: I assure you, at some point, your woefully ignorant, pusillanimous, vile, unfunctioning, weak, disassociative mind might fix itself. Maybe then, you'll see my point.
#34 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
#21 - Comment deleted  [+] (12 new replies) 12/08/2011 on Explaining RoseCorp 0
User avatar #22 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
I'll ignore your dismissal of philosophy, mainly because you're an idiot.
The second part is fallacious, because my problem is not with you (although I promise, I do hate you) it's with RoseCorp, which I rejected up top, in my first comment before you replied. Which is why I agreed that I moved on to name-calling later on.
If you understand what I said in those last two sentences, you'll see that I have in fact, practised what I preached.
I hate you. There is zero need to clarify on that- and you can be angry without having mental issues; it's called being dissatisfied with something.
I wasn't joking. You were. You weren't funny. Neither was I. The end result is equalisation in terms of humour, which is what determines true joke status.

You're condescending regardless of character. It's easy to see when someone is being truly condescending, and when they're miming. You're clearly exercising the Oscar Wilde-esque 'give a man a mask' effect. The difference is that I admit that I hate a lot of things- which is why I'm more honest than you.
My argument was with (to clarify) RoseCorp itself, not you, my own argument with you is that you are indeed, a prick. Nothing else.

#26 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #29 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
So you assume that I cannot judge you because you're a good actor, and I'm angry. You also make the illogical leap that 'the true difference' is that you're replying because you find it funny, as if I'm not replying for equally mundane a purpose.

You continue to say ''you are trying to prove yourself.'' How do you know? Did you not just previously state that the best actor is the one you can't identify?

You persistently point out how angry I am, and pretend that that makes a difference to what my arguments are. You aren't addressing any of my argument (which I will again point out, wasn't against you, you just decided to get involved) you're just saying I'm angry. As if having an emotion in response to a thing negates validity. It doesn't.

Then you say that my world views are messed up. You don't know my world views, only my funnyjunk views, which are an infinitesimally small portion of my Weltenschung.
Continuing, you say ''you're showing how angry you are,'' as if I ever hid it. It makes zero difference.

I am mad, you got one thing right. But I'm not mad with you, because I understand how it is to talk to children. You just can't expect someone with an underdeveloped brain to understand a developed statement. I'm angry at your arrogance. And maybe, you may have had a point on the mental issue state. However, that's only at second glance, and only when you factor in that your arrogance only gets me mad because it reminds me of all over arrogance, which I hate. Maybe I'm overassociative.

That doesn't matter. Your arguments are weak, you repeat discredited statements ad nauseam, you assume things which have no basis in fact, you can't argue stronger than a 12 year old, you have a lack of linear thinking understanding, and you can't seem to grasp the value of philosophy. There is hope though: I assure you, at some point, your woefully ignorant, pusillanimous, vile, unfunctioning, weak, disassociative mind might fix itself. Maybe then, you'll see my point.
#34 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #24 - nommas (12/08/2011) [-]
I-If I could just get a word in. I'd like to say that I thought Placeholder's first reply to you was funny and as you said, "Funny is subjective, don't be stupid."
User avatar #25 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
Yeah I know, but if he's going to bandy about that RoseCorp knows what's funny and that what he WAS funny, then it proves my point that he doesn't know what's funny, because he finds something funny that I don't find funny. Thus proving that the motive of eliminating the unfunny is selfish, egocentric, and idiotic.
#27 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #30 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
You founded the original Rosecorp. Don't bullshit.
#33 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #31 - nommas (12/08/2011) [-]
He used to have something to do with RoseCorp. I'm the reason it's back. I told Placeholder that I restarted it so he came to visit. He has nothing to do with the current RoseCorp
User avatar #32 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
I know. But the new target differs little, if at all, in it's fundamental basis, so he may as well be the one who is doing it still. That will probably change later.
#23 - nommas Comment deleted by placeholder
#15 - Comment deleted  [+] (14 new replies) 12/08/2011 on Explaining RoseCorp 0
#17 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
Variety is the spice of life. Especially in sentence structure.
<---- See this? This is called the Argument Pyramid. It's used a lot in philosophy and critical thinking. In it, is how arguments are classed, starting with the worst arguments at the bottom, and the arguments get better as they ascend.

See how I started with a counterargument, or even a refutation (if you are being generous) and THEN switched to ad hominem later, whereas you started with Ad Hominem and name-calling, which you repeat ad nauseam. It'd be lovely for you if you learnt not to be such a condescending prick; to understand how arguing works in the real world.
#21 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #22 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
I'll ignore your dismissal of philosophy, mainly because you're an idiot.
The second part is fallacious, because my problem is not with you (although I promise, I do hate you) it's with RoseCorp, which I rejected up top, in my first comment before you replied. Which is why I agreed that I moved on to name-calling later on.
If you understand what I said in those last two sentences, you'll see that I have in fact, practised what I preached.
I hate you. There is zero need to clarify on that- and you can be angry without having mental issues; it's called being dissatisfied with something.
I wasn't joking. You were. You weren't funny. Neither was I. The end result is equalisation in terms of humour, which is what determines true joke status.

You're condescending regardless of character. It's easy to see when someone is being truly condescending, and when they're miming. You're clearly exercising the Oscar Wilde-esque 'give a man a mask' effect. The difference is that I admit that I hate a lot of things- which is why I'm more honest than you.
My argument was with (to clarify) RoseCorp itself, not you, my own argument with you is that you are indeed, a prick. Nothing else.

#26 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #29 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
So you assume that I cannot judge you because you're a good actor, and I'm angry. You also make the illogical leap that 'the true difference' is that you're replying because you find it funny, as if I'm not replying for equally mundane a purpose.

You continue to say ''you are trying to prove yourself.'' How do you know? Did you not just previously state that the best actor is the one you can't identify?

You persistently point out how angry I am, and pretend that that makes a difference to what my arguments are. You aren't addressing any of my argument (which I will again point out, wasn't against you, you just decided to get involved) you're just saying I'm angry. As if having an emotion in response to a thing negates validity. It doesn't.

Then you say that my world views are messed up. You don't know my world views, only my funnyjunk views, which are an infinitesimally small portion of my Weltenschung.
Continuing, you say ''you're showing how angry you are,'' as if I ever hid it. It makes zero difference.

I am mad, you got one thing right. But I'm not mad with you, because I understand how it is to talk to children. You just can't expect someone with an underdeveloped brain to understand a developed statement. I'm angry at your arrogance. And maybe, you may have had a point on the mental issue state. However, that's only at second glance, and only when you factor in that your arrogance only gets me mad because it reminds me of all over arrogance, which I hate. Maybe I'm overassociative.

That doesn't matter. Your arguments are weak, you repeat discredited statements ad nauseam, you assume things which have no basis in fact, you can't argue stronger than a 12 year old, you have a lack of linear thinking understanding, and you can't seem to grasp the value of philosophy. There is hope though: I assure you, at some point, your woefully ignorant, pusillanimous, vile, unfunctioning, weak, disassociative mind might fix itself. Maybe then, you'll see my point.
#34 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #24 - nommas (12/08/2011) [-]
I-If I could just get a word in. I'd like to say that I thought Placeholder's first reply to you was funny and as you said, "Funny is subjective, don't be stupid."
User avatar #25 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
Yeah I know, but if he's going to bandy about that RoseCorp knows what's funny and that what he WAS funny, then it proves my point that he doesn't know what's funny, because he finds something funny that I don't find funny. Thus proving that the motive of eliminating the unfunny is selfish, egocentric, and idiotic.
#27 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #30 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
You founded the original Rosecorp. Don't bullshit.
#33 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #31 - nommas (12/08/2011) [-]
He used to have something to do with RoseCorp. I'm the reason it's back. I told Placeholder that I restarted it so he came to visit. He has nothing to do with the current RoseCorp
User avatar #32 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
I know. But the new target differs little, if at all, in it's fundamental basis, so he may as well be the one who is doing it still. That will probably change later.
#23 - nommas Comment deleted by placeholder
#13 - Comment deleted  [+] (16 new replies) 12/08/2011 on Explaining RoseCorp 0
User avatar #14 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
So he's arrogant as well, oh lovely. And also, apparently, he's also someone who is too stupid to understand that pretending to take an insult as a compliment is just incredibly stupid in and of itself.
#15 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
#17 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
Variety is the spice of life. Especially in sentence structure.
<---- See this? This is called the Argument Pyramid. It's used a lot in philosophy and critical thinking. In it, is how arguments are classed, starting with the worst arguments at the bottom, and the arguments get better as they ascend.

See how I started with a counterargument, or even a refutation (if you are being generous) and THEN switched to ad hominem later, whereas you started with Ad Hominem and name-calling, which you repeat ad nauseam. It'd be lovely for you if you learnt not to be such a condescending prick; to understand how arguing works in the real world.
#21 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #22 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
I'll ignore your dismissal of philosophy, mainly because you're an idiot.
The second part is fallacious, because my problem is not with you (although I promise, I do hate you) it's with RoseCorp, which I rejected up top, in my first comment before you replied. Which is why I agreed that I moved on to name-calling later on.
If you understand what I said in those last two sentences, you'll see that I have in fact, practised what I preached.
I hate you. There is zero need to clarify on that- and you can be angry without having mental issues; it's called being dissatisfied with something.
I wasn't joking. You were. You weren't funny. Neither was I. The end result is equalisation in terms of humour, which is what determines true joke status.

You're condescending regardless of character. It's easy to see when someone is being truly condescending, and when they're miming. You're clearly exercising the Oscar Wilde-esque 'give a man a mask' effect. The difference is that I admit that I hate a lot of things- which is why I'm more honest than you.
My argument was with (to clarify) RoseCorp itself, not you, my own argument with you is that you are indeed, a prick. Nothing else.

#26 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #29 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
So you assume that I cannot judge you because you're a good actor, and I'm angry. You also make the illogical leap that 'the true difference' is that you're replying because you find it funny, as if I'm not replying for equally mundane a purpose.

You continue to say ''you are trying to prove yourself.'' How do you know? Did you not just previously state that the best actor is the one you can't identify?

You persistently point out how angry I am, and pretend that that makes a difference to what my arguments are. You aren't addressing any of my argument (which I will again point out, wasn't against you, you just decided to get involved) you're just saying I'm angry. As if having an emotion in response to a thing negates validity. It doesn't.

Then you say that my world views are messed up. You don't know my world views, only my funnyjunk views, which are an infinitesimally small portion of my Weltenschung.
Continuing, you say ''you're showing how angry you are,'' as if I ever hid it. It makes zero difference.

I am mad, you got one thing right. But I'm not mad with you, because I understand how it is to talk to children. You just can't expect someone with an underdeveloped brain to understand a developed statement. I'm angry at your arrogance. And maybe, you may have had a point on the mental issue state. However, that's only at second glance, and only when you factor in that your arrogance only gets me mad because it reminds me of all over arrogance, which I hate. Maybe I'm overassociative.

That doesn't matter. Your arguments are weak, you repeat discredited statements ad nauseam, you assume things which have no basis in fact, you can't argue stronger than a 12 year old, you have a lack of linear thinking understanding, and you can't seem to grasp the value of philosophy. There is hope though: I assure you, at some point, your woefully ignorant, pusillanimous, vile, unfunctioning, weak, disassociative mind might fix itself. Maybe then, you'll see my point.
#34 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #24 - nommas (12/08/2011) [-]
I-If I could just get a word in. I'd like to say that I thought Placeholder's first reply to you was funny and as you said, "Funny is subjective, don't be stupid."
User avatar #25 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
Yeah I know, but if he's going to bandy about that RoseCorp knows what's funny and that what he WAS funny, then it proves my point that he doesn't know what's funny, because he finds something funny that I don't find funny. Thus proving that the motive of eliminating the unfunny is selfish, egocentric, and idiotic.
#27 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #30 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
You founded the original Rosecorp. Don't bullshit.
#33 - placeholder has deleted their comment.
User avatar #31 - nommas (12/08/2011) [-]
He used to have something to do with RoseCorp. I'm the reason it's back. I told Placeholder that I restarted it so he came to visit. He has nothing to do with the current RoseCorp
User avatar #32 - MyNameIsARickRoll (12/08/2011) [-]
I know. But the new target differs little, if at all, in it's fundamental basis, so he may as well be the one who is doing it still. That will probably change later.
#23 - nommas Comment deleted by placeholder
[ 16 Total ]

user's friends


Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - Labbratt (07/06/2012) [-]
Hello? Hello. Hi.
User avatar #20 to #19 - Labbratt (07/06/2012) [-]
Hello.
#14 - Jameshaich (12/09/2011) [-]
mfw you won't remember me
User avatar #15 to #14 - placeholder (12/09/2011) [-]
Who the **** are you? Just kidding; of course I remember you.
User avatar #10 - CossetteXRose (11/26/2011) [-]
Heyyy, do you remember me? I remember talking to you a long time ago :L
User avatar #11 to #10 - placeholder (12/07/2011) [-]
Of course I remember you. :)
User avatar #12 to #11 - CossetteXRose (12/08/2011) [-]
Ahh really?! c:
User avatar #13 to #12 - placeholder (12/09/2011) [-]
Yepp. :D If my memory serves me correctly; you were really nice. If I'm honest, I'm surprised that YOU remember ME.
User avatar #17 to #13 - CossetteXRose (12/10/2011) [-]
Psshaw, I would never forget you! I still remember that you were gonna draw a comic for me, but guess what never happened? :c
User avatar #18 to #17 - placeholder (12/10/2011) [-]
I guess not. :/ Sorry.
#4 - nommas (06/12/2011) [-]
I'm waiting...
User avatar #5 to #4 - placeholder (09/17/2011) [-]
You shall be waiting a long time, my friend.
#3 - TomShutter **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #6 to #3 - placeholder (09/17/2011) [-]
Hello.
#2 - EFAN **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #7 to #2 - placeholder (09/17/2011) [-]
I'm sorry? What?
#1 - Wafflepwn (03/03/2011) [-]
Ill be here......waiting for your return....
Ill be here......waiting for your return....
User avatar #8 to #1 - placeholder (09/17/2011) [-]
You shall be waiting for a long time, unfortunately.
 Friends (0)