Psshaw, I would never forget you! I still remember that you were gonna draw a comic for me, but guess what never happened? :c

I guess not. :/ Sorry.

You founded the original Rosecorp. Don't bullshit.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

You founded the original Rosecorp. Don't bullshit.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

You founded the original Rosecorp. Don't bullshit.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

You founded the original Rosecorp. Don't bullshit.

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

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.