How to REVIVE tremulous

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

dev/HC:

WRONG.  you assume my goal was to win a debate.  it is shameful that i must state it openly, but my goal was to spark a debate and use it as trolling fodder.  it never fails.  no matter where you go, SOMEONE will white knight valve. 

WRONG, we both have absurdly strict definitions of what make up an ad" or a "mod.  we both are unwilling to compromise these personal definitions.  they are equally ridiculous, and mirrored in structure.

it cannot be WRONG.  i was avoiding answering the question.  the manner in which i did so is by asking the same of you. then, i answered the question.


so again, given your list and all of that shit you are dialed into, which of those proves your point, and why?  (in other words, why did you link to wikipedea?)

to make you rage, yes.  note that i told you not to cite wikipedea, and in the very same post did it myself.  i knew you would call me on it.  if you didnt, i would have nudged you along, most likely by linking to articles that make my point in an increasingly tenuous manner.  i have been at this form of trollery a very long time, and i know my craft.

learn english.  if a portion of a sentence, when removed, causes the remainder to be an incomplete sentence, then you may not say "that portion has primarily nothing to do with the sentence".  reminder:  a complete sentence has both a subject and a predicate.  the words in question were the predicate.  without them, you have only the subject.  therefor they are an essential and integral portion of your sentence, and you are very, very WRONG.

statements are made of sentences.  so, WRONG again.  logical, yes, if you are a teenager with their first copy of backorriface.  proper to the same crowd of people, i'd imagine.  habitually using such "leetspeak" puts you on a lower level than virus.

have fun in never-never land.  or being a manbaby.  whichever applies.

you must be right.  i do not have the ability to see the words you type.  as to not knowing what a script kiddie is.... dont be coy.  you know that i know damn well what one is, as i selected that particular epitaph as something that might rage you to your senses.  unless....  the term is so archaic that YOU dont know what it is?   perhaps i overestimated you.

yes, opinion allows for that.  opinion is not equal to fact, and arguing about opinion and trying to browbeat someone into changing a firmly held opinion is an exercise in futility itself.  this is kind of why i use such as bait.  if someone is willing to argue about such, then that person is prepared to get the whole nine troll yards.  in this, you have not disappointed.

my WRONGNESS is not at question.  your own opinion is.  are you afraid that any answer you give will be "WRONG" and twisted to support my argument?

mods.

[CreatureofHell]

It certainly seems like you've all figured out how to revive the forums.

i just want to tremules

pls respond

Smash the dretch on your screen with a hammer. It will then turned into a flattened dretch which you can double click on to launch the game.

[hwd]

Smash the dretch on your screen with a hammer. It will then turned into a flattened dretch which you can double click on to launch the game.

But the dretch is already flat, how do I make it even flatter?  

RAK, you don't go about reviving Tremulous with inflammatory statements. I suggest you keep the flaming between you and DevHC (whom you seem to have a grudge against) out of this topic, otherwise you are the one derailing it with your stupid fiery opinions.

[ULTRA Random ViruS]

Who cares, at least the forum is active again somewhat.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

RAK, you don't go about reviving Tremulous with inflammatory statements. I suggest you keep the flaming between you and DevHC (whom you seem to have a grudge against) out of this topic, otherwise you are the one derailing it with your stupid fiery opinions.

you could call it flaming, i guess, but i hold no grudge towards dev/HC.  on the contrary.  i always feel a slight affection for those willing to step up and be trolled.

like you.  i have not been the one slinging mild insults, yet you single me out as the inflammatory one.  to avoid it, all one must do is think to himself: "yep, he's trollin'," and NOT respond.  that's it.  the end of the matter, and the topic dies like all the others of its ilk.  instead, you feed me.

now, if you'll excuse me, i'll go back to waiting for dev/HC to continue our shit related to the topic by the flimsiest of tangents

[/dev/humancontroller]

(quoting the whole out-of-context mess, for the record and maximum embarassment.)

dev/HC:

WRONG.  you assume my goal was to win a debate.  it is shameful that i must state it openly, but my goal was to spark a debate and use it as trolling fodder.  it never fails.  no matter where you go, SOMEONE will white knight valve. 

WRONG, we both have absurdly strict definitions of what make up an ad" or a "mod.  we both are unwilling to compromise these personal definitions.  they are equally ridiculous, and mirrored in structure.

it cannot be WRONG.  i was avoiding answering the question.  the manner in which i did so is by asking the same of you. then, i answered the question.


so again, given your list and all of that shit you are dialed into, which of those proves your point, and why?  (in other words, why did you link to wikipedea?)

to make you rage, yes.  note that i told you not to cite wikipedea, and in the very same post did it myself.  i knew you would call me on it.  if you didnt, i would have nudged you along, most likely by linking to articles that make my point in an increasingly tenuous manner.  i have been at this form of trollery a very long time, and i know my craft.

learn english.  if a portion of a sentence, when removed, causes the remainder to be an incomplete sentence, then you may not say "that portion has primarily nothing to do with the sentence".  reminder:  a complete sentence has both a subject and a predicate.  the words in question were the predicate.  without them, you have only the subject.  therefor they are an essential and integral portion of your sentence, and you are very, very WRONG.

statements are made of sentences.  so, WRONG again.  logical, yes, if you are a teenager with their first copy of backorriface.  proper to the same crowd of people, i'd imagine.  habitually using such "leetspeak" puts you on a lower level than virus.

have fun in never-never land.  or being a manbaby.  whichever applies.

you must be right.  i do not have the ability to see the words you type.  as to not knowing what a script kiddie is.... dont be coy.  you know that i know damn well what one is, as i selected that particular epitaph as something that might rage you to your senses.  unless....  the term is so archaic that YOU dont know what it is?   perhaps i overestimated you.

yes, opinion allows for that.  opinion is not equal to fact, and arguing about opinion and trying to browbeat someone into changing a firmly held opinion is an exercise in futility itself.  this is kind of why i use such as bait.  if someone is willing to argue about such, then that person is prepared to get the whole nine troll yards.  in this, you have not disappointed.

my WRONGNESS is not at question.  your own opinion is.  are you afraid that any answer you give will be "WRONG" and twisted to support my argument?

mods.

you assume my goal was to win a debate.  it is shameful that i must state it openly, but my goal was to spark a debate and use it as trolling fodder.

WRONG. your intention was try to win a debate, but then turned into trolling after you lost (yes, i'm in your head).

your stance on ads mirrors mine on mods.  both are equally ridiculous.

WRONG.

we both have absurdly strict definitions of what make up an ad" or a "mod.  we both are unwilling to compromise these personal definitions.  they are equally ridiculous, and mirrored in structure.

WRONG.

i answered the question.

WRONG.

other than that, i repeat, i invoked it so you would call me on it, so i could then get you into the position you are in now.

to make me rage and point out your WRONGness? doubtfully. the real background of you invoking WikiPedia is that you weren't thinking.

to make you rage, yes.  note that i told you not to cite wikipedea, and in the very same post did it myself.  i knew you would call me on it.

WRONG.
btw, i don't recall you ever spelling WikiPedia correctly.

FAIL and PWNED have primarily nothing to do with my statement. my statement shows that you are inconsistent, and that your own statements prove your inconsistency. thus, my statement shows your SELF-PWNAGE.

primarily nothing to do with your statement?

ind33d.

you need to review sentence structure, my friend!  those words were the compound predicate of your clause.  the subject, me, (does) fail and self "pwn".  remove the predicate, and you have the subject, me, does.

"statement" does not refer to grammar (sentence structure, etc.) ! "statement" refers to the logical thing-to-say, which is primarily about your inconsistency (secondarily, i was ridiculing you in a PROPER(TM) way).

if a portion of a sentence, when removed, causes the remainder to be an incomplete sentence, then you may not say "that portion has primarily nothing to do with the sentence".

irrelevant (also vacuous, because i did not say "that portion has primarily nothing to do with the sentence"). i repeat: "statement" (the word i used) does not mean "sentence", instead, it is, in meaning, similar to "predicate" or "assertion".

you are very, very WRONG.

WRONG.

statements are made of sentences.

WRONG.

habitually using such "leetspeak" puts you on a lower level than virus.

WRONG.

as to not knowing what a script kiddie is.... dont be coy.  you know that i know damn well what one is, as i selected that particular epitaph as something that might rage you to your senses.

WRONG. and, at this point, whether or not you used the script kiddie term with the purposes of flame-ignition, you unintentionally fail as light gets shed on your non-knowledge about the term.

personal opinion has the virtue of allowances for inconsistency.

...and WRONGness.

let me ask you this, is nexiuz(original) a mod or a game?

that is for you to answer, and your answer will surely be inconsistent.

i know my own answer.  i want to hear yours.

my answer is irrelevant to this discussion: your WRONGness can be shown without my answer.

my WRONGNESS is not at question.

well, not any more, that is.

are you afraid that any answer you give will be "WRONG" and twisted to support my argument?

what part of "my answer is irrelevant to this discussion: your WRONGness can be shown without my answer." didn't you understand? furthermore, without a doubt, the answer will initiate more trolling, and this is to be coupled with the fact that i'm getting tired of your bullshit.

mods.

games.

[your face]

This is a bad thread can I lock it now?  Ok cool.  Sorry rakninjawhatsyourface, but DevHC has the last word this time.  I know this must be terribly upsetting to your ego.