|
|
|
On August 15 2017 09:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 09:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 09:23 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 09:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:08 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:45 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm unsure why you distilled the discussion for the sake of asking for this to be in PM, that's kind of weird don't your think? I'm also still unclear what you're talking about--could you provide the link? It still sounds kind of made up.
If you can't follow a simple request to bring a discussion to PM, for the sake of the thread. I'm not going to bother to bring up the evidence. I mean why would I go through that trouble when you have no trouble making things up and posting them as facts with zero evidence? Why is the burden of proof different for everyone but super special you. PM me please to discuss. I had assumed that since you brought up the topic twice you wished to discuss it; was it really just to disparage me? I didn't realize that was the goal you had. Can you confirm? Disparage you? You mean like poisoning the well? I like you would never stoop so low. It's just what happened mate. But please PM me to discuss this is a 1 on on 1 convo, not everyone needs to read it. Being that it seems we are not having a discussion I am unsure it's possible to poison the well. Argumental fallacies requires for there to be an argument. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word? So, to be clear, I have no idea what you were accusing me of and you are actively unwilling to bring up the data to use as a jumping off point for discussion--is that what's happening here? I'm not accusing you of anything that was the police. As I said I'm happy to bring up my arguments to all the nonsense you wrote earlier in PM. you just keep posting here, not sure why. Thanks for sending your next message to me though PM! I've already heard your past arguments in PM, if it's more of the same then it's fairly meaningless. And if you're disinterested in actually showing me what you're trying to imply then I guess it's best we just move on. Peace out. Untrue you have never pm'd me. You have said to PM you and I have but then you never respond. Funny you say lets move on because I said that originally when you hashed up old arguments but then you just made up more stuff to try to bait me back into the discussion publicly. But again PM and I'm happy to discuss what ever you desire. As I said, peace out dude. Don't take this so personal. Take what personal? Please explain to me through PM.
I'm fairly disinterested in hearing more of your:
"In fact I have happily had sex with the same women for 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't hold on to a women because your are so ignorant to your sexism it probably frustrates the shit out of any girl with a back bone. I would also be willing to put down money if it was somehow provable that you have 0 success with women. Your instance that I believe something that I have clearly stated in many ways doesn't say anything about me but sure says a bunch about you. You are the classic keyboard warrior, I bet you are quiet as shit in real life and wouldn't go down this path."
Hence why I have stated that I do not wish to continue discussing things with you.
|
On August 15 2017 09:20 Epishade wrote:
Hey guys, I need some advice for a girl problem I have.
Michelle is really nice. Nicest girl I know. And very good looking too. She's like a 9/10 if I had to rate her, and I've never dated anybody else who looks as good as her or has the personality to match. Our sex life is great too and we just mesh together so well. There's one problem though that makes me hesitant about staying in a relationship with her. She got a great job at a nursing school up near Toronto, where her family lives, but we've lived together in North Carolina our whole lives. She applied there, not really thinking she'd get in, mostly just because her family suggested she try it anyways and see what happened. I'm not sure I'm ready to just pack up and move to Canada though, as much as I want to support her in her future career. Her husband tells her it's a great career move too, and I wouldn't want to stop her from pursuing her dream. But I just feel that it would be selfish of me to tell her she couldn't go and that could lead to feelings of resentment toward me anyways for stopping her from moving forward in her career. Any advice?
The real question has nothing to do with her and has everything to do with you.
What is keeping you where you are? Is Canada's distance "really" what is keeping you? Would you be more okay with it if she were closer or would any distance be a deal breaker? If instead of Canada she just moved 4-8 hours drive away--would you be upset? What about a state away?
If the only thing scaring you is that Canada feels scary then I say go visit Canada. Research it. Look it up. Find something that might intrigue you to go there even if she doesn't go.
But no matter what plan you follow--make sure it's your plan, that it's focused on your interest.
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 09:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 09:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 09:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 09:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 09:23 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 09:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:08 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I had assumed that since you brought up the topic twice you wished to discuss it; was it really just to disparage me? I didn't realize that was the goal you had. Can you confirm?
Disparage you? You mean like poisoning the well? I like you would never stoop so low. It's just what happened mate. But please PM me to discuss this is a 1 on on 1 convo, not everyone needs to read it. Being that it seems we are not having a discussion I am unsure it's possible to poison the well. Argumental fallacies requires for there to be an argument. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word? So, to be clear, I have no idea what you were accusing me of and you are actively unwilling to bring up the data to use as a jumping off point for discussion--is that what's happening here? I'm not accusing you of anything that was the police. As I said I'm happy to bring up my arguments to all the nonsense you wrote earlier in PM. you just keep posting here, not sure why. Thanks for sending your next message to me though PM! I've already heard your past arguments in PM, if it's more of the same then it's fairly meaningless. And if you're disinterested in actually showing me what you're trying to imply then I guess it's best we just move on. Peace out. Untrue you have never pm'd me. You have said to PM you and I have but then you never respond. Funny you say lets move on because I said that originally when you hashed up old arguments but then you just made up more stuff to try to bait me back into the discussion publicly. But again PM and I'm happy to discuss what ever you desire. As I said, peace out dude. Don't take this so personal. Take what personal? Please explain to me through PM. I'm fairly disinterested in hearing more of your: "In fact I have happily had sex with the same women for 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't hold on to a women because your are so ignorant to your sexism it probably frustrates the shit out of any girl with a back bone. I would also be willing to put down money if it was somehow provable that you have 0 success with women. Your instance that I believe something that I have clearly stated in many ways doesn't say anything about me but sure says a bunch about you. You are the classic keyboard warrior, I bet you are quiet as shit in real life and wouldn't go down this path." Hence why I have stated that I do not wish to continue discussing things with you. If you really had no interest you wouldn't keep responding and bringing stuff up. Please PM me to continue, thanks.
No more harassment, please.
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 09:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 09:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 09:40 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 09:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 09:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 09:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 09:23 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 09:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:08 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Being that it seems we are not having a discussion I am unsure it's possible to poison the well. Argumental fallacies requires for there to be an argument. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word?
So, to be clear, I have no idea what you were accusing me of and you are actively unwilling to bring up the data to use as a jumping off point for discussion--is that what's happening here? I'm not accusing you of anything that was the police. As I said I'm happy to bring up my arguments to all the nonsense you wrote earlier in PM. you just keep posting here, not sure why. Thanks for sending your next message to me though PM! I've already heard your past arguments in PM, if it's more of the same then it's fairly meaningless. And if you're disinterested in actually showing me what you're trying to imply then I guess it's best we just move on. Peace out. Untrue you have never pm'd me. You have said to PM you and I have but then you never respond. Funny you say lets move on because I said that originally when you hashed up old arguments but then you just made up more stuff to try to bait me back into the discussion publicly. But again PM and I'm happy to discuss what ever you desire. As I said, peace out dude. Don't take this so personal. Take what personal? Please explain to me through PM. I'm fairly disinterested in hearing more of your: "In fact I have happily had sex with the same women for 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't hold on to a women because your are so ignorant to your sexism it probably frustrates the shit out of any girl with a back bone. I would also be willing to put down money if it was somehow provable that you have 0 success with women. Your instance that I believe something that I have clearly stated in many ways doesn't say anything about me but sure says a bunch about you. You are the classic keyboard warrior, I bet you are quiet as shit in real life and wouldn't go down this path." Hence why I have stated that I do not wish to continue discussing things with you. If you really had no interest you wouldn't keep responding and bringing stuff up. Please PM me to continue, thanks. No more harassment, please. What do you mean harassment? Earlier you suggested topics that had already been covered and personal things should be handled through PM's. I have asked you over and over for PM and I would be happy to rehash or do whatever it is that you want. What you should really be asking yourself is what is psychological issue you have that forces you to have the last word EVERYTIME publicly and why you tell others to PM when you clearly are not willing to?
I've already PM with you, it was not productive, and hence why I have repeatedly told you that I do not wish to continue this. I know consent is a sticky issue for you, so let me just state that I do not wish to continue this, I am uncertain why you do. Chill out.
|
On August 15 2017 09:20 Epishade wrote:
Hey guys, I need some advice for a girl problem I have.
Michelle is really nice. Nicest girl I know. And very good looking too. She's like a 9/10 if I had to rate her, and I've never dated anybody else who looks as good as her or has the personality to match. Our sex life is great too and we just mesh together so well. There's one problem though that makes me hesitant about staying in a relationship with her. She got a great job at a nursing school up near Toronto, where her family lives, but we've lived together in North Carolina our whole lives. She applied there, not really thinking she'd get in, mostly just because her family suggested she try it anyways and see what happened. I'm not sure I'm ready to just pack up and move to Canada though, as much as I want to support her in her future career. Her husband tells her it's a great career move too, and I wouldn't want to stop her from pursuing her dream. But I just feel that it would be selfish of me to tell her she couldn't go and that could lead to feelings of resentment toward me anyways for stopping her from moving forward in her career. Any advice?
her husband tells her its a great career move? what are you to her then?
|
|
|
Oh shit, TM airing (dirty) laundry. Is it wrong of me to see where the next episode of this soap opera will bring us?
Wait, I have an idea.
Poll: I'd rather...Both of them get a room to get rid of all their (obviously sexual) tension (6) 46% They stop poisening this holy well of accepted gibberish with a swift departure (5) 38% Tune in next week for more fracas between a smooth-talking corvid and a square-shooting Canadian (2) 15% 13 total votes Your vote: I'd rather... (Vote): Tune in next week for more fracas between a smooth-talking corvid and a square-shooting Canadian
(Vote): Both of them get a room to get rid of all their (obviously sexual) tension
(Vote): They stop poisening this holy well of accepted gibberish with a swift departure
+ Show Spoiler +I had some more cheeky stuff than I could fit onto the poll lines. It's too bad really 
|
On August 15 2017 09:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 09:20 Epishade wrote:
Hey guys, I need some advice for a girl problem I have.
Michelle is really nice. Nicest girl I know. And very good looking too. She's like a 9/10 if I had to rate her, and I've never dated anybody else who looks as good as her or has the personality to match. Our sex life is great too and we just mesh together so well. There's one problem though that makes me hesitant about staying in a relationship with her. She got a great job at a nursing school up near Toronto, where her family lives, but we've lived together in North Carolina our whole lives. She applied there, not really thinking she'd get in, mostly just because her family suggested she try it anyways and see what happened. I'm not sure I'm ready to just pack up and move to Canada though, as much as I want to support her in her future career. Her husband tells her it's a great career move too, and I wouldn't want to stop her from pursuing her dream. But I just feel that it would be selfish of me to tell her she couldn't go and that could lead to feelings of resentment toward me anyways for stopping her from moving forward in her career. Any advice? her husband tells her its a great career move? what are you to her then?
Realistically--does it matter?
So long as its understood what the relationship is, it's really up to them to decide if it's worth it.
|
As far as i understand, getting to Canada is a better choice than staying in the US anyways, unrelated to any girl questions. So just do it. Get away from the madness that is US politics. Get actual working healthcare.
Use this excuse to get to Canada. Maybe whatever is going on with the girl works, maybe not. Worst case you are still in Canada.
|
On August 15 2017 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 07:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:45 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:02 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
No, you said that once someone had a drink they could no longer give consent, I said what if both drank was it a double rape and so on and so forth. You have since called me a sexist, rapist, xenophobe, moron, racist and so on. Because poisoning a well is your go too. It is super funny how as many have pointed out, u back yourself into a corner with a stupid statement, follow it up with strawman, move the goal posts then when this is exhausted you head straight to poisoning the well. You spatter in some other fallacies from time to time, but these are your goto's.
I'm just surprised you feel so high in mighty with the morale high ground when the only reason your not in jail on child porn charges was a technicality.
Why are you changing the subject? Let's finish the discussion of your past comments towards me and then we can move forward. You started by saying the only reason men would argue that consent is needed is because those men only want to have sex. You then argued that your wife laughs at my posts and that was why you believed drunk girls could give consent. You then argued that your wife and friends read your posts, and that was why you were certain drunk girls could give consent. You then continued that argument against me over multiple topics and never once going back to making a claim of your own within those topics. So yes, I often would rather you go to your conclusions than pretend that you are making any claims about anything. It just speeds up the process. Now, for your other topics that you brought up with your post. Not that it's important to the discussion--but neither side can provide consent if both are drunk. The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. You seem to believe that just because a practice is done, that practice is automatically correct. I happen to believe that just because things are done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is automatically the correct way. I don't recall the child porn accusation--can you be more specific? A quote maybe? I'm assuming you aren't just making up the accusation but I will need help with specifics. I believe it was the police that brought up the child porn accusation on you. The whole rest of your post is nonsense, but I'll be happy to discuss it (AGAIN) if you PM. I mean come on Trolling Magpie it was a day ago you gave me this advice and yet you can't take it. Tsk Tsk. Apologies, I thought you had brought up the topic to discuss it. I didn't realize you were just saying it to be disparaging; it's often hard to differentiate which one you're trying to do. I could see that with so many accusations of child porn coming your way it would be difficult to differentiate who they are from and about whether it was distribution, creation, sale and all the other things you have done. But PM is how you should discuss it with me, for the good of thread. Thanks. I'm unsure why you distilled the discussion for the sake of asking for this to be in PM, that's kind of weird don't your think? I'm also still unclear what you're talking about--could you provide the link? It still sounds kind of made up. If you can't follow a simple request to bring a discussion to PM, for the sake of the thread. I'm not going to bother to bring up the evidence. I mean why would I go through that trouble when you have no trouble making things up and posting them as facts with zero evidence? Why is the burden of proof different for everyone but super special you. PM me please to discuss. I had assumed that since you brought up the topic twice you wished to discuss it; was it really just to disparage me? I didn't realize that was the goal you had. Can you confirm? Disparage you? You mean like poisoning the well? I like you would never stoop so low. It's just what happened mate. But please PM me to discuss this is a 1 on on 1 convo, not everyone needs to read it. Being that it seems we are not having a discussion I am unsure it's possible to poison the well. Argumental fallacies requires for there to be an argument. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word? So, to be clear, I have no idea what you were accusing me of and you are actively unwilling to bring up the data to use as a jumping off point for discussion--is that what's happening here?
Is this the room for an argument?
|
On August 15 2017 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2017 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 04:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
First you have to define every word in that sentence. Then you have to evolve and adapt every single word. Only then can we acheive true enlightment. To answer your question, look to the changer of ways, that way the path is to follow, and so the opening occurs, the fluidity is expanded. If you are disinterested in discourse it is easy enough to simply stop speaking. If your goal is to ridicule you could simply keep it at PMs and not clutter the thread. I can be disinterested in your comments regardless, but you could at least keep your illogical comments away from the main site. That's strange. I thought you view that being cognizant and curious about why things are perceived truths is fruitful to the evolution of human understanding. That being willing to think about why we think about things in certain ways leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves. Being unwilling to accept the fluidity of human perception and understanding is mundane and simplistic. But here you are insulting and trying to shut down discourse of others. Wherein, you show yourself, as being the one truly disinterested in discourse. I can't be the only one finding it mildly amusing that you claim to have an open mind, yet seems intent on telling everybody else to shut up and trying to drown out everybody else's posts by sheer volume. I have gone days without responding, only to pick up the continuing conversation, whilst you yourself continue to insist that everybody is wrong, you hold the one truth, and spew your verbal diarrhoea everywhere. Defining the core topic of a discussion is not only important--but is the starting point of all dialogue. Until the both of you know what the topic being discussed is, there will always be empass. You are convoluting that convention by asking for definitions of base sentences at their core. And as much as linguistic phenomena's interaction with grammatic architecture interests me as a subject matter, deflecting the conversation away from its core topic in an attempt to feel intellectually superior is not only in poor taste, but does nothing to move dialogue forward. Hence why I asked that if your goal is to simply change topics without ever sticking to the subject at hand, please do so in PM so as to prevent your structureless dialogue from disrupting this thread with incoherencies. That is the opposite of silencing you by the way--unless people asking you to speak in private is what you would consider censorship. Another thing--how does asking people what they mean count as holding myself as the one truth? If I held myself to one truth I would simply be telling you what I think is true without asking for clarification, testing new argumentations, or even trying to restructure the argument as new data comes into being. That's the point of discussion--to ask questions, to ask people to look at the words they use, the truths they hold infallible and asking them why it is they think that way. It requires re-exploring things assumed to be true and actually looking at it again, not with your biased history of conclusion, but with new eyes.
Don't play innocent and coy all of a sudden. We both know that you have no interest in discourse from your attempts to disparage and insult everybody else. There is no starting point of dialogue as your very dialogue is an attempt to halt discourse. In this forum, in this thread, most people are able to communicate as they use commonly used definitions, or clarify their definitions, and so communication is faciliated. In your case, you appear to have a deliberate policy of personal definitions, known only to yourself, to only be communicated one way. Wherein, this is communicated, so the dialogue can move forward, you act like a spoilt brat, stubbornly sticking to your unchanging set defintions, to the extent that you change every single other meaning of word to fit your own rigid template, in this case claiming not only a personal definition of warlord, but that of to lead, and of war itself, and every word in between used, claiming that you are the one true seeker of truth, calling everybody else stupid, when they are trying to communicate what could had been an interesting topic of discussion, but due to your egotistic urge to spew garbage, descends into your insulting of everyone else. Don't you feel ashamed or embarrassed for yourself thievingmagpie?
Or are you truly oblivious?
That you are the blind man you claim everybody else is?
|
Folks should just stop responding to him en mass, it's the only way to take this thread back.
|
But, what is the defintion of responding? Is it to merely post upon in this thread in the forum? What is your basis that the function of this thread had been removed from it's intended purpose, if indeed there was an intended purpose? Why are you trying to censor me farvacola? I am simply trying to move the dialogue forward. I am following a deconstruction of concept internal of theivingmagpie but also external of the thread. You are just a being unable to dictate the specifics of your stance outside of assuming it's a shared understanding by a perceived plurality is not the limitation of the subject discussed, but is instead a limitation of the speaker's own imagination, revealing an inherent simplicity in his view of the world at large.
|
On August 15 2017 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 07:37 KungKras wrote:
Do you think the terran robot girl in BW that you see when you click on buildings is a pure robot or some kind of cyborg slave similar to the arco flagellants in warhammer 40k?
(I know she's a robot in SC2 but maybe the SC1 designers had a different vision) 100% thought she was a cyborg. Truly missed her presence. As much as I enjoyed SC2's individual mission maps (their designs were great) the world building was much more lacking due to the increased specificity of the mission briefings mixed with the intense abstraction of the sense of time. BW's abstraction of the mission briefings meant you had to piece together who you were, and where you are, and how much time has passed based on the exposition provided. The exposition then allowed your imagination to sync the current and prior missions together to form a narrative arc. The choice burdened system of SC2 made it feel that you were just wandering around taking your time instead of actually progressing through a narrative arc. If they had placed a time element to the campaign it would have made the forced decisions feel more impacting. Little things like making it so you could only choose X number of planets before it was too late. Or if your side missions were choices spread intermittently throughout a more rigid campaign structure would have given a sense of urgency and sacrifice whenever you had to do a side quest.
Yeah she really looks like a cyborg. When I was a kid she made me think that terran were evil.
|
On August 15 2017 09:20 Epishade wrote:
Hey guys, I need some advice for a girl problem I have.
Michelle is really nice. Nicest girl I know. And very good looking too. She's like a 9/10 if I had to rate her, and I've never dated anybody else who looks as good as her or has the personality to match. Our sex life is great too and we just mesh together so well. There's one problem though that makes me hesitant about staying in a relationship with her. She got a great job at a nursing school up near Toronto, where her family lives, but we've lived together in North Carolina our whole lives. She applied there, not really thinking she'd get in, mostly just because her family suggested she try it anyways and see what happened. I'm not sure I'm ready to just pack up and move to Canada though, as much as I want to support her in her future career. Her husband tells her it's a great career move too, and I wouldn't want to stop her from pursuing her dream. But I just feel that it would be selfish of me to tell her she couldn't go and that could lead to feelings of resentment toward me anyways for stopping her from moving forward in her career. Any advice?
10/10. Would read again!
|
On August 15 2017 18:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
But, what is the defintion of responding? Is it to merely post upon in this thread in the forum? What is your basis that the function of this thread had been removed from it's intended purpose, if indeed there was an intended purpose? Why are you trying to censor me farvacola? I am simply trying to move the dialogue forward. I am following a deconstruction of concept internal of theivingmagpie but also external of the thread. You are just a being unable to dictate the specifics of your stance outside of assuming it's a shared understanding by a perceived plurality is not the limitation of the subject discussed, but is instead a limitation of the speaker's own imagination, revealing an inherent simplicity in his view of the world at large.
Are these stupid questions, and should thus be answered, or rhetorical questions that, by their definition, should not be answered?
Much conundrum!
|
On August 15 2017 19:06 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:37 KungKras wrote:
Do you think the terran robot girl in BW that you see when you click on buildings is a pure robot or some kind of cyborg slave similar to the arco flagellants in warhammer 40k?
(I know she's a robot in SC2 but maybe the SC1 designers had a different vision) 100% thought she was a cyborg. Truly missed her presence. As much as I enjoyed SC2's individual mission maps (their designs were great) the world building was much more lacking due to the increased specificity of the mission briefings mixed with the intense abstraction of the sense of time. BW's abstraction of the mission briefings meant you had to piece together who you were, and where you are, and how much time has passed based on the exposition provided. The exposition then allowed your imagination to sync the current and prior missions together to form a narrative arc. The choice burdened system of SC2 made it feel that you were just wandering around taking your time instead of actually progressing through a narrative arc. If they had placed a time element to the campaign it would have made the forced decisions feel more impacting. Little things like making it so you could only choose X number of planets before it was too late. Or if your side missions were choices spread intermittently throughout a more rigid campaign structure would have given a sense of urgency and sacrifice whenever you had to do a side quest. Yeah she really looks like a cyborg. When I was a kid she made me think that terran were evil.
But Terran ARE evil...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
