HTBAWYA Lesson 1 This is the first entry in my "How to Be Annoying When You Argue" series. This is a guide on how to win any argument. Many of you may be wondering "what if you succeed in being annoying yet still lose the argument?" Well if you believe that to be true maybe you shouldn't be reading this.
You must have this mentality: you are the hero and master of all that is argument, and anyone in your way is simply a hapless victim. If you do not have this mindset when entering an argument you cannot win.
So that brings us to the first and arguably most important lesson:
1. Starting an Argument In your travels you may encounter people that do not wish to argue. This is okay--in fact, sometimes these people are the most fun to argue with. It's easy to be offensive, but you want to start an argument, not a fight. Here is an example of simply being offensive:
Victim: Hi John, what's up? Hero: Bitch.
Why don't random insults work? Well they do, but not to start (we'll cover this later). To begin an argument you have to pick a contradiction with the victim and stick with it. However, your rhetoric within the contradiction-initiation step is vital. See the following example:
Victim: I think it's raining outside. Hero: No it's not.
While this approach may turn out fine if it's actually raining (thus leading to an argument), there are several negative responses to this type of contradiction-initiation. The victim may actually capitulate (especially if it's not raining) or the victim may simply not care enough to pursue arguing. I suggest the following more reliable contradiction:
Victim: I think it's raining outside. Hero: No you don't.
As you can see, by stealing their opinion you have infringed upon the basic core of their rights as a human being. They may stammer and become flustered. This is normal and a good sign. Opinion-stealing will inevitably escalate into a full argument, and then you can bring all your HTBAWYA skills into play.
2. The Moral Advantage
During arguments there exists a morality quotient (MQ) for each participant. The higher your MQ is relative to your victim the stronger attacks he or she will accept without resorting to violence. This invisible line is called the violence threshold (VT). If crossed, the situation is no longer an argument--it is a fight. Therefore, at all times it is optimal to maintain or increase your own MQ while decreasing (or containing) your victim's. This can be accomplished by following two simple rules:
(a) Turn everything into a personal attack. (b) Take as much offense as possible.
Rule (a) is very easy to follow, and is usually executed immediately after the contradiction-initiation:
Victim: I think it's raining outside. Hero: No you don't. Victim: Uh... yes I do. Hero: Are you calling me a liar?
This is also a good demonstration of what's called insult reinforcement. If you catch your victim in an obvious personal attack (as the Hero did in the above example), it is best to make your victim repeat it so you can extract maximum offense. Oftentimes your victim will deny ever insulting you. They are lying. Simply continue reinforcement.
(continued) Hero: Are you calling me a liar? Victim: What? Hero: Why are you called me a liar? Victim: When did I call you a liar? Hero: Many times, but I forgave you. Why are you calling me a liar today? Victim: I didn't! I've never called you a liar! Hero: You just did, are you calling me a liar about that too? Victim: No! Hero: I can't believe you called me liar. Is that what you really think? Victim: I don't think you're a liar! I never said you were! Hero: I can't believe this. Is that all I am to you? A big liar?
etc.
As you can see, the Hero's MQ has almost reached critical mass. At that point the victim is trapped and can do nothing to extricate himself/herself from the situation. Whether its raining outside is now irrelevant. The only course of action for him to take is to apologize and thus concede the argument.
Lastly, you must remember to trivialize your victim's claims of being offended. He or she is not really offended. It is just a ploy to gain MQ. The following two rules always hold true:
(1) He/she is overreacting. (2) You have had worse.
Victim: I can't believe he called me ugly. Hero: Everyone gets called ugly. I get called ugly ten times a day. Victim: He said it while I was in the room! Hero: Just yesterday we were in the same room, and someone called me ugly. In fact, that someone was you. Victim: What? Hero: Why did you call me ugly yesterday? Victim: I never said you were ugly... Hero: Are you calling me a liar?
In this example, the Hero did not even have to use a contradition-initiation. Instead, he ingeniously combined all four rules and started an argument at the same time. Creativity and efficiency are just two of the many traits you must develop. Also, for fun: + Show Spoiler +
[During 2v2 Proleague]
Ally Chat KTF: Yellow: they are massing in the midd-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: go go counter at 6 o'clo-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: help they comi-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: he-- Reach: REACH! Yellow: i-- Reach: REACH!
Ally Chat SKT1: Boxer: interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terran's variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes Iloveoov: oov like banana. you give oov banana. oov macro. oov win. Boxer: please time your build order to coincide with mine. Iloveoov: macro?
ilovezil: Hot_Bid's still got it Hot_Bid: Got what? Herpes? Why do you accuse me of having herpes? ilovezil: I never accused you of having herpes... Hot_Bid: You calling me a liar now? ilovezil: No..wtf? I never called you a li- Hot_Bid: LIAR! YOU CALLED ME A LIAR! ilovezil :No I di- Hot_Bid: LIAR! ilovezil: ... ilovezil: You win.
On March 06 2007 08:20 Cpt Obvious wrote: did the quotes in the last spoiler really happen? T_T
of course they really happened. are you calling me a liar?
Its only lying if someone knows you are lying.. but then the gig is up so it doesn't matter if you are lying or not, it only matters how you present your apology, so you should write another page about how to be a dick while apologizing and actuallying making them apologize to you
Hot_Bid, I bet you wrote this because subconsciously you feel insecure and angry at the world. You are upset that you are not nearly as sexy as I am, and you feel the need to respond by making topics like these. I see right through you. I know what I'm talking about My psych textbook taught me everything I need to know about the world. I know stuff none of you know because you're too stupid, not having gone through the advanced rigorous training that is General Psych 101.
On March 06 2007 08:30 GrandInquisitor wrote: Understanding motives is important too.
Hot_Bid, I bet you wrote this because subconsciously you feel insecure and angry at the world. You are upset that you are not nearly as sexy as I am, and you feel the need to respond by making topics like these. I see right through you. I know what I'm talking about My psych textbook taught me everything I need to know about the world. I know stuff none of you know because you're too stupid, not having gone through the advanced rigorous training that is General Psych 101.
On March 06 2007 08:19 Hot_Bid wrote: Wrote this a long time ago:
HTBAWYA Lesson 1 This is the first entry in my "How to Be Annoying When You Argue" series. This is a guide on how to win any argument. Many of you may be wondering "what if you succeed in being annoying yet still lose the argument?" Well if you believe that to be true maybe you shouldn't be reading this.
You must have this mentality: you are the hero and master of all that is argument, and anyone in your way is simply a hapless victim. If you do not have this mindset when entering an argument you cannot win.
Part 2 of this could be "Going on tangents" because each tangent starts a new argument, effectively resetting the Violence Threshold while maintaining the Morality quotient of each participant.
Since each tangent holds its own VT, the argument can theoretically lengthen infinitely without fear of reaching the VT.
if your victim has an IQ of 50 it's all useless it's like you fuck a 60 y old hag and... she goes : Are you fucking me? and you go : Are you calling me a liar?
well this is frivolous argument, which the victim may not care that much about. the only reason he continued with this is to follow some conventional behavior, had he said, wtf are you smoking dude, you would be destroyed.
now, not that i am anything but a novice in this art, but to be really annoying in an argument, takes some more effort and awareness.
now, it is fair that not everyone would necessarily pursue an argument on a particular topic with insistence, but it would be fair to say that most people have some topics that they will argue about for hours. so basically, the most annoying argument needs to be on a topic that the victim has confidence and conviction in, so any challenge to the topic needs to be against his conviction.
now, one could potentially choose a topic based on the victim's interests, but it is best to focus on a specific question that you are in a position to accept or deny based on your personal feelings. the victim should seek to convince you of his convictions, and what you do is to maximize the points of argument that you can choose to accept or not accept. accept some of them to keep the victim interested, and you seem reasonable, but never let go of some fundamental rejection of his conclusions or opportunities to generate new accept or not accept positions.
What to accept in the argument. reduce your opponent's arguments, to a set of predicates. say a b c d. now, imagine two lines of reasonableness. the higher line marks positions that if you do not accept makes you look stupid, and achieve no effect in frustrating the opponent. say for example 1+1=2. These you cannot deny. The lower line marks the position that if you challenge, the opponent will be crushed, and realize the unreasonableness of his own beliefs. But remember, you are not trying to win the argument, but to be annoying, so do not challenge these, and make a good showing in either covering them up or even accepting them. Some work can be done with arguments that assume these unreasonable positions, but never ever challenge the positions themselves, or you have won the argument and failed at being annoying, unless the victim has a religious attachment to the conclusion. It is with those that fall in the middle that you do work. See next section on how to do work with these positions.
use variations of 'that's what you say' against strong personal convictions and things believed yet treated like fact. (in layman's definition this covers anything that is not physics, math or holocaust) Since citing the fact that the victim is only speaking his own opinions implies a relativist challenge yet does not explicitly state the challenge, the victim will be forced to provide an absolute account or at any rate an account that you can choose to accept or not accept. This step will be highly frustrating for the victim to take, since it involves not assuming his strong conviction and trying to establish some sort of proof, which may or may not be there depending on whether the conviction is reducible or not. If the conviction really is irreducible, congratulations, you've found a damn annoying question. The question can never be answered but by a circular (which you can quickly point out to the embarrassment of your victim, see next section) and is constantly annoying when the victim thinks about it. If the position is reducible, then help him reduce it, and isolate the positions that are closer to the type you seek, an irreducible personal conviction.
Now, really, when you find even one of these, it is a never ending source of irritation as long as the opponent is trying to 'prove' it to you. he will think of relations that are reasonable assuming his conviction, and parade them out to you, each of which you can destroy by either repeating the 'that's what you say' and force the opponent to prove it is a circular himself, or, if you are really in grasp of the argument, lucidly point out the circular to him and set him back to square one.
Another strategy is to never do work (or, to never bring out 'that's what you say' to the position explicitly) on the personal conviction itself, rather do work on the circulars erected in defense of it. Pick positions that are fairly built up conclusions, and force your opponent to reduce them, and hope they make a mistake and reduce hte argument to a circular, and never arrive at the basic assumptions. Deny every unsuccessful reduction with a more advanced reduction followed by a 'that's what you say.'
The above strategies do not work equally well on every argument, so it takes some awareness to pick which one to use in what situation, but the general rules and goals still stand, make your opponent prove his basic convictions to you.
Of course one cannot expect accurate and insightful evaluation of every one of your opponent's positions, so it is helpful to remember some good ones. this is accumulated by experience.
some more thing to remember, never explicitly deny a position or at any rate become vulnerable to a reversal. you must remain the buyer, and he the seller. refute all attempts at reversing the relationship.
Another strategy to employ which is much more subtle and aggravating is to aggressively agree with people in words only, and to say those words with a very slight hint of condescension. Therein lays the tricky part, it must be slight enough so that it is not easily detectable, but present enough that when the person does the mental double-take on what your tone was, it is present. This leaves you in the all powerful position of being able to be condescending while simultaneously being able to deny it. Let's put this spin on the original example:
Victim: Oh god, it's raining outside. Hero: Sure it is. Victim: *pauses* Victim: You don't realize it's raining outside? Hero: No, I'm sure it is if you say it is. Victim: What the fuck is your problem man? Hero: What do you mean? Victim: You're being an asshole. Hero: How so? Victim: I don't know-- Hero: (interrupting) Explain it to me. Victim: I don't know you're just being an asshole. Hero: Okay, this is what I'm hearing from you. You're upset, because I'm putting my total faith in your ability to observe the obvious. I already agreed with you, what? twice? And then you get upset. I'm not sure I'm the one being the asshole here. (pause here, and then change tone to complete friendliness) Hey man, if you say it's raining outside then I'd say it's raining. Don't get so worked up, sheesh.
On March 06 2007 08:19 Hot_Bid wrote: Ally Chat KTF: Yellow: they are massing in the midd-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: go go counter at 6 o'clo-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: help they comi-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: he-- Reach: REACH! Yellow: i-- Reach: REACH!
Ally Chat SKT1: Boxer: interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terran's variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes Iloveoov: oov like banana. you give oov banana. oov macro. oov win. Boxer: please time your build order to coincide with mine. Iloveoov: macro?
On March 06 2007 11:57 A3iL3r0n wrote: Victim: Oh god, it's raining outside. Hero: Sure it is. Victim: *pauses* Victim: You don't realize it's raining outside? Hero: No, I'm sure it is if you say it is. Victim: What the fuck is your problem man? Hero: What do you mean? Victim: You're being an asshole. Hero: How so? Victim: I don't know-- Hero: (interrupting) Explain it to me. Victim: I don't know you're just being an asshole. Hero: Okay, this is what I'm hearing from you. You're upset, because I'm putting my total faith in your ability to observe the obvious. I already agreed with you, what? twice? And then you get upset. I'm not sure I'm the one being the asshole here. (pause here, and then change tone to complete friendliness) Hey man, if you say it's raining outside then I'd say it's raining. Don't get so worked up, sheesh.
I decided to test this experiment and it didnt work as expected
Victim: I think it's raining outside. Hero: No you don't. Victim: Uh... yes I do. Hero: Are you calling me a liar? Victim: rofl no Hero: lol Victim has left the channel
On March 06 2007 08:19 Hot_Bid wrote: Ally Chat KTF: Yellow: they are massing in the midd-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: go go counter at 6 o'clo-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: help they comi-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: he-- Reach: REACH! Yellow: i-- Reach: REACH!
Ally Chat SKT1: Boxer: interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terran's variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes Iloveoov: oov like banana. you give oov banana. oov macro. oov win. Boxer: please time your build order to coincide with mine. Iloveoov: macro?
:D hilarious!
ahhahah wtf could someone explain this joke to me?
On March 06 2007 08:19 Hot_Bid wrote: Ally Chat KTF: Yellow: they are massing in the midd-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: go go counter at 6 o'clo-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: help they comi-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: he-- Reach: REACH! Yellow: i-- Reach: REACH!
Ally Chat SKT1: Boxer: interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terran's variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes Iloveoov: oov like banana. you give oov banana. oov macro. oov win. Boxer: please time your build order to coincide with mine. Iloveoov: macro?
:D hilarious!
ahhahah wtf could someone explain this joke to me?
Reach is a manly man and is expressing his manliness by roaring his name, oov is a simpleton compared to boxer (demonstrated by his fixation with the banana (oov is also called the gorilla/ape for his size))
On March 06 2007 08:19 Hot_Bid wrote: 2. The Moral Advantage
During arguments there exists a morality quotient (MQ) for each participant. The higher your MQ is relative to your victim the stronger attacks he or she will accept without resorting to violence. This invisible line is called the violence threshold (VT). If crossed, the situation is no longer an argument--it is a fight. Therefore, at all times it is optimal to maintain or increase your own MQ while decreasing (or containing) your victim's. This can be accomplished by following two simple rules:
(a) Turn everything into a personal attack. (b) Take as much offense as possible.
Awesome
Awesome
Awesome
Awesome post Hot_bid. But I was curious if you've ever used the off-shot of Moral Advantage: Assumed Moral Highground.
Without getting too much into it, all it involves is cutting the guy off at the peak of his argument and injecting with some nonsense about how 'it's not worth getting worked up over'. It's CRUCIAL you inject this exactly at the moment you begin to lose the argument. I only have two fingers and typing is hard so I'll cut right to the example:
(after 20 minutes of heated argument) Hero: Soccer really does require the best physical fitness out of any mainstream team sport Victim: Give me a break, have you ever played hockey? played American football? You have no idea what you're talking about. Hero: Well, that's my opinion but it's not really worth getting worked up over Victim: Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? We've been arguing this for almost half an hour? Hero: Hey man, we've got more important things to worry about, this isn't a big deal. Can't you just let it go?? Victim: LET IT GO??? You brought it up, you cunt. Hero: Come on, let's just forget about it. Life's too short to argue over stuff like this. Stop being stubborn and let it go. Victim: FUCK YOU!
Really though, nothing pisses a fellow arguer off like completely side stepping things with an approach of indifference and snobbery when things turn out of your favor. But as stated, it's essential you do this at the breaking point of the argument, when emotions are running high, you're both firmly entrenched, and, well, you're starting to lose. Essentially you derail the debate into an accusation.
On March 06 2007 08:19 Hot_Bid wrote: Ally Chat KTF: Yellow: they are massing in the midd-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: go go counter at 6 o'clo-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: help they comi-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: he-- Reach: REACH! Yellow: i-- Reach: REACH!
Ally Chat SKT1: Boxer: interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terran's variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes Iloveoov: oov like banana. you give oov banana. oov macro. oov win. Boxer: please time your build order to coincide with mine. Iloveoov: macro?
:D hilarious!
ahhahah wtf could someone explain this joke to me?
Reach is the mantoss and Yellow is everybodys bitch (see Boxers scv rush, 3x bunker rush, anytimes dark rush). Therefore Reach shouts down Yellow whenever he tries to say anything constructive simply by declaring himself to be Reach. In a somewhat proud and very stupid way.
The other one is just a joke on oov only being able to macro and indeed, it being the only word he knows. Boxer is there to say something obscenely complicated to which the Gorilla terran answers with macro?
There was a similar post made a while back in a thread discussing micro. iloveoov: Oov like banana. You give oov banana, oov macro, oov win. evanthebouncy: Dance your melee units. iloveoov: Macro?
On March 06 2007 08:19 Hot_Bid wrote: Ally Chat KTF: Yellow: they are massing in the midd-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: go go counter at 6 o'clo-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: help they comi-- Reach: I AM REACH! Yellow: he-- Reach: REACH! Yellow: i-- Reach: REACH!
Ally Chat SKT1: Boxer: interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terran's variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes Iloveoov: oov like banana. you give oov banana. oov macro. oov win. Boxer: please time your build order to coincide with mine. Iloveoov: macro?
:D hilarious!
ahhahah wtf could someone explain this joke to me?
Reach is the mantoss and Yellow is everybodys bitch (see Boxers scv rush, 3x bunker rush, anytimes dark rush). Therefore Reach shouts down Yellow whenever he tries to say anything constructive simply by declaring himself to be Reach. In a somewhat proud and very stupid way.
The other one is just a joke on oov only being able to macro and indeed, it being the only word he knows. Boxer is there to say something obscenely complicated to which the Gorilla terran answers with macro?
There was a similar post made a while back in a thread discussing micro. iloveoov: Oov like banana. You give oov banana, oov macro, oov win. evanthebouncy: Dance your melee units. iloveoov: Macro?
On March 06 2007 08:27 ilovezil wrote: Hot_Bid's still got it. ~_~
*Foresees an argument:
ilovezil: Hot_Bid's still got it Hot_Bid: Got what? Herpes? Why do you accuse me of having herpes? ilovezil: I never accused you of having herpes... Hot_Bid: You calling me a liar now? ilovezil: No..wtf? I never called you a li- Hot_Bid: LIAR! YOU CALLED ME A LIAR! ilovezil :No I di- Hot_Bid: LIAR! ilovezil: ... ilovezil: You win.
On March 06 2007 18:15 evanthebouncy~ wrote: way to breed douchebags.
angry evan!? wth!?
haha iono... this sort of argument doesn't really promote the well-being of mankind so I don't really like it. ~_~ Unless you can point out in which way this argument can benefit/increase human's efficiency in this world then I'll love it.
On March 06 2007 18:15 evanthebouncy~ wrote: way to breed douchebags.
angry evan!? wth!?
haha iono... this sort of argument doesn't really promote the well-being of mankind so I don't really like it. ~_~ Unless you can point out in which way this argument can benefit/increase human's efficiency in this world then I'll love it.
It won't help human kind as a whole but it sure feels good .
Cultural Learnings of Hot_Bid for Make Benefit Glorious Person of davidgurt:
davidgurt: FORBIDDEN davidgurt: it's like an oreo EmeraldSquall: go find urself a korean girl EmeraldSquall: how is that an oreo?!?! EmeraldSquall: u eat brown oreos?! davidgurt: ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR? EmeraldSquall: not really, but if u want me to i will davidgurt: oh i see how it is davidgurt: do you call me a liar behind my back everyday? EmeraldSquall: no i never call u a liar unless u want me to davidgurt: why'd you call me a liar? EmeraldSquall: i never did davidgurt: yes you did davidgurt: are you calling me a liar about that too? EmeraldSquall: when did i call u a liar? davidgurt: many times, but i forgave you davidgurt: why are you calling me a liar today? EmeraldSquall: i'm sorry i somehow stopped listening to you lol EmeraldSquall: wut r u saying? lol davidgurt: sorry, i don't talk to liars
Prey: slavery sucked Hero: i disagree Hero: it helped the southern economy a lot Prey: fraud helped the ceo of enron quite a bit Prey: fraud still sucks Hero: i disagree Hero: fraud is great Prey: you're begging the question Prey: sine quo pro the true answer can be found, relatively speaking, within the confines of the defined parameters allowed by the global system of dualities Hero: cosine tangant writ of habeus corpus the lie in your statement can be seen, alternately saying, beyond the shield of the Death Star the Force is strong within you young Jedi Prey: at least the things i said loosely fit within a sentance Hero: no Prey: you're starting to sound like hitler Hero: are you calling me a liar?
Hot_Bid: knock knock... brian, knock knock Brian: a knock knock joke? Hot_Bid: yeah cmon man, lets do it Brian: okay fine Hot_Bid: knock knock Brian: who's there? Hot_Bid: i've been kinda thinking about killing myself Brian: what? Hot_Bid: i said... i've been kinda thinking about killing myself Brian: are you serious?? Hot_Bid: whats your problem man, you're supposed to say "ive been kinda thinking about killing myself who?" Brian: Wait, are you telling me a joke or telling me that you're thinking about killing yourself? Hot_Bid: are you calling me a liar?
On March 07 2007 15:48 StarN wrote: Hot_Bid I'm using your advice
My story:
Me vs My friend
Prey: slavery sucked Hero: i disagree Hero: it helped the southern economy a lot Prey: fraud helped the ceo of enron quite a bit Prey: fraud still sucks Hero: i disagree Hero: fraud is great Prey: you're begging the question Prey: sine quo pro the true answer can be found, relatively speaking, within the confines of the defined parameters allowed by the global system of dualities Hero: cosine tangant writ of habeus corpus the lie in your statement can be seen, alternately saying, beyond the shield of the Death Star the Force is strong within you young Jedi Prey: at least the things i said loosely fit within a sentance Hero: no Prey: you're starting to sound like hitler Hero: are you calling me a liar?
See Davidgurt, this is a clear example of vs gosu. This is a worthy replay.
NOT! ZoMfG!!~! Hahahaha! I got you, StarN I got you good! ROFL!
I'm having too much fun with this rofl gif ^___^
EDIT: Ok, Hot_Bid's latest argument was just FUCKING GOLD!
On March 07 2007 15:50 Hot_Bid wrote: Hot_Bid: knock knock... brian, knock knock Brian: a knock knock joke? Hot_Bid: yeah cmon man, lets do it Brian: okay fine Hot_Bid: knock knock Brian: who's there? Hot_Bid: i've been kinda thinking about killing myself Brian: what? Hot_Bid: i said... i've been kinda thinking about killing myself Brian: are you serious?? Hot_Bid: whats your problem man, you're supposed to say "ive been kinda thinking about killing myself who?" Brian: Wait, are you telling me a joke or telling me that you're thinking about killing yourself? Hot_Bid: are you calling me a liar?
LOL this "are you calling me a liar" was so well placed lmfao!
why you end with "are you call me a liar?" that's not funny at all and not a real arguement. maybe you should end with "fxxk ye, dumbass, i knew you never gonna understand"
Ok man seriously if I see someone do that to me I'm just gonna walk away thinking that the guy is a complete moron and thinks he's really really funny just because he says "no you don't" when I say something. I mean come on, it's like if you go A:I'm tired. B:No you're not *big grin* in the middle of a conversation. That's not really annoying, it's more like you're trying to be funny and unexpected and you're failing miserably.
Ok man seriously if I see someone do that to me I'm just gonna walk away thinking that the guy is a complete moron and thinks he's really really funny just because he says "no you don't" when I say something. I mean come on, it's like if you go A:I'm tired. B:No you're not *big grin* in the middle of a conversation. That's not really annoying, it's more like you're trying to be funny and unexpected and you're failing miserably.
I think it's about damn time for you to start enjoying and taking life a bit easier, heh? -_-. we're here to have fun.
Ok man seriously if I see someone do that to me I'm just gonna walk away thinking that the guy is a complete moron and thinks he's really really funny just because he says "no you don't" when I say something. I mean come on, it's like if you go A:I'm tired. B:No you're not *big grin* in the middle of a conversation. That's not really annoying, it's more like you're trying to be funny and unexpected and you're failing miserably.
I think it's about damn time for you to start enjoying and taking life a bit easier, heh? -_-. we're here to have fun.
Sorry but if that happened to me, I couldn't help but to be sorry for the guy's bad joke. It's like if I say knock knock, who's there, police, police who, police let me in cause it's cold out here; just that out of nowhere in a conversation. I'm not going against this whole thread, I happen to think a lot of this stuff is funny (especially the Monty Python video Servolisk put up). But sometimes the intention is not all that counts. I would have to try very hard for it to be that way, and I still don't think I could see it that way.
-Fonze/Scorpion: Contents under pressure says: nooooooooob -Fonze/Scorpion: Contents under pressure says: Option 2? theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: option theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: 1 theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: D; -Fonze/Scorpion: Contents under pressure says: >> wtf theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: it says what the writer thinks of humanity -Fonze/Scorpion: Contents under pressure says: So.... theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: so that's what he thinks of humanity -Fonze/Scorpion: Contents under pressure says: What? theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: That religion is the cause of social dilapidation -Fonze/Scorpion: Contents under pressure says: No it isn't. theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: pobresito -Fonze/Scorpion: Contents under pressure says: Are you calling me a liar? theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: no theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: I'm calling you pobresito theskyisblueandsoistheocean@hotmail.com says: ;D
I didn't know how to reply after that. For those who are not bilinguals, pobresito = poor (little) you
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/3103/1128258259136le8.jpg)
!
![[image loading]](http://www.playwithlinn.com/Images/funny%20pics/bullshit%20thread.jpg)
.![[image loading]](http://www.fisb.info/forum/Smileys/fisb/lmao.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/220/67701218zv7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3384/27351850ol1.jpg)
