[GG] Mafia XII - The Summer Season - Page 2

Mafia Forum!




And THERE'S the teamliquid rep hiding his gun in the corner, raging about the NDA, i don't think security is going to see this... if he can get that off before it's scouted this will be VERY BAD for the commentator.

And THERE HE GOES, this is a FANTASTIC move by the attempted murderer, I'm trying to hide behind the podium, just moving back and forth so he can't get a clear shot as he HARASSES me with the lazer sight, is he going to squeeze off a shot, YES!!!! And my left lung COLLAPSES, that is a HUGE problem for our release schedule! - motbob

Source


Oh sorry I forgot you can't read binary. - Sonuvbob



You're going to cut off this thing first with just a knife, using only ice as a painkiller, hoping you don't fuck up and in case you do, you're going to put salt or pepper on it? This will end well. - Ramsing

Source



Have a moderate day. - Chill



Thank you so much Klockan, this thread had me all depressed

SC2 is like christmas when you're 5, to me. This thread was the equivalent of someone saying "let's skip christmas this year". - FrozenArbiter



In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams



I am the master of vegetable timing rush. - Silver



http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=54575
no edits.



How varied really was protoss projectiles in BWs? They had goons and cannons that shot the same blue balls and reavers that shot bigger, fatter, longer ranged, buggy blue balls. - IntoTheWannaBe



America turtled on island and tech to nukes. Also, some drop harass. - Jyvblamo, On WWII




ଈ

(12:22:39 AM) krimson: SON
(12:22:44 AM) krimson: IM the ninja trainer
(12:22:46 AM) krimson: i train ninjas
(12:22:47 AM) ostrich: wtf
(12:22:52 AM) ostrich: you're a pokemon trainer
(12:22:57 AM) krimson: POKEMON ARE NINJAS

Chezinu has a cursed green skin that the old god of the mafia world has given him. The cursed caused him to be nothing more than a vanilla townie as long as the god reign. But Chezinu now has hope! A new god of a new mafia world has appear and Chezinu was fortunate enough to be the 18th soul to be transfer to the new world. If the new god of mafia has favor on Chezinu and remove the curse, there would be great praise to the mighty Plexa!

No praise for you!! Why Plexa Why!!

Does KGB cheat?

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1665821#pid1665821

<< Comment #7 @ 17:22 GMT, 3 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++'
changed 'can't decide' to include 'don't cares', since they're the same effectively
Edited by Demiurge at 17:25 GMT, 3 March 2009
<< Comment #46 @ 07:27 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #7
Not really. For people like me, who've only watched the proof (do i even need inverted commas?) posted here on esr, the only real option is can't decided, because they proof nothing either way. That's not the same as not careing by a long shot.
<< Comment #52 @ 09:49 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #46
How is the effect not the same again? I didn't say they were same things, I said they lead to the same.
Edited by Demiurge at 09:50 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #54 @ 10:23 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #52

By USSR Demiurge ++'
changed 'can't decide' to include 'don't cares', since they're the same effectively

<< Comment #55 @ 10:23 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #54
and no, they are not.
<< Comment #58 @ 10:28 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #55
The effect of one is that no decision is made and the effect of the other is that no decision is made. What are you talking about?
<< Comment #60 @ 10:31 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #58
Nazis killed 6 million jews. Jews get old and then die. So in both cases jews are dead and it's the same thing.

I like your style.
<< Comment #64 @ 10:36 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #60
"Nazis killed 6 million jews. Jews get old and then die. So in both cases jews are dead and it's the same thing."

How the FUCK do you get off just leaving out a word? Its not the SAME THING. But EFFECTIVELY its the same thing.

"I like your style."

What did you say? You like my hat? Thanks.
<< Comment #69 @ 10:43 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #64
If you can't see the difference, or let's call it flaw in your argument, then I wonder how the fuck you ever got to work in or study anything technical. But then again, we all come to esreality to read retarded posts, so go ahead.

This thread delivers. :>
<< Comment #73 @ 10:48 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #69
Do you know what 'effect' means or what causality is?

Let me make this very simple for you.

A leads to C
B leads to C

A and B have same effect.

A and B are effectively the same.

Do you understand now?
<< Comment #74 @ 10:51 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #73
No. Can you maybe explain again? I'm a bit slow.
<< Comment #80 @ 10:56 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #74
You have to tell me which step you fail at.

1.
A leads to C
B leads to C
2.
A and B have same effect.
3.
A and B are effectively the same.
Edited by Demiurge at 10:56 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #91 @ 11:49 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! becks +++| - Reply to #80
but the point is that the options do not lead to the same effect.

If you only want to know if people think he cheats or not, then yes not caring and being unable to decide have the same effect.

but if you also want to know how many people don't care about the topic and how many think that the provided data isn't good enough as proof but think its possible that he cheats, then your edit effectively denies them the information.

As with a technical observations it's a matter of the scope
<< Comment #119 @ 15:25 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #91
Yes, obviously some of the information is lost. Yes, I'm throwing A and B together. Yes, the scopeo f this poll is higher then the particularities such as A and B. But this doesn't have anything with the statement that A->C and B->C and therefore A and B are effectively the same, which is a true statement.
<< Comment #134 @ 17:49 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! becks +++| - Reply to #119
only if the relation is transitive, which isn't the case here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation


/edit:
or at least I and several others are of the opinion that is isn't...
Edited by becks at 17:50 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #136 @ 18:12 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #134
Of course the relationships are arbitrary. You CAN choose to ignore causality or the transitive relationship "implication", but it makes a lot of other things simply moot. If anyone thinks that way you might as well ignore the poll completely or demand that you can select both Yes and No options at the same time or something.
<< Comment #138 @ 18:48 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! becks +++| - Reply to #136
while nothing of you say is completely wrong you are missing the point.

people wanted the information that you took away with your edit, while imo nothing was gained through combining the options.
It would have made some sense if it had let to more people to decide on the "yes" or "no" part, but for that you would have to remove the "don't care" option completely instead of adding it to the other option.
<< Comment #76 @ 10:53 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #69
"If you can't see the difference, or let's call it flaw in your argument, then I wonder how the fuck you ever got to work in or study anything technical. "

Flaw in my argument? Hello, am I the one who just decided to leave out a key word out of a statement and then proceeded to have an argument about that, totally self-made statement? In what sort of technical field is ignoring whole parts of the equation a good thing?
Edited by Demiurge at 11:10 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #78 @ 10:53 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #76
In solid state physics, for example.
<< Comment #81 @ 10:56 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Germany - Nordrhein-Westfalen nekon ++' - Reply to #78
lol ughe nerd
<< Comment #84 @ 10:59 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By pandabearguy KekS ++++ - Reply to #78
he accidently the whole sentence
<< Comment #85 @ 11:01 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #84
shit .
<< Comment #56 @ 10:24 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #54
What the fuck is the problem?

they're the same effectively

You can't read?
<< Comment #59 @ 10:29 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #56
even if you said they'd lead to the same thing, effectively, it is still not the same, thing or not, effectively. stop being a shit troll. See #48, #49, #51.

oh and last time an admin (even site admin) decided to edit other users' posts, people went nuts. what about that?
<< Comment #63 @ 10:34 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #59
"even if you said they'd lead to the same thing, effectively, it is still not the same, thing or not, effectively. stop being a shit troll."

Do you know what 'effect' means or what causality is? Saying they lead to the same is same thing as saying "EFFECTIVELY the same". Stop being plain fucking stupid.

"See #48, #49, #51."

So there is one dumb person and two trolls? What the point?

"oh and last time an admin (even site admin) decided to edit other users' posts, people went nuts. what about that?"

Holy jesus christ, god forgive me, everyone is going nuts already. Starting with you.
<< Comment #67 @ 10:40 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #63
Stop being plain fucking stupid.
<< Comment #71 @ 10:44 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #67
Do you know what 'effect' means or what causality is?

Let me make this very simple for you.

A leads to C
B leads to C

A and B have same effect.

A and B are effectively the same.

Do you understand now?
<< Comment #137 @ 18:48 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By United States of America Lo ++ - Reply to #71
just tell him he doesn't understand how the word 'effectively' changes the meaning of your original statement. so many posts for something that could've been resolved in 2 or 3 posts.
<< Comment #151 @ 12:30 GMT, 7 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #137
you don't settle arguments involving yeltsin in 2-3 posts. ever. but it's just trolling anyway :>
<< Comment #68 @ 10:41 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Nuke Explosion raithza ++ - Reply to #59
ESR delivers
<< Comment #61 @ 10:32 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #56
They are not even close to the same. One option says that you don't care, e.g. haven't looked at the demos, followed the discussion etc while the other options makes clear that you have, in fact, spend some time on it and came to the conclusion that the presented evidence so far is inconclusive.

They are not effectively the same, they are not even related. Better options would have been yes/no/inconclusive evidence/dont care.

Not saying it matters much anyway, since it's a fun vote.
<< Comment #66 @ 10:38 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #61
The effect of one is that no decision is made and the effect of the other is that no decision is made. What are you talking about?
<< Comment #70 @ 10:44 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #66
That's not the correct translation of effectively though, which would be something like for all practical purposes.
<< Comment #72 @ 10:47 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #70
"Effectively" literally means "With effect".
"For all practical purposes" is actually the same thing. Practically, realistically, logically. The point is that the EFFECT of both is the same.
<< Comment #75 @ 10:52 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #72
your attempt at funny failed. get over it.
<< Comment #77 @ 10:53 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #75
Get over what? Do you have anything meaningful to say, at all?
<< Comment #79 @ 10:54 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #77
Who are you to judge really, lol!
<< Comment #82 @ 10:56 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #79
Good thing I'm not judging, I'm asking! LOL!
<< Comment #83 @ 10:58 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #72
No, one refers only to the result, the other to the whole process. Language is not math. Saying locking someone in prison after a trial in accordance with the rule of law is essentialy the same as holding someone hostage in your basement is not true, even though in both cases you restrict the persons freedom to move, so the result is the same.

But even if I'd follow your definition, the effect in this pole is not the same. Don't care means no decision at all, inconclusive means a conscious decision not to make a final decision.
<< Comment #87 @ 11:02 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #83
I can easily see how this happened considering the sensitive topic here, but leave the poles out of this.
<< Comment #88 @ 11:04 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #87
Lol, will leave this Freudian slip in for comical value :D
<< Comment #89 @ 11:07 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #88
:D
<< Comment #90 @ 11:09 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #83
"No, one refers only to the result, the other to the whole process."

Which to which?

"Language is not math."

Depends on how you use it. You can describe math in using English language if you want to.

"Saying locking someone in prison after a trial in accordance with the rule of law is essentially the same as holding someone hostage in your basement is not true, even though in both cases you restrict the persons freedom to move, so the result is the same."

No, first, saying 'they're essentially the same' is not as saying they're 'effectively the same. Second, saying 'they're effectively the same' is wrong too, because basement is not jail, so the result is NOT the same, but similar. You can, therefore, say that in both cases you're "effectively restring the persons freedom to move".

"But even if I'd follow your definition, the effect in this pole is not the same. Don't care means no decision at all, inconclusive means a conscious decision not to make a final decision."

First case no decision is made. Second case, no decision is made but a different reason. The effect is the same?
<< Comment #93 @ 11:56 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! becks +++| - Reply to #90
but can you describe language using math?
<< Comment #97 @ 12:48 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #90

No, first, saying 'they're essentially the same' is not as saying they're 'effectively the same. Second, saying 'they're effectively the same' is wrong too, because basement is not jail, so the result is NOT the same, but similar. You can, therefore, say that in both cases you're "effectively restring the persons freedom to move"."

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1665821#pid1665821
Same applies to your statement then?

( also http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effectively )

Besides, the whole point of the prision example was that whether or not the result is the same depends on what your preconceived notion of what you're comparing is. If you say that the place of inprisonment is of importance to the result, than you're already taking circumstances into your definition of result. That's the way language works and what my "not math" statement was aimed at. There is no objective result the way an equation has a solution.

Which is why essentially, for all practical purposes and effectively are all used synonymous.

Again, given that effectively only applies to one result, whichever that result may be:


First case no decision is made. Second case, no decision is made but a different reason. The effect is the same?

It all becomes a case of what we think of as a result in this context.

Becks pretty much said it up there http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1666585#pid1666585 .
The only "result" that really matters is whether or not the two options are the same for the outcome of the poll .
Edited by .syL at 12:51 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #122 @ 15:43 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #97
Yes, same applies to my statement. However, the point about the scope and what poll is really moot. In the prison example, we have effects that can be interpreted as different. In this case we simple do not. We have A and B or we just have the effect C. There is no intermediaries. This is why I can just say that A and B are effectively the same. Me saying that they are effectively the same basically gets rid of the only other possibility that I care about the original A and B.
<< Comment #123 @ 15:50 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #122
See, and this is what I don't get. You have yes/no/informed undecided/don't care. Why are the last two the same? Purly because they are neither yes or no?

A yes or no question doesn't necessarily has to have only two possible answers that can be true, and that's the case here.
<< Comment #128 @ 16:38 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #123
It's semantics of the choice name. I simply included the second half of the 'other' subset in the Yes/No/Other subsets poll that was completely ignored originally.
It's Yes/No and just Other and not subcategories of others because those are the simplest all-inclusive choices. 'Yes' and 'No' can be broken down as well, and there is no end to the possibilities as to how anyone reached the answer or DIDN'T reach it, which is the 'Other'. I didn't make this poll. I just amended it to what I saw as including all possibilities.
Edited by Demiurge at 16:46 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #143 @ 20:13 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Nuke Explosion raithza ++ - Reply to #123
You know what I think... I think we should have a another poll, related to this one, but not let everyone vote, only limit it to the people that voted don't know/don't care in this one, then have two options in that poll, like one would be for "don't know" and the other one would be for "don't care", and then people would vote and we would know the true answer to this dilemma.

and stuff
<< Comment #109 @ 14:20 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #90
agardenchair aside, the more I think about it the more I feel we're on the same page anyway. We just have different expectations as to what the result of this poll is.

I guess that if all you're looking for is whether a majority of users thinks he cheated, with don't care/undecided counting neither towards yes nor no, then I'd agree that it doesn't matter WHY they are undecided.
But from my point of view at least, that's not the purpose of this poll*. It is to give an overview of what people think, and in that case distinguishing between don't care and undecided makes sense.





*The real purpose of course being drama
<< Comment #95 @ 12:35 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Quake 3 agardenchair +| - Reply to #66
He's German, he's talking about the German word 'effektiv' the whole time and will not accept the meaning 'in effect' at this time. I think we should effectively declare him the winner, as that seems to be what he's after, or he will go on forever and lo! his freund spyteman has joined him.
Edited by agardenchair at 12:37 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #98 @ 12:50 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #95
No, effectively in english has the same primary meaning as in german. Effectively the way he used it is synonymous with essentially, in fact, for all practical purposes.
Edited by .syL at 12:55 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #100 @ 13:10 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Quake 3 agardenchair +| - Reply to #98
Lieber Freund, can you operate google, then hätten Sie see können, dass the English word 'effectlive' can bedeuten both. Ich write in Denglish um to protect you from the eyes of the amused English speaking people areound you, reading your special aggregation of English Wörter with delight.
<< Comment #101 @ 13:15 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #100
Are you mentally retarded or just trolling? It's quite clear that no one ever used effectively in the same way as effektiv in german. The whole discussion (examplified by spyte's jew example) was whether effectively (translated as "so far as the result is concerned") only refers to one specific result or takes circumstances into account.

And my argument was that there is no difference, since you can't distinguish circumstances from result in most cases.
Edited by .syL at 13:15 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #111 @ 14:45 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #101
he's just a troll, it's best to ignore him.
<< Comment #114 @ 14:50 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #111
But where's the fun in that?
<< Comment #115 @ 14:55 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Quake 3 agardenchair +| - Reply to #101
Dummkopf! Schlafmütze! That difference between result and procecss can be applied to 'effective' and 'efficient' but not here. I can use 'effectively' arbitrarily if I say which effect I wish to look at.

Effectively Bayern München won if winning = gaining experience.

It is clear to everyone but you what the thread starter meant in this case. Effectively 'uninterested' and 'undecided' are the same because they are not counted as 'yes' or 'no'.
<< Comment #117 @ 14:57 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #115
<3
<< Comment #102 @ 13:30 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! becks +++| - Reply to #100
since you seem to know more than you wrote please elaborate on the matter why the sentences "don't care" and "can't decide" are "in effect" the same. (which does not only mean that they "can" lead to the same result!)

if you want you may use the synonyms listed here: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/in effect
<< Comment #105 @ 14:00 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Quake 3 agardenchair +| - Reply to #102
No, I will not elaborate on this for syl, spyteman or whoever to start another round of Kindergarten banter. Liebe people, groß und klein, from Germany and elsewhere, pull euch gefälligst a little zusammen, wenn you are besuching international websites.
Edited by agardenchair at 14:51 GMT, 5 March 2009
<< Comment #107 @ 14:13 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By intelliRocket Blue [mash] ++: - Reply to #105
first drogen experience, genosse?
<< Comment #116 @ 14:56 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Quake 3 agardenchair +| - Reply to #107
mash, syl, spyteman and becks vs. agardenchair... should I be troubled?
<< Comment #118 @ 15:14 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #116
ask your shit troll friend yeltsin for backup
<< Comment #120 @ 15:30 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By USSR Demiurge ++' - Reply to #118
Have you not any shame? I broke things down for you into the simplest way possible and you have nothing to say to that. But you still post around your 'lol failed' and 'lol troll' snotty remarks like a bitter kid?
<< Comment #121 @ 15:35 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #120
lol troll, you failed!
<< Comment #124 @ 16:00 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Quake 3 agardenchair +| - Reply to #118
'troll' is a handy word for people like you to use on people like me. Your internet presence depends on words like that, One, who does not have command over many words must find words that can be used like daggers or swords to swing in the face of the unknowing person who is thought of being an enemy. Without the trouble of thinking if it fits or not or even has a meaning. And although I can fully understand it, I have disdain for you, even though I don't even know you. It is a small feeling of disgust. The word 'troll' galls me. People who use it gall me. It's against everything positive, fun or productive I can think of.
<< Comment #125 @ 16:02 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #124
jonesy > you
<< Comment #126 @ 16:27 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Quake 3 agardenchair +| - Reply to #125
Okay, although you are writing with someone who is still putting a lot of effort into describing things from his point of view and giving you his time, you go for the spectacularly immature idioms and hieroglyphs of youthful internet lingo to fend off anyone who you deem to be an offender.
<< Comment #127 @ 16:32 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #126
yup. so what?
<< Comment #108 @ 14:15 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By clawo .syL +++ - Reply to #105
wtf?
<< Comment #110 @ 14:30 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! becks +++| - Reply to #105
oh too bad, I had hoped you would try and fail.
<< Comment #113 @ 14:47 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Ubuntu Linux spyteman ++++ - Reply to #110
he went for fail only it seems
<< Comment #129 @ 17:01 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! tourist ++: - Reply to #113
this thread now has 5 germans in it . this officially qualifies it for the most anal thread in history.
<< Comment #133 @ 17:48 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! becks +++| - Reply to #129
try visiting counterstrike.de
<< Comment #139 @ 19:36 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! tourist ++: - Reply to #133
yes, but notice that esr is an international site, and as such it's strange that only participants in what's probably the most anal thread ever, are 5 germans and a russian. and me (sry for ruin btw)
<< Comment #140 @ 19:45 GMT, 5 March 2009 >>
(Link, Reply)
By Beer! becks +++| - Reply to #139
don't be sorry, your appearance probably made it even more anal.

C J O S U
D L PQ T V X
AB FGHI K N R YZ
E M W
What's the pattern?
no really tell me, i have no clue :O

Fear is the strongest driving force in competition. Not fear of one's opponent, but of the skill and high standard he represents; fear, too, of not acquitting oneself well. In the achievement of higher performances, of beating formidable rivals, the athlete defeats fear and conquers himself. -Franz Stampfl

On March 27 2009 12:11 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
kuja pushes to the front
and says "fakesteve, to be blunt
it's doubtful at most
that you wrote that post"
fakesteve replied, "whatever, cunt"

Alright, how can I make myself a prime mafia suspect...hmm, here are some vague references (they can refer to anything!)

- Pirates have always been elusive figures.
- Oh the times! Oh the morals!
- Lasciat ogni speranza, voi che intrante.
- ”凡事须得研究，才会明白。“ - 鲁迅
- Focus the machine!
- white, blue, red, red, yellow, green, purple, brown, black, colors!
- "Procrastination is the thief of time!" - some guy from the 1600s.
- Feyman's "Law of gravitation" <--best lecture I've ever read

There, clues shouldn't be too difficult to think up with all that junk.



SHADOW SHADOW SHADOW! DRAGON FIRE STORK JAEDONG DINOSAUR SPACESHIP

I hope I'm providing the right words. Let's see...

Knife, gun, burning alive, matches, broken bottle, movie sign, punched to death, kicked to death, boiled to death, run over by a car, abducted by aliens, asphyxiation, defenestration, hanging, flaying, flagellation, robbery, arson, etc.

electronic device, book, sunglasses and other accessories.

CAR CAR CAR

cat, dog, any other pet, lion, tiger, wolf,

Little, medium, large


You got me Caller; you got me. I completely omitted an entire section of what could substantiate a clue. Songs. Ipod. Michael Jackson. Bon Jovi. Billy Joel. The beatles. Frank Sinatra. Wang Lee Hom. Bing Crosby. There.

War.

Arrow, scythe, hammer. Moonlight. Alley.

These users have helped me with my English. Thank you.
Smurg
mikeymoo
Duke.

Figured I better update my profile before the next mafia game so if I roll mafia I won't be dead at the first bird-related clue.

Former policy debater.

My favorite song:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2zxf_to-here-knows-when

Great short story:
http://fiction.eserver.org/short/araby.html

My blog (will set to work on it this summer):
http://hegesonic.blogspot.com/

Ketchup (also spelled catsup or catchup), also known as tomato ketchup, tomato sauce, red sauce, Tommy sauce, Tommy K, or dead horse, is a condiment, usually made from tomatoes. The ingredients in a typical modern ketchup are tomato concentrate, spirit vinegar, corn syrup or other sugar, salt, spice and herb extracts (including celery), spice and garlic powder. Allspice, cloves, cinnamon, onion, and other vegetables may be included.

Ketchup started as a general term for sauce, typically made of mushrooms or fish brine with herbs and spices. I'm pretty angelic. Some popular early main ingredients included blueberry, anchovy, oyster, lobster, walnut, kidney bean, cucumber, cranberry, lemon, celery and grape.

Ketchup is often used with chips (French fries), hamburgers, sandwiches and grilled or fried meat. Ketchup is also used as a base for various sauces.

I lurk TL.net. :O

And on the 8th day, God created ownage . . .

Team Massachusetts/Connecticut

W-L: 1-0 (+1)
Individual: 3-1 (+2)

Week 1: vs. Florida Win (3-1)
Week 2: TBD
Week 3: TBD
Week 4: TBD
Week 5: TBD

Individuals:
3 Lions (C): 0-0 (vT 0-0, vP 0-0, vZ 0-0)
alphafuzard: 0-0 (vT 0-0, vP 0-0, vZ 0-0)
fOrTT: 0-0 (vT 0-0, vP 0-0, vZ 0-0)
NiceGuy(i2): 1-0 (vT 1-0, vP 0-0, vZ 0-0)
nbtnbt5: 0-0 (vT 0-0, vP 0-0, vZ 0-0)
vx70GTOJudgexv: 0-0 (vT 0-0, vP 0-0, vZ 0-0)
Jaysmurff[PvT]: 1-0 (vT 1-0, vP 0-0, vZ 0-0)
yenta: 1-0 (vT 0-0, vP 1-0, vZ 0-0)
Demonic_Phate: 0-1 (vT 0-0, vP 0-0, vZ 0-1)