Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

moebius2778 posted:

Also keeping in mind that Python isn't anything close to a language I'd consider myself fluent in... in the function above, you're removing entries from lists (user.income and user.expenses) while you're iterating through them. From what I can find from quick searches, this is, as always, a bad idea, and the behavior of the iterator isn't guaranteed.

This was a real issue (ie. would cause crazy behaviour) prior to real iterators in python (2.2?), but since it's a native list (and not a hacked type) that should work. Still something you should avoid (build a new list or create a list of candidates to remove).

I'm tempted to help clean up the code if it's put out on a repo.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Who What Now posted:

If you don't know python then what would running the code tell you?

Because programming isn't that hard. Besides that, python is a byte-compiler, and pypy is a jit-compiler. I've been following this thread and while you demand so much of this man, you certainly are really smug while childish mistakes. Are you going to be sorry and admit you were lying now?

JawnV6 posted:

Ok I don't know how all these newfangled techmologies work but here's a thing https://github.com/jawnv6/strangesim

Back into 3 files, does Support transactions. Duration isn't handled right, check the last commit note for details.

Thanks, awesome! :)

Best Friends posted:

Eripsa pretty clearly wants more than anything to be a huge world changing genius and he isn't, and that sucks, but most of us learn we can't be the greatest of all time in late childhood/early teens and then move on with our (often perfectly happy and productive) lives.

I agree there are times he seems to notice hey maybe I'm not actually that smart but then one post later he's back to assuming perfectly valid criticisms just cannot possibly comprehend someone of his intelligence.

I feel some are too eager to find malice in Eripsa, and often through semantic games. But what's more striking is this tendency to try bringing him down to earth. I doubt Eripsa is going to solve any huge issues in the world, but he has certainly the right attitude, and I wish more people were just as eager at trying to develop radical solutions to big problems. I've read so many articles from so-called radical economists in cool magazines, yet no-one are even close to suggesting any bigger changes to the economic system than those that have happened in the last 50 years - despite that we are at a point in human history where we are required to do a change that is bigger than humanity has ever done (eg. because of globalization or global warming). He isn't Einstein or anything, but I am glad that he is at least touching on ideas at the right scale. But I have never seen any radical ideas from those trying to tear him down, and that's depressing. And you're saying it right out - he shouldn't try to have radical ideas. Reading your post, I understand why people keep tearing down people such as Chomsky because he's too radical, and thus have to be perfect - a higher standard than the one where people have small ideas and are allowed to make mistakes. I can like a wrong but novel idea, as long as the intentions are good. Because then we have something to compare to when a better idea comes around. But some of you just seem to wait around to some magic Einstein comes around and solve all of our problems.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 5, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Xelkelvos posted:

Of note, the misinterpreting of what Eripsa is talking about may be less on everyone else and more on him as he shows a tenuous or even wholly incorrect understanding or certain thoughts or ideas and uses them where they don't belong.

It is also because of bad faith. Especially seeing how many here were helldump-posters. There is this asymmetry where he is sharing more than anyone else is sharing, hence he is obviously easier to ridicule, and conversely it is not possible to criticize the motivation, knowledge or credentials of those criticizing him. When people then ask stupid questions they are not scrutinized as heavily, even if their errors are gross and marred with arrogance. For observers it then looks like he is always wrong and the critics always right, and this brings out even more bad faith-posters. I guess this is just crowd behaviour, but it certainly doesn't make crowds look good.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Obdicut posted:

But the people asking stupid questions aren't the ones claiming to be like chemists among alchemists.

Did you follow the linear conversation back and forth? How can you not understand people's complete and utter frustration with him after that?

I thought he said he was an alchemist in this field? In that he wants to create proto-science that at some point might be a science or something. Even then, I feel he can claim whatever he wants because moral judgements of this nature are usually idiotic anyway. Especially when moral criticism is used as an excuse to act like a dick.

I followed that, and at first thought "non-linear" was just a short-cut to say "wacky transactions". Early on it was obvious there was a chance for loops in the graph, so I thought there was a chance that there would be non-linearity at some point. I didn't think much of it, because I expected only a simulation would be the only way to test the behaviour of the system. As you probably know, many mathematical systems might look really complex on paper, but be really trivial once you work with them, and simple systems might turn out to be complex. But I agree: I expected there to be some inherent non-linearity in the specification. Anyway!
I was struck by you focusing on proving how it is linear instead of asking him how it was non-linear, only for accusing him for moving the goalposts when you finally understood what he said. That you didn't do any self-criticism for not understanding him, but rather berated him for not being clear enough. It seems you brought up the subject only because you wanted to prove him wrong on technicalities, ie. out of bad faith, and I guess you admitted as much?

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Apr 6, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Obdicut posted:

He claimed he was a chemist among alchemists. I have no idea what you mean by 'moral judgements'.
Why didn't you just look up what 'non-linear' actually means?

Ok, I remember wrong:

quote:

Traditional economics is like alchemy, and I'm like one of the early chemists before the periodic table or anything else was developed but who has a pretty good sense that alchemy is just bad methodology and that there's an alternative science just around the corner.
So? What was the point anyway?

And why didn't you respond to the whole of the post, and why didn't you look up 'moral judgement'? It should be clear from my post that I know what non-linear means. It is also used outside of mathematics anyway.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Obdicut posted:

The point is that that is an enormous brag to make. A towering, gigantic tower of hubris.
Yeah, this is the moral judgement. And so what? It isn't even such a pompous statement as you make it out to be, since he even deprecates himself in it. Personally I hoped he tried to model even more complete changes, such as trying to do away with bartering completely etc. But please give me a description of how awesome a science economics is and how it is improving the world.

quote:

Because 'moral judgement' has subjective meaning and I didn't understand the context you meant it in.
So you didn't put in any effort to understand what I meant.

quote:

If you knew what non-linear meant, then why would you think 'non-linear' was a shortcut to mean whacky transitions? And he was using it in a mathematical context
Because I just did. Why didn't you reply to my post anyway? If I were anything like you I would be crying about how you should say sorry.

SedanChair posted:

Why do you keep talking about moral judgment?
Because "... moral criticism is used as an excuse to act like a dick.".

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Apr 6, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

SedanChair posted:

...do you think that they made that law because they were afraid military impersonators were going to infiltrate base armories? Did you just try to reason that out yourself rather than read a few articles about the Stolen Valor Act and SC decision?

Is there a source for this? At least I know that around here uniforms are generally not allowed, with a few exceptions, because of the history of uniforms and fascism. Not sure if the motivation is the same at all.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

SedanChair posted:

Is there a source for what?
You mention SC as if is super-obvious what that is.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Little Blackfly posted:

In the context of the discussion? The one that started by talking about a SCOTUS decision, and made it pretty clear the they were talking about the Supreme Court?

Yes it is super-obvious actually.

Ok, sorry. The initial post didn't link any articles at all or even mention Stolen Valor Act. I had to look up Stolen Valor Act myself, but it was all about medals and decorations (uniforms aren't mentioned in the act), so I thought I missed out on something. I probably saw myself blind on SC meaning StrangeCoin anyway.

edit: Sorry, didn't see your link. Thanks. Interesting how SedanChair couldn't comprehend what I was looking for, while you did.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Apr 6, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

SedanChair posted:

Yeah, interesting that he understood after you clarified by asking "what's SC mean?"

Do all of Eripsa's fans have some kind of neurological damage? Have you spent the last ten years huffing gas?

He answered in this post, ie. before I clarified. Jesus, what a loving jerk you are.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

A big flaming stink posted:

Just chiming in to say: Eripsa, where the hell do you get off calling Obdicut a bully, of all people. He's putting far more effort than others into giving you constructive criticism and honest engagement with your ideas. Engagement that is far more than you deserve and have reciprocated.

Considering Obdicut's hypocritical answer to me earlier, where he avoids answering criticism only to nitpick poo poo: He's dishonest. He is throwing poo poo and only afterwards being smug about whatever sticks. It's a bully tactic, and he does it only because gets off by degrading Eripsa.

If only people were 50% as critical of Eripsa's critics as of Eripsa.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

RealityApologist posted:

Hell I don't even care if they are critical of each other as long as they can straighten out the interpretive confusions among themselves. People are making so many mistakes jumping over themselves to attack me that when my critics step in just to correct a misinterpretation (as Slanderer did here, and others have done before)it does a world of good for moving the thread forward.

Having been at the butt end of the same type of jokes (and called out in this very thread on basis of at thread I posted 8 years ago, when I was under strong medication because of schizophrenia), and even recognizing many of the same names... One of the persons who did the role of Obdicut was this guy, and nobody ever criticized him. His intention was sociopathic in nature, and given that some of the high-volume shitheads in this thread behave in the exact way I can only assume they are having similar interests. They are only in it for some kind of dick pleasure.

On your stuff, I find it interesting in some ways, but I do agree with the occasional reasonable criticism. I find most value in it because it is novel, and I dig counter-culture. And the reason I want to pluck the simulator is in order to generalize it for other "weird coins" and some game-mechanic tests; an exercise. Seems Jawn fixed most of the glaring errors anyway, so I am looking forward to it stabilizing. But I am 100% sure that someone will use my prior post history and schizophrenia to ridicule me, and you, for associating. Because ridiculing someone for being mentally sick is cool and in with the bro's. It already happened

edit: On-topic, while much attention has been on the modelling of the economy, it seems your project requires actually modelling the simulated agents in order to be useful. How do you propose modelling agents that could be tested against a normal systems (ie. the different real-world economic systems)?

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Apr 7, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

LGD posted:

No, only a genius would have a hope of developing such a system into something that might be workable and implemented. You demonstrably haven't developed anything of the sort, and in fact seem to have difficulty with basic fundamentals like "what do I hope to accomplish?" Given this, it seems sensible to suggest that if you do want to accomplish some sort of Great Work you might want to start on a smaller scale. Right now you're attempting to develop psychohistory without a basic grasp of psychology or history- and not only that, you don't even have a goal that developing psychohistory will accomplish.
I feel the metaphore would be slightly closer if slightly modified: I think he's rather is making an attempt at developing psychohistory knowing full and well that he is going to fail. And the model could, after testing, become a sort of metric on how to measure other, possibly better, models. I could be off-base here, but that's what I think he's saying? At least he isn't saying that he has found any underlying pattern of human behaviour and economy nor found a perfect economic model.

Personally I don't find the model interesting enough, but he has repeatedly said it isn't a perfect solution.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Who What Now posted:

It was eight years ago. Let it go, dude. It is super unhealthy and hosed up to hold a grudge and have links immediately on hand to talk about people from the thread for that long.

Yet I was mentioned in this thread, and again ridiculed. And why don't I find it surprising that you, who has been a high-volume jerk in this thread, tries to wave away how the poo poo I experienced lead to years of intermittent abuse as a "grudge" ... I might not be an expert on the stuff Eripsa is talking about, but I am certainly a veteran at understanding the insufferable discussion club nerd abuse he is getting here. It's Stanford Prison experiment level poo poo, except nobody is going to tell you it's just an experiment.

edit:

Obdicut posted:

Psychohistory holy poo poo.
Psychohistory is the pseudoscientific study of the psychological motivations of historical events.
Yes we have all read Asimov?
edit 2: Oh daer you only looked up wikipedia and didn't consider that it had a different meaning? But still you were smug as gently caress.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Apr 7, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Little Blackfly posted:

E: also BernieLomax you have also demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about and have explicitly stated that you only are defending Strangecoin because you enjoy novelty and counter-culture, which is about as far from a useful contribution to the discussion as you could get.
lovely jokes are surely productive contributions! I guess these jokes who are repeatedly made must be funny only out of conformity. Videos on this experiment are unbearable to watch, much like how I feel when reading this thread. It's unbearable so stop fooling yourself: You only find me unproductive since I am not wildly enthusiastic about this in-crowd joke.

But you're also being directly dishonest, I said I find most value in this concept because it is novel. And I said I dig counter-culture. I didn't "explicitly state I defend strangecoin because I enjoy novelty and counter-culture". You might excuse that as nitpicking, but those two statements aren't even remotely comparable. I don't defend Strangecoin at all. I think Eripsa can defend his concepts perfectly fine on himself, even avoiding being unfair. I'm attacking the inexcusable bully-like debate technique of some posters in this thread. It's like being a smug atheist was trendy all over again.

quote:

When I provided you the citation you asked for, it was because I figured you were unsure where to look it up, but it later became apparent that you had not sufficiently payed attention to the conversation to understand what was being discussed. I wasn't going to call you on it
Sorry, but when did it become apparent? This or this post?

edit:

RealityApologist posted:

Not only have I denied repeatedly that the idea is novel, but the past 10 pages have been a detailed discussion of exactly this literature.

I mean seriously.

But surely there is a lot of economic literature at the bottom there. Have you read any of that?

edit: Just to clarify, I think you're one of the neater posters here, but I found that responding to you were the best option than the rest :)
edit 2: Who What Now on the other hand ...

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Apr 8, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002
Being unable to relate to the situation you are put in is what makes this whole in/out-crowd thing work. There's quite a few posters who have mentioned this in one way or another but the hypocrite critics are certainly avoiding to empathize, either consciously or out of lack of self-insight. It's as if they have do this in order to make their shtick work. That's why I posted that boniface-article earlier because he writes about how he consciously did this in order to degrade his victims and string other along for the ride.

Who What Now posted:

If this is just a comedy forum then why the gently caress are you so upset that we're making fun of you. That's the point of a comedy forum.
A defence usually used to defend racism and other sorts of bigotry.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Apr 9, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

evilweasel posted:

so i guess eripsa is a racist as he's the one who used the "this is a comedy forum guys" argument, right

what "who what now" is doing is explaining since erispa is using that argument, what that argument means

so since you're defending eripsa i guess you're a racist too

What?

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

SedanChair posted:

Hey you know if something is not actually done to defend racism and bigotry, it doesn't matter. Like people drive cars to go and be bigoted, that says nothing about driving cars. Making fun of incoherency is actually a worthwhile thing to do! Obviously there will be people (often *ahem* those who struggle with coherency themselves) that will react by reflexively defending that incoherency, but hopefully others will take a caution from it that if you talk and people can never understand you, that's what crazy is.

e:b

Depends on what sort of criticism it is and the type of incoherence. It can be very abusive and directly dangerous as well, since accusing someone of being incoherent is often a technique used for ridiculing opponents (Can't think of any great quick examples, but the way teabaggers respond to criticism comes to mind). Let me try to explain.

Yes, I can relate, and I guess I must sound real uppity who think there's some responsibility on the part of listener. I have issues with expressing myself clearly, and I notice very well that one person might have trouble understanding me while a different person will be able to understand me perfectly. And often this inability to understand me is used as an excuse to be abusive, and likely by constructing strawmen in the process and criticizing me for being incoherent (ie. be unable to understand me).

It's hard for me to explain but I guess it is one of those things you have to experience yourself to actually understand. And the glaring logical contradiction is quite unbearable to me. There's a wide difference between being incoherent in expression and being incoherent in the head. At least one joke has punchline is "I'm crazy, not stupid".
I'm not saying that all of the critic is illegitimate, but there's certainly examples of that in this thread. And while some critics require Eripsa to repent for his errors, there hasn't been the slightest admission of some of the graver errors on their part.

But well, this is very hard to explain, and I guess it's easier to make fun of the notion than to relate. Hey, comedy forum!

Exxon, this is just really just a response to huge portion of this thread dedicated to armchair psychoanalysis and explaining how incoherent Eripsa is.
Evilweasel, that doesn't make sense at all. Eripsa and Who What Now's statement aren't comparable, and only the latter is actually in the form i'm referring to.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 9, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

evilweasel posted:

It makes perfect sense. Who What Now isn't saying "this is a comedy forum I can post anything I want". Eripsa was the one who chose to complain that he was held to too high a standard for "posting on a comedy website". Who What Now, correctly, pointed out Eripsa cannot whine that he's on a comedy website as an excuse for poor posts, then turn around and not extend that to everyone else.

You chose to leap eyes shut into calling people racists. By your logic it's Eripsa who is a racist, and since you're on his side therefore you must be too.

I hope you've learned a valuable lesson from this.
Forgot to write this in the previous post: "This is a comedy forum"-defence in itself is stupid since in this exact case it can be read as an excuse to commit cruel and unreasonable ridicule. This is not comparable to using it to justify writing (harmless) stupid stuff.

You really can't tell the difference? But seeing the spectacular logic in your post I am sure you're acting in good faith here. I mean "on his side"? I guess I can expect a title soon so it will be even easier to discern the in/out-crowd.

edit:
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The one I liked the best myself was one that quoted me saying something like "my title is my autobiography" with a picture of DNS lookup error. And gently caress whoever it was who bought me a title when I had a permabanned title. That one took effort and it didn't even last a day.
\/\/\/

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Apr 9, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

evilweasel posted:

I'm saying that you chose to insinuate racism and misfired because you didn't even read what was going on. You didn't understand what was going on, and rather than realize you were wrong have chosen to try to draw bullshit distinctions to avoid admitting you were wrong. The correct response would have been something along the lines of "whoops, my mistake".

The point was that I have only seen that defence being used by bigots (not racists exclusively, so saying I am insinuating racism specifically is an absurd interpretation), and the "bullshit distinction" shouldn't be necessary but I thought I had to spoon-feed it to you.

Look:

quote:

If this is just a comedy forum then why the gently caress are you so upset that we're making fun of you. That's the point of a comedy forum.
He says straight out here that "The point of a comedy forum is to make fun of [Eripsa]", or "You shouldn't be upset at us making fun of you because this is a comedy forum" and it doesn't depend on Eripsa's argument. I can argue against this isolated opinion without arguing against Eripsa's completely different argument. The "if" here is purely there to create a rhetorical question.

Or is the real opinion "You should be upset about being made fun of because this is/isn't a comedy forum". No, really, you don't make any sense at all.

edit: My only point was that I have only seen bigots use that argument. That's an observation, and doesn't imply racism or anything. It rather means that the argument in itself is meaningless since by itself it has been used to justify racism.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 9, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

evilweasel posted:

his point is that Eripsa has claimed that is unfair to hold him to a (quite reasonable) standard on a comedy website, so Who What Now is forcing him to confront the hypocrisy of claiming eripsa's posts are protected under ~only a comedy forum~ while complaining everyone else's is not up to par

So, do you think that "This is a comedy forum" is a good excuse for making fun of Eripsa? And are you/Who What Now upset about Eripsa posting silly stuff?

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Apr 9, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

evilweasel posted:

I think that if Eripsa defends poor posts with "this is a comedy forum" that he should be reminded that everyone else's posts will be held to that standard. Which is exactly Who What Now's point, that you so completely missed and still don't get.

Wow, how hard is it? Answer the basic question. That was two yes/no questions.

Who What Now's point doesn't qualify any sort of rigid analysis, but that's beside the point: I attacked his statement.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Apr 10, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Who What Now posted:

Eprisa is the only one that used that excuse, though. Your question doesn't make sense.

It is a question that doesn't depend on what Eripsa said. But you chose to interpret it in that illogical manner?

BernieLomax posted:

So, do you think that "This is a comedy forum" is a good excuse for making fun of Eripsa? And are you/Who What Now upset about Eripsa posting silly stuff?
How doesn't these question make sense? They are very straight forward questions and takes only a basic response.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Apr 10, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

SedanChair posted:

I need an excuse?

If that's your full answer you admit you're making fun of him because you can. You admit it is neither a good or bad excuse, but you do it anyway.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Apr 10, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

SedanChair posted:

Do you realize where you are? We've been dredging a worthless right-wing website for piquant examples of hatred and ignorance for a decade. We exhaustively critique editorial cartoons. We are not good people with sound priorities. A tireless moron is endless sport to us.

I know all about it. And I expect better of you. Get your poo poo together.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Popular Thug Drink posted:

I know that you're a pack of howling dittohead retards and yet your level of discourse continues to disappoint me

The worst thing about teabags is that they are smug about themselves. That's a metaphore, or simile, or worse, for you.

Believe it or not, but I think one should object to lovely behaviour when one see it.

You followed up with a statement you really should know is false (you copy what other people said about me). And even worse you assume that I somehow have the same opinons now that I had 8 years ago. Isn't that sort of hosed up?

SedanChair posted:

"I expect better of you, forum known primarily for sending a pizza to Joe Biden's house." <:mad:>

Given that this forum used to have pages on pages with discussion on whether gay or friend of the family were was reasonable expressions and used to create ads for people who dared to defend Palestine. Things change, and so far I've had my mind. But gently caress, it's surprising how loving stubborn people can be about being dicks. Besides, I don't think this forum can live down creating 4chan, and by extension giving some of the world media the opportunity to talk about that poo poo as a success story.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Apr 10, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

SedanChair posted:

I agree! I object like a motherfucker when people engage in lovely behavior like posting a hundred pages of poo poo drivel on subjects about which they know nothing, pretend to engage with critics and lie about being receptive to criticism.
lovely behaviour != "someone being wrong on the internet". One is about being a dick to other people, while the other is basically being wrong. One has actual social repercussions while the other is just being wrong. Note that there's a difference between posting an RFC on a forum and posting the same stuff as fact on facebook.

quote:

Oh Bernie. :sigh: I've got an Occam's razor for you. On the one hand, we are all conspiring against you and copying one another in an attempt to present a united front and drive you to madness. On the other hand...maybe we're all just reading the crazy nonsense you're writing, and reacting to it as individuals?

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Yeesh, no wonder you think free energy is real.

I sort of thought the same thing, until I saw the behaviour myself. I never thought "free energy is real" and I am sure people will try to convince you otherwise. I had some other ideas that my over-medicated brain was wrong about, but that was not one of them.
At the time I told in clear that I was under heavy medication. Despite this, some people kept telling me to "take your meds", so somehow they must have heard that I was un-medicated. It clearly wasn't me telling them that, but there were many posters who just insinuated I was, so that was somehow being taken as fact.
In the same way many people said I thought free energy was real. It is only logical that one of the posters picked it up from one of these posters.

And you're right, it doesn't make it conspiracy. It's a bunch of individuals being gullible and wrong. If someone still believe I ever thought free energy was real, then I cannot convince them - but at least they didn't get it from me. Despite the fact that the only possible source is me. I know the fact better than them, but that doesn't convince them if they're already convinced. I am not sure how occam's razor helps with that. But there were a bunch of helldump people who consciously went in to be as miserable as possible. I am not surprised if the same crew have contributed to suicides.

At worst I wanted some thorough explanations on how certain free energy schemes work out - but that is far from believing in it. Further, I was being annoyed at the terrible argumentation against it - which was basically based around, either making me into a true believer or expecting me to oblivious to the impossibility of the concept (which is the point of the whole thing to start with!). At best I was mostly entertained by how hosed up the ideas of "free energy believers" were, but that was often typecast into "bernie believes in it". It turned into a fight I could not win.

If you are not convinced, it would help if you engage with me instead of stating "X believes in Y" again, because that will always lead to some other fool thinking you're right and repeat it in the future - possibly fooling someone else ad naesum. Sorry, but this is infuriatingly complicated, but I have seen it first-hand. And gotten repeatedly abused because of it.

edit: Well, look at what sort of dick "Popular Thug Drink" is. Golden breed right there, with his little dog whistle nick.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Apr 10, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Muscle Tracer posted:

I award this thread four attention demerits for wasting my time, and I'll be seeking to penalize Eripsa and Bernie before the High Attention Court (in a secret bid to earn yet more StrangeTtention Coins for myself). Consider my quality vote reduced from four to three, and if all you dumb bullies that keep responding to people's posts don't want me to withdraw my 1% support joinders then you'd better :unsmigghh:

Sorry, but if I get 2-3 readers to be a tad more critical towards the herd-behaviour in this thread I feel it is time well spent. I'm sorry about all the time you wasted that could be better spent curing cancer or playing dungeon crawl.

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Good Dumplings posted:

I still don't understand why you needed NPOT textures for that demo :confused:
Huh I cannot remember, but perhaps it was for a using fullscreen bitmaps where I wanted proper clamping behaviour. In a different case I was doing loading of general bitmaps. Remember the context? Not that this has been an issue for at least 8 years. :) At least now it would be absurd to demand POT textures from anyone. If I remember correctly I figured out the extensions, but it's been a while.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Apr 10, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Hey, that's unfair.

That was a PM, for those wondering where that came from. Oh well... Let's see what fun you will have with this.

edit: I'd love to see a good attempt of blackfly to actually answer that without resorting to characterization. It's not like I am trying to deny I'm lovely at expressing myself. But I was clearly too optimistic expecting him to answer that in good faith.

\/\/ Hooray, you lose and I win.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Apr 11, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Kjoery posted:

What, no. One major theme of this thread has been the importance of clear/effective communication. You failed to communicate whatever the hell it was you wanted to communicate to LittleBlackfly. That is not a victory.
Yes, I have already explained I am lovely at communications - and I have never claimed the opposite. However, do you ridicule foreigners with a poor language or kids who have trouble expressing themselves? Isn't there some responsibility to make sure you understand someone, and show some respect, before you ridicule them? And does it excuse poo poo arguments?

I know what this is about so I choose to interpret it as a victory.

I mean, he responded to a PM by tattling - how childish is that?

edit: Haha, yeah I am being SO serious. "I see no value in attempting to discuss things with you in any way." is such a terrible exit of a debate that it is just an apt response.

BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Apr 11, 2014

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Little Blackfly posted:

I was actually mocking you and your extreme personal investment in this. As much as you intended your little essay as a throwing of the gauntlet for some battle of wits, I don't really see a point in engaging with someone who can't follow a simple discussion. This has nothing to do with English being your second language.

You were mocking me. I was trying to honestly debate you in private, so I could avoid the attention of the thread. You chose to interpret it that way, and use that as an excuse to mock me. You could have chose to communicate with some respect, but you didn't. Given that my "essay" is about how you're being unfair, I should have expected a dick response.

It's as if you're trying to "win" the debate.

And Kjoery, of course it's not a victory. It was a joke. Relax. :)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

Obdicut posted:

FYI in that private communication doesn't seem like an attempt at honest debate at all, you're just railing at him.

Yeah, I can see that. But it was still honest. Let's call it a honest railing. I am still being respectful, even if I think his arguments are poo poo.

Little Blackfly, I wasn't trying to get respect from the thread or anything like that. You're taking my "hooray" way too seriously.

Who What Now, yes, you can read it that way, and your consistently unfunny comments are not necessary, and especially not a billion times a page.

  • Locked thread