31
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:58:15 PM »
Which is the hallmark of a mediocre to good artist. Well, at least in my mind.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
32
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Attack your lady harder
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:54:19 PM »People should be more like dogs, they only obsess over sex when they are in heat.
I'm not sure, but I think that may only apply to bitches. Also, our ability to breed throughout the year is one of the things that made us biologically successful since we can be as versatile as possible with it.
33
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Text is better than Talk
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:47:37 PM »
There are good and bad things about both forms of language. The fact that people use more complete sentences in text than they do in speech is probably because they weren't using an analogous form of written communication. I use complete sentences here on FES for the most part but if I'm in an IM window, I don't need to, and the conversation can change so dramatically that in some cases, I would always lag behind if I did. Do people use more complete sentences in a formal debate where you take turns to present your arguments than in casual conversation? I think they do, though I unfortunately can't present any evidence for this. There's also the fact that spoken communication, especially in a face-to-face situation, makes it many times easier to convey emotion, sarcasm and subtle undertones than text does. I'm not going to go as far as Irush and say it's impossible, because I know it isn't, but we have all failed to catch ironic statements in writing where we would have noticed by tone of voice.
34
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:37:00 PM »" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Levels
Hey, you enjoy generic yet quality electronica too? We're like, so much alike!
35
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:34:18 PM »I'm not talking about talent, I'm talking about basic competency. To pick on Wendy for a moment (), the idea that I'm criticizing was essentially summed up by him here:
I mean, all they are is mediocre. They can play their instruments. Chad can sing. They know the mechanical motions required for it all, they just don't know how to play well enough for it to be entertaining, or how to play with any sort of passion or style, is all.
I don't agree with automatically judging a band at least as "mediocre" just because they can play their instruments. It would be like giving an employee points in his performance review because he walked into work wearing clothes. The fact that they can play music isn't something special or inherently worthy of commendation. It's no more than is expected of any band.
Then I guess we shall agree to disagree. A bad musician is someone like Rebecca Black, who cannot play any instruments as far as I'm aware, and cannot sing. A mediocre musician is someone like, say, Justin Bieber. The kid can sing, that much I think we can agree on. He just can't or won't do it well enough that I enjoy his music.
36
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 01:12:56 PM »
Really? I think Papa Roach are pretty competent. Not compelling, but competent.
37
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 12:58:15 PM »Something I keep meaning to say here is that a few of you have mentioned Nickelback's basic musical competency as evidence that they aren't a terrible band, but simply a mediocre or average one. That's very poor logic. If they couldn't play their instruments or write songs at all, they wouldn't be a band in the first place. Every band in the world would be considered at least "mediocre" if they were seriously given points for the fact that they could play their instruments.
Good point. I could refute it easily by posting bands that could not play well or sing well, but that's very obvious and it'd take a bit of time to find some good (bad) examples. Do I really have to go through every "lol worst band ever" video on youtube to prove my point or would you mind conceding the point?
38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: @Wardogg
« on: February 20, 2012, 12:05:10 PM »
Exactly, Irush. You know your stuff!
39
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:55:09 AM »
No, it is not. That would be blues.
40
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:50:41 AM »
It's all right, Supertails. You're among friends. 
Except for Blanko. He just don't give a fuck.
Except for Blanko. He just don't give a fuck.
41
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:45:19 AM »Dear diary
mood: APATHETIC
listening to: NICKELBACK
why dont i feel anything when they sing to me?
WHY
42
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: @Wardogg
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:34:53 AM »
Yeah, the judgemental fuck.
43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: @Wardogg
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:24:04 AM »
You are the worst fake Christian troll ever. The infidels are not for the military to judge and forgive. Judging a human being is only possible for GOD.
44
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:16:37 AM »
I don't really like them but I occasionally enjoy their music. TIME PARADOX
45
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Skyrim
« on: February 20, 2012, 11:00:52 AM »
Yeah, I obviously meant custom potions. I'm sorry for being fallible.
46
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Skyrim
« on: February 20, 2012, 10:47:29 AM »There's an upper limit on enchantment buffs to bow damage? Aww, and here I was going to one-shot Alduin with a long bow.
100 enchanting + Grand soul gem + Enchanter's Elixir = +45% damage to [insert weapon skill here], which can be enchanted to up to four item slots, equaling +180%.
What about fortify enchanting gear and the exploit you mentioned?
47
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Skyrim
« on: February 20, 2012, 10:13:42 AM »
There's an upper limit on enchantment buffs to bow damage? Aww, and here I was going to one-shot Alduin with a long bow. 
48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: @Wardogg
« on: February 20, 2012, 10:08:40 AM »I think he (Englsh) is trying to start an argument about homosexuality, so...
how do you (Wardogg) respond to the fact that gay men have certain distinct physical characteristics
I will check the boys out immediately.
Is there an age when these characteristics show up or is it right from birth?
From birth. Basically, sexual orientation is caused by the ratio of hormones you get while in the womb. Too much estrogen makes men gay, and too much testosterone makes women gay.
This may be true to an extent, but it is far from an accurate, predictive model. More research clearly needs to be done to combat this unfortunate situation.
49
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Attack your lady harder
« on: February 20, 2012, 07:11:00 AM »
I have a feeling guys who are too tubby to get it up won't have a problem with "attacking their ladies harder."
While you're correct in that regard, I still have to wonder why Wardogg draws such radically different conclusions from the same evidence from my own.
And people wonder why I post about societies worshiping sex.I don't think a single person is the slightest bit surprised when you do, actually.
While you're correct in that regard, I still have to wonder why Wardogg draws such radically different conclusions from the same evidence from my own.
50
The Lounge / Re: Find your antipode and post it.
« on: February 20, 2012, 07:02:14 AM »
But... Which way do you pray?
51
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: @Wardogg
« on: February 20, 2012, 06:51:23 AM »Would I be upset? Of course. Am I going to yell rant and rave and smack them around a little, disown them? Of course not. Is that what you were expecting.
Nah. All but the last, maybe.
52
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Skyrim
« on: February 20, 2012, 04:43:14 AM »
An alchemist in Skyrim is like an infant. His philosophy on life is, how can you know something if you've never tasted it?
53
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Is Pokemon Dead?
« on: February 19, 2012, 07:24:04 AM »Pongo must be right and I am wrong. I now realize I thoroughly enjoyed playing pokemon and it is the best game ever.
Pongo must be wrong. First and foremost, pokemon is not an RPG. It has level-based gameplay and turn-based combat, but those features do not define the role-playing game genre. It is no more an RPG series than the Need for Speed series is. Second, powergaming to get your pokemon as minmaxed as you can get them is not the sign of a more mature player and separating young players from advanced players is unnecessary because young players can obviously be good at the game. Third, if neither the cute, fluffy animals nor the powergaming grind-a-thon appeals to a player, Pokemon offers little else, thus making it a poor game for that kind of a consumer. QED, the pokemon games are bad.
I was on the precipice of typing a long reply detailing all the points in your argument that I disagreed with (or were erroneous) before I had a moment of clarity on the absurdity of it all. If you've played them and don't like them then there is no way I can voice my praise that will change your mind. If you haven't played them and hate them, then I doubt highly that you will try one out. Shall we agree to disagree?
Whether we do or don't, we will ultimately disagree. The petty victories of gaining a level or catching a pokemon don't appeal to me, and turn-based combat is not my idea of fun. I did think pokemon was a nice sci-fi concept as a kid, but that was it. Is it really so difficult to imagine someone not liking a level-based TBS game?
54
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Nickelback
« on: February 19, 2012, 12:51:38 AM »
Yeah bro, those smiling guys don't look at all like they're having the time of their lives.
55
The Lounge / Re: Finland!
« on: February 19, 2012, 12:46:43 AM »
I'm pretty sure foreign students go to university for free in Sweden too.
56
The Lounge / Re: Find your antipode and post it.
« on: February 18, 2012, 03:27:23 PM »
As with the majority of people living on the northern hemisphere, my antipode is smack dab in the ocean. The reason is self-evident, really.
57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Interesting fact.
« on: February 18, 2012, 12:10:53 PM »
Does it also forbid any sort of skin contact? Also, that was about human/animal cross-transmission.
58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Interesting fact.
« on: February 18, 2012, 10:21:50 AM »Aren't all of them hard to trace? I know that the herpes virus is common in many animals besides humans, like the flu, it probably somehow jumped from species to species as it mutated, and the species came into close contact with other species.
The idea of STDs jumping from species to species is kind of disturbing.
Not all STD have sex as the only means of transmission.
59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Interesting fact.
« on: February 18, 2012, 05:07:22 AM »Virtually all STDs come from unmarried and homosexual sex.
STD do not come from sex at all, Wardogg. Try not to fail so much at biology.
I guess this is what happens when Wendy's real arguments get crushed.
My "real" argument is that sexually transmittable infections do not originate in human sexuality. That has not gotten crushed, it is demonstrable fact.
60
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Interesting fact.
« on: February 17, 2012, 07:55:51 AM »Virtually all STDs come from unmarried and homosexual sex.
STD do not come from sex at all, Wardogg. Try not to fail so much at biology.