*raises eyebrows* That reaction pretty much confirmed to me that you are seeking attention... "Oh, I'm feeling so sad!" *receives attention* "Hooray, I'm suddenly all happy now!". If you were actually genuinely depressed, you wouldn't suddenly change your attitude to the community around you from hatred to love, lol. Also, your 'thank you' would be much more sincere, 'specially if you hadn't received a kind word or two in a while. Shame, because I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt...

Wut. What 'injustice' did Tanki commit, and how have you been 'ignored'? As great as they can be, online communities should never become a substitute to one's social life in the real world, lol - so if you're stressing about people here forgetting you/not caring, then you need to take a break from your computer lol.

*looks it up* http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/astronomers-discover-most-earth-like-planet-ever-found-1.1780739 Interesting, I guess - though we'll probably not be able to find out any more about that particular planet for decades, at least.

Happy birthday Rem and Space! ^_^

I'm Gold, been playing since July 2011... Same as Sel, I'm sure some know me from when I was a Reporter ^_^ (EDIT) Upvoted practically everyone so far, lol...

Selena12121 and Remaine. "A very mature player indeed!"

Heh, apparently... That's what it looks like on my screen, anyway.

Congrats @DarkOperative!

Congrats @DarkOperative!

Alternative rock.

+1... Wondering if Twins/Viking M2 is effective both with and without drugs.

Twins M2 worth it? Not short of crystals, and plan to use it with Viking M2.

+1... Hate to break it to you, but I see eragon as a more mature forum user than you...

An unfortunate mistake - I'm off to the Socratic Discussion of Justice now, much more civilised than the riff-raff present here *shakes head disapprovingly*

Lol, sorry 'bout that Sel xD

^Accidentally upvoted.

Maybe it's because you actually are as immature as many of us think WOs are...

Magic.

This time, spot the difference between what you say I said, and what I actually said: Moving on... I already explained the logic behind doing so... I do not feel inclined to respond to your arguments. Logically, I would rather commit a fallacy than to respect your arguments by responding to them. Respect works two ways. And if I say 'I'm not going to respond to your arguments' (yes, that last word doesn't look like 'posts' to me), and yet I still respond to your posts, then obviously I am admitting using the red herring fallacy. I would have thought that a person of 'superior intelligence' such as yourself would have understood what that inferred. Where on earth did I 'claim to know better'? Throwing in such comments, alongside your description of my assertion as 'arrogant', is rather hyprocritical, to say the least. I'm not the one here who keeps on emphasising his superiority, for starters. I wonder who that could be? How would the fact that critics have praised something over the past 2,500 years make any difference? Surely if you weren't committing the argument from age fallacy, you'd just say "when critics praise the book", without the "for the past two and a half millenia" bit on the end? Why should the length of time for which the book has been acclaimed matter? Phrases such as "acclaimed over the ages" are good clues to such a fallacy, as they seem to imply that the length of time over which the book has been acclaimed actually matters, when it's in fact completely irrelevant. A critically-acclaimed book published 5 years ago is no less reliable or valid a source than a critically-acclaimed book from 2,500 years back. And here I spot yet another logical fallacy, specifically when you say "critics who are much more intelligent than me, let alone you". That's a clear case of the fallacy of argumentum ab auctoritate, in that through deductive reasoning, you claim that the fact that critics acclaim the book merits belief in that book. Just because they would have more expertise in such an area, that doesn't mean that their acclaim for the book must be justified and correct. Surely, the fact that such a book has been critically acclaimed for the past 2,500 is indisputable, I agree. Whether or not this is actually relevant seems to divide opinion here - yes, such facts mean that the book is probably more likely to have greater validity or reliability as a source. However, we're looking for hard evidence here as to why such a book is is definitely more valid or reliable, so yes, those facts seem irrelevant to me. Would the fact that scientific experts critically acclaimed pieces that stated the sun as going around the Earth for hundreds of years make those disproved works 'more valid'? No, because their critical acclaim through the ages did not constitute hard evidence. - Argument from age - see above. - Argumentum ad populum - quote below taken from one of your previous posts: Here, you seem to be implying that the fact that a large number of lives were shaped by such a book makes it more valid. This, unfortunately, is not the case - just as one cannot use the fact that there are billions of religious believers in the world to state that "God must exist". - Argument from authority - see above. - Argumentum ad hominem - this is specifically of the 'abusive' type. I quote from Wikipedia: "Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy." There are numerous examples of you having done so: Your extensive use of the abusive ad hominem fallacy is certainly indisputable. Monkeyburn's grammar was not perfect. Does that make his arguments less valid (i.e. is that relevant)? He's also an incoherent dogmatist, according to you. Is that relevant? I'm an "ignorant 'kid'", as you so frequently remind me. Is that relevant? ____________________ Let me ask you a serious question. Were you the same person who wrote the above post? Or are you simply of the philosophy of 'preaching but not practising'?

Does no-one else just say "kwe-styun"?

He's a Consultant candidate, lol... And I assume your description of the administration at the end of your original post does constitute a violation of the rules. And actually, saying stuff that's bad about the game is fine - if you have any negative feedback on the moderation/administration, then just contact an admin such as @Yele or . I got used to it eventually xD Anyways, nowadays you can post criticism of the game, so long as it doesn't violate any rules.

You were criticising his non-logical criticism. I was criticising your non-logical criticism. As I said before, I'm not going to respond to your arguments until you learn to set them forth in a respectful manner. If that means I commit a fallacy, then so be it - at least I admitted I was committing a fallacy, intentionally. You, on the other hand, do not seem to know whether or not you committed any fallacies yourself, or seem reluctant to admit it. And here's where the reluctance to admit, or the desire to ignore, the fallacies in your previous arguments comes in. Here you go: Spot any similarities? I'm really sorry to have to break this to you, but logical fallacies do unfortunately constitute weaknesses in one's arguments. And judging from yet another irrelevant and derogatory reference to my age to add to your previous range of personal insults directed at myself and monkeyburn (the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem), you are not in short supply of them. Do feel free to PM me if you want to learn more about 'logical fallacies'. Otherwise, we can return to discussing the main subject of this topic, with little response being put forth to your arguments. Obviously, you can assume that's because they're flawless, but I hate to pop your bubble of superiority - we're not responding to your arguments precisely because the way in which you put them forth is fallacious, and so flawed.

You're welcome! xD

Well written, I think this is a pretty great attempt at covering such a topic. Nice stuff ;)

Yeah, she's a girl... hence the she :lol: