This is the outcome of the allowance of anonymous posting.

anon@62.30

"you might not be a troll, but you are a fuckin lamer..."

Well that's your opinion you're entitled to, and I respect that.

"sheesh, get a grip will ya and don't take things so bloody seriously!!!"

Actually, I have quite a grip. You know, I'm not that tense or serious about most matters. Sorry if it seemed that way.

"Go outside, get some fresh air, and whilst at it get a life too."

I'll take your suggestion some time, but it's pretty cold outside.

"How fuckin off topic is this thread !?!"

Sorry, just had to make a few points clear.

* * *

anon@195.198

"It doesn´t matter, you have NO evidence that he raped that girl and who ever says otherwise is lying, I know."

Who are you referring to and what does that have to do with this thread (sorry if I don't see whatever comedic value this posts conveys).

* * *

Definition supplied:

"troll

An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message."

This is not an e-mail or Usenet post. My posts are not intentionally incorrect, they are intentionally correct. These are controversial to the fact that the posts contradicted and corrected differ much from my posts.

anon@216.227

"Maybe your really just trying to start a flame war?"

No, I'm putting my point across.

"You say yourself you are controversal and you like to play on peoples emotions."

I am a controversial man, but never have I ever said that I play on people's emotions. You can quote me on that.

"And I thought I quoted the entire dictionary definition of 'right' and you said you where WRONG and it wasn't a RIGHT but a ABILITY to rape."

It's simple. If you can not understand what I had written one way I must try another method (in this case using the word 'ability'). No, I may have been wrong, but I had explained what it was in a later post.

"So now your backtracking to your 'rape is right' argument?"

No, I never backtracked, I tried to get my point across with another definition of 'rights'.

Second definition supplied:

"troll v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself."

I had no intention of posting for the sheer fact of a predictable response of discomfort.

"Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite."

Your discomfort is derived from the fact that you can not handle being wrong. This is normal.

"The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll."

These posts of mine have nothing to do with electronics knowledge. They has to do with reasoning and logic.

"If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it."

Rather, if you don't fall for the joke, you are fine and safe from discomfort.

"YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion."

No specious argument is to be had here from my point of view. These posts are not flames, they are not personal attacks, they corrections of posts. They are not intended to annoy anyone or disrupt any discussion (in which, there was none to be had, anyway).

"Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait."

There is no discussion or topic to be learnt when dealing with post correction.

"Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, 'Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.'"

I find the author's definition to be quite jejune and unjustly.

"[Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners."

It seems as though the author has changed tone. There is no reason to respond to this passage.

"Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter."

I am not wrong in my arguments. There is no controversy to be had with factual statements, except with the controversial emotions of others.

?

For as long as he posts funny stuff with people responding to him in discomfort.

Unfortunately for you, no evidence that I cheat nor troll these boards has been provided in your post.

You nor I can escape the fact that people have the right to rape others and commit acts of unjustly crime. That is a fact that you can not accept. Unfortunately, people have the right to commit unjustly acts. Fortunately, this society is governed, and criminals are being killed by each other and are deterred from committing these unjustly acts every day.

It is one thing to understand the existance of something. To advocate for something is an entirely different matter.
This comment was edited on Jan 18, 00:06.

Or an alpha and a gold.

I still find frederickson to hold much comedic value in his posts.

I, too, am depicted as Gandalf.

It needs a patch so people who know almost nothing about the game can rest easy.

I found Half-Life to provide a bland experience despite the plot.

Serious Sam does not even play nearly as good as Doom. Sadly, the community revolving around Doom is sadistic.

This comment was edited on Jan 17, 22:15.

Regarding spyware: is Gator or Bonzai Buddy spyware?

Only a fool wants to hear the echo of his own voice.

'"Just FYI. it didn't sound like you knew what was going on.'

Yes, your thoughts matter much here."

headcase fargone, I apologize for being an asshole with my reaction in that post of mine.

"Guys ignore 'teh mane man' he is a TROLL (see wolfenstein busts punks)"

I'm guessing your evidence of my being a troll will follow further in your post.

"He belives that Rape is a RIGHT and cheating is a RIGHT and that we need to try to understand cheaters instead of attacking them."

Let me make that point of mine clear: everyone has ability. You can not take ability away from a free man. A free man also has rights which are being governed in the province in which he resides (country, state, city). Attacking a cheater's personal life based on their actions on an online game is not right.

"The guy is a GOOD troll, it takes a lot of skill to be a troll and not have it be too obvious."

And your evidence of my being a troll is still not evident in your post.

"However, I find it HARD to belive that anyone can go from discussion to discussion and start shit with people and cause havoc and falmes WITHOUT being a troll."

There it is. However, I am a controlversial man. A controversial poster is one who differs in opinion from most. A troll, however, starts arguments with others for the sole purpose of suffering.

I do not try to make others suffer. Some times it seem that I do, but I honestly do not.

If you find me a problem, please for my sake and yours that you do not read my posts. I do not want to cause harm like you interpret my intentions to be.
This comment was edited on Jan 17, 22:05.

Ok, ok.

"Yes, your thoughts matter much here. I always thought a mod went beyond changing some variables."

I said that with sarcasm. An insult or an opinion regarding a game being written as a fact has no need here. This is an argument.

"Oh, and yes, Xombie and who ever else thinks Quake 3 is for unskilled players and was not well thought out as a game, your unjustly opinion matters much here."

This is what I had responded to what Xombie and others have written earlier: "Tell me... what thought out gameplay was there in Quake 3?
They put a bunch of models on a map, gave them guns, and they blast each other. there's nothing more than that. the guns don't even have alt-fire."

"Mind you, instead of stinking these boards up with what you think, try and turn this place around from Blue's Shack to Blue's News with some real evidence."

Everyone knows that The Shack is the epicenter for comments written in stupidity and what not. I suggested to try and keep Blue's News from becoming such a site.

"Gameplay and skill involved in differing games like Quake 3 and Gore is based entirely on opinion. Graphics, sound, and gameplay are all opinion."

That is right. All of the listed above are factors regarding opinion.

"So, without further ado, you may post a reply that makes remotely any sense."

This is regarding a posts sent earlier.

"I am not sure how you do not have to aim the other weapons. If you did not aim, you would hit no one except those who ran in front of you."

This is the truth. Taken into literal sense: If you did not aim at all, you would hit nothing but what runs in front of you.

"I am not sure how a shotgun has splash damage. I think you are referring to buckshot. The lightening gun has no splash damage. The melee weapon has no splash damage."

A shotgun does not have splash damage, it has buckshot. Splash damage is from a projectile in which the impact sends "waves," "energy pulses" or "an explosion" outward from the projectile in which it had originated. The other guns I listed have no splash damage.

"Actually, from my experience, there are few crowds in MP. Awards are often given to those who kill the next player quickly, and not if more than one person was killed at a time in a 'crowd.'"

This is correct. Since experience comes first, inexperience comes second.

"If there was no aiming required, let alone, skill to aim required, then I do not see how they can deem certain players "professionals." There would be an awful lot of professional players if no skill was required to aim, let alone, to aim at all."

Skill obviously has to be involved for there to be a ranking system among players determing a good player from a bad one.

"Stamping a game a "tech demo" is based on opinion. I can choose to favor your opinion in light of others, but I do not."

Calling a game a "tech demo" is based entirely on opinion. The opinion is formed from the impression of the game itself.

"The game play in other games is just as simple: You navigate a level and kill who ever you see."

Every game has you reaching for the stars for the same reason. If goals differed, it could result in a change in the genre in which the game resides.

"To say the players are not as good on one game as another is based on how good you are at a particular game. It is said that how much one enjoys a game is how good one is at it."

This is true. People who are bad at a game will eventually become good at it. If not, then that is a rare exception. People who like a game more than others will more likely play better than others (determined, also, by how long someone plays the game).

"To say the game does not require skill is based on your experience. And since it seems as though you had a tough time playing the game, you are going to choose a game over another and simply bash the one you had allegedly played. It seems as though you are no good at it."

Someone who bashes a game for not requiring any skill is more likely a player who had a bad experience with difficulty of play.

"It is not hard to recognize a good player on the Internet, nor is it to recognize a bad one. But it is hard to recognize a player at all."

Simply put: You can tell apart good and bad players and are recognized easily. People who talk about games and have not played them are difficult to uncover.

You mean you will withdraw and focus your efforts elsewhere, despite the fact you have provided no arguement?

Look, I'm not trying to hurt you or anyone else here. I want you to write to me, seriously.

"Oh, and is the implication here that yours do? That's cute."

Yes, mine actually matter. They mean more than throwing insults.

I should have been more clear on the modification part.

"What's up with this "Your opinion matters much here" thing? And am I mistaken, or do you think that your opinion, for some reason, actually does? This is a public message board, and many faces are present here."

My post was not of an opinion. It was fact-oriented, and fact-oriented posts matter more in an argument than opinion-oriented ones.

"I find it very silly that, apparently, for reasons obvious only to you, you think your opinion carries some weight around here. What qualification for that do you think you have? If anything, your opinion matters even less to me now, because you seem to expect that because you think your word matters more, it should."

My word is the truth. The truth hurts some, and helps others. I have spoken truth only to find myself insulted by others.

"Grow up, man. You sound like you possess some shred of intelligence, I think that if you tried you could come up some kind, ANY kind of intelligent argument other than "mine's bigger than yours."

A shread of intelligence is better than a broad field of stupidity. I did not provide a 'mine's bigger than yours' argument. Instead, I'm providing fine examples from others' posts and correcting them, and telling them how it really is.

"That's funny, if anyone here is stinking up the place, it's you. You stepped in and made an unfounded claim yourself, you know, and, with me at least, you're hinging your whole argument on the assumption that your opinion should matter to me. That is a sad mistake to make, stranger."

Again, I provided no opinions, only facts. I would have stated that it was in my opinion if I have, but my argument rests on facts.

"I think you should take your own advice and find some ground to stand on rather than relying on childish bullying tactics to make your point."

You need to elaborate on your point a bit more than that.
This comment was edited on Jan 17, 21:12.

It is because people do not understand things. Misunderstandings can cause anger and confusion.

I hope boxes get so small that it becomes a marketing issue.

See, here's the plan. You get the box so small you lose it on the way home. That way, you're gonna have one hell of a day talking to the store manager about how you lost the box, and will be forced to buy the game again.
This comment was edited on Jan 17, 18:24.

From the attention that frederickson has received, he has, yet again, won the forum in his favor.


I'll admit, he does make the forums more exciting to read.
This comment was edited on Jan 17, 18:08.