Depressed roommate hitting the Gamecube pretty hard
 

http://www.theonion.com/onion3903/de..._roommate.html

HAHAHAHAHAH

Damn he's got it bad. THey make it sound like if he's on drugs. :D

funny stuff... hey what's that D&D Heroes all about?

That is quite sad.

:rofl:


sounds kinda like me...except i would be sitting infront of my comp all day :p

wow, that guy hit the definition of pathetic right on. i think he should seek help

LMAO! But at least he still has a girl interested in him...although he probably blew whatever chance he had with his AC talk...lol

You guys do realize that this is a satirical joke, right? Maybe you do, but some of you seem to be taking it rather seriously. I mean, calling the guy pathetic when he doesn't even exist?

How do you figure? maybe he does exist...unless you wrote this article...or whatever it is.

The Onion is a FAKE news site...that's why this guy doesn't exist.

Why must you ruin it for them, it was going so well, but I found the article rather interesting, it was quite funny.

Not as good as some of their other articles, I must say...

Funny. But who knows, there is probably someone out there in this world that has this kind of problem. :sneaky:

And where do you get off assuming that you're real? Or for that matter, the people of this forum? Are we simply here for your reality, or you for ours?

Cogito ergo sum, GameMaster. I'm an empiricist, and that's all I really need. :)

Translation: I think therefore I am.

That's fine Xantar, but that still doesn't give you the right to deem the person in that article non-existant. You're entitled to your belief but you're not entitled to impress it on others.

Ah, but how do you know that I deem that the person in that article is non-existent? You're entitled to your belief that I don't deem that he exists, but you're not entitled to make people accept that as a premise to your argument.

stop it peolple...your using words that are way too big to fit in my head...and it hurts...use small words please :p

How do I know?

You state right there.

And where do you find me "making" people accept you're statement of his non-existance as a premise to my argument?

Oh, so you mean you know that I think he doesn't exist because you see a post by me? Well, where do you get off assuming that the post is real? Is it just there in your reality? For that matter, how do you know that there actually is a computer in front of you which is displaying some comprehensible letters?

It's fine for you to think that I believe that this guy doesn't exist. You can believe that you are actually sitting before a computer reading posts made on an internet forum called GameTavern, if you want. But you don't have the right to impress on anybody, least of all me, that your beliefs about what my beliefs are are true.

As for you using my belief of his non-existence as a premise to my argument, you're right. I don't know that you're actually doing that. What I do know is that you could be making one of two arguments. One is that I don't have the right to impress my beliefs on others. The problem is this argument is completely pointtless. So I can't force people to accept my views about someone's existence. So what? It would be like you walking up to a random person and picking an argument with them saying, "You don't have the right to murder innocent people." That person would be entirely in the right to just look back at you and say, "And...?"

I don't know that this isn't the argument that you are making. I'm inclined to believe that it isn't because I haven't found you to be usually given to picking pointless fights. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really did just come into this thread and pick an argument with no point whatsoever out of the blue and take the conversation off on a tangent which accomplishes nothing. If that's what you are doing, absolutely be my guest.

Otherwise, it could be that what you're arguing here is that I don't have the right to impress my beliefs about a particular person's existence on other people, and that I'm doing exactly that. Your argument would be trying to convince me and other people that I'm doing something wrong, in other words. The problem is, as I've pointed out, you don't know that I actually believe that the guy in this article doesn't exist. Or maybe you do know (or think you know), but you can't force me or anyone else to accept your belief. The thing is people will have to accept your belief about my opinion about the guy's existence in order to buy your argument. Since you can't get people to do that, your argument doesn't hold water.

So take your pick. Either you're voicing a totally pointless argument or you're voicing one that is wrong.

Seriously, though. I'm a Buddhist and I studied Taoism for a semester, GameMaster. Metaphysical questions about existence don't phase me, and in fact, I practically sleep-walked through this entire post. The argument you've posted here is practically the same, point for point, as the losing half of one of the dialogues that takes place in the Zhuangzi which is a classic Taoist text. All I've done here is more or less post Zhuangzi's response to an argument just like yours. I can keep this dance going all day if you want. Seems kind of silly, but if you want to waste time on petty nitpicking, I'm happy to help you along.

Cogito ergo sum :)

Well, according to your beliefs Xantar, I should be able to do whatever I want, no? Lets not contradict ourselves now.

That would be correct Sir.

I never said you couldn't...

Its takes two to tango Xantar. You had the option of not responding to me. You chose to respond. Don't give me all the credit for taking the conversation off on a tangent. :)

When and where did I ever "force", Xantar?

You mean slept-walked, silly goose.

Let the games begin. Touché :D

Well, according to your beliefs, GameMaster, you shouldn't be able to assume that you really do know what I believe, no? Let's not contradict ourselves now.

Besides, where do you get the idea that believe that you can just do whatever you want? I know I didn't say that in here.

As for your next few points about forcing people to believe something, read my post again. I laid out two options. Either you've started a pointless and frivolous argument (in which case you aren't trying to get someone to accept your beliefs) or you're trying to prove that I actually did something wrong (in which case you're trying to get me and others to accept your belief about my beliefs).

No, actually I mean sleep-walked. From dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com also lists another spelling: "sleep-walk."

Yes, indeed. I decided to show to the rest of the forum how silly you're acting. But in point of fact, I never gave you all the credit for taking the conversation off on a tangent. Really, you have a disturbing tendency to put words in my mouth.

Well there was this time in band camp, would you two just cut it oout. I mean this was a light-hearted topic and you two made it into something more, why can't we all get along. Why can't there be world peace? Why can't I be a millionaire?

But according to your beliefs, I should be able to assume I really know what you believe, yes? And furthermore, according to your beliefs, your beliefs are my beliefs.

From your beliefs, which according to your beliefs, are my beliefs. This is my reality isn't it?

Your beliefs are my beliefs according to your beliefs. You did do something wrong.

Err. :mad: You just got lucky with that one. ;)

No, you joined the act. Welcome aboard the team. :)

If you want it to be. You can't impress that on me, though. And I must admit, you're going to have to explain whatever leap of logic you made which allowed you to say that my beliefs are your beliefs.

You know what they say about the one who instigates and the one who responds, don't you? Well, if you don't I don't feel like telling you. But it's pretty clear that you are instigating and I'm just responding.

And no matter what my role is in all this, you're still being silly and inconsequential.

I think therefore I am/it is. "Your" beliefs are thought up by me, thus making them exist, thus making them mine since I thought them up for you to think.

That's not true though. You were the original instigator by countering my reply to your original post. And I don't know what "they" say. Perhaps by the time you read this, you will feel like telling me.

I'll be the decider, or should I say, thinker of whether that will be so or not.

And so will everybody else who reads this thread and sees that you've been continuing to throw your logic (which is flawed even on your own terms) at me and that I am merely responding.

What? This post is too short for you? I do that sometimes. I like to keep the length of my responses somewhat proportional to the worthiness of the post I'm responding to.

Me too.




:sneaky:

No, I think you've run out of gas. You put up a good fight though, I'll give you credit for that.

Well, in that case I found Germanator's post length to be extremely accurate. :lol:

Ah, I see you like to bluster, too. Too bad you couldn't come up with anything better than "you've run out of gas." I mean really, at least I managed something other than a cliché.

I could bring a quote by Joeiss into this since you decided to bring in The Germanator. But I don't feel like sinking to your level today.

On what scale does your comment run higher than my cliché?

Except that I didn't bring Germanator in. He brought himself in responding to your post. My recognition of his post in is context. You bringing in a comment from Joeiss would be out of context and simply an act of spite.

Wow. Quite a well thought out post there. Was I really worth it? You expended a good amount of effort responding to me considering that I'm supposed to be out of gas. If you really thought I was done for, wouldn't you have just ignored me?

Maybe you're just so fond of silly debates that you not only start them but keep them going even after you declare that your opponent has been vanquished. How odd.

You could just ignore me now, I suppose. It would make you look like you're just following my advice, but it might be the good thing to do. And next time I try to goad a response out of you, you should consider not biting.

What the hell is wrong with you two? I mean first you were debating about probably the stupidest topic yet, now you two are debating about not debating and cliches and prehistoric chicken, when will this madness end?

Don't let them get to you BAB.........they just trying to get the one up on each other.;)

Did you know that when ducks "quack" it does not echo.

I am yet to see proof of this, but I read it on a website. I need to go find me a duck, and a small tunnel :sneaky:

Am I sensing a bit of low self esteem/confidence.

I didn't start it though. I simply responded to a post made by you. You started it by countering back with a responce to my responce in responce to a post you made.

I pity one who has nothing better to do than "goad" responces out of people. Perhaps you should partake in some more challenging courses at the university.

Ya lets duke it out like little kids.

And since i'm the guy always thinking about others safety....I made this special dueling weapon..just for the two of you.



you may continue.

Ha, that sword is brilliant! I'm just starting to get into SomethingAwful.com since BlueFire started sending some of the pictures from that site to me. Nice one, bouncer_agb.

Okay this is about the most unlikely fight ever...Gamemaster, Possibly the nicest person on the Forums...and Xantar...another nice dude that seldom says anything bad about people...

lmao. This is gold. Both of you stop.

Oh, and Xantar, Photoshop Fridays on SA own :D