General Stuff #1
Gamer Named "Little Gray" Actually "Beats" World Of Warcraft
Archive: 64 posts
| Taiwanese player "Little Gray" has beaten the **** out of popular computer game World of Warcraft and everything it can throw at him. The guy has completed every quest, and was the first to reach all points achieveable. He completed 5,906 quest, killed 390,895 creatures, and has dealt 7,225,538,878 worth of damage to others. Although a new patch has been released with an achievment called "BB King", which means he hasn't achieved it yet, it's clear that he's just going to **** the game up by beating it, again. http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/littlebiggallery/images/5518/1_213100-1.jpg He's not that social or friendly, though. He only hugged 11 times in the game, and said LOL once. So I feel that he deserves a trophy for his accomplishment, but he seriously needs to get out more. If he doesn't, this can be his future. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QtwjYU2ofY8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QtwjYU2ofY8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> That's the only video I found showing Cartman in fat[ter] in the shortest amount of time, so sorry it's in French. Anyways, I say "Get up and go outside man. Save yourself from yourself [and World Of Warcraft]!" That is all. Peace | 2009-12-04 04:27:00 Author: CyberSora  Posts: 5551 |
Looks like someone has forgotten what the outside world looks like  | 2009-12-04 05:24:00 Author: Ricano  Posts: 434 |
| How does someone actually get that much entertainment out of it? | 2009-12-04 05:31:00 Author: Foofles  Posts: 2278 |
| I find WOW good, but this guy made it his love life. I think it's time to for me to bust out the big one: http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/308920-kspiess/920/28/facepalm_display.jpg | 2009-12-05 02:29:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| Hahaha facepalm, anyone? Great pic! Does anybody else notice that his last achievement was "Turkey Lurkey"? As if this didn't sound funny already... | 2009-12-05 02:52:00 Author: Hibbsi  Posts: 203 |
| How'd you inbed the youtube? D: Just quote him. | 2009-12-05 03:06:00 Author: Jagrevi  Posts: 1154 |
| Man, to realise how some people simply have no life... . | 2009-12-05 03:35:00 Author: RangerZero  Posts: 3901 |
| I find WOW good, but this guy made it his love life. I think it's time to for me to bust out the big one: http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/308920-kspiess/920/28/facepalm_display.jpg I... don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing here  | 2009-12-05 07:04:00 Author: Ricano Posts: 434 |
| I... don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing here As far as I can tell from my psp, it is a collection of facepalms making one large facepalm. Does it say how long he played for? | 2009-12-05 09:48:00 Author: moleynator  Posts: 2914 |
| I get so tired of hearing people tell others that accomplish amazing gaming feats that they have no life. He has a life, his life. Simply put, that is an amazing feat! He deserves an award for that much work and dedication. ^_^ | 2009-12-05 11:25:00 Author: Unknown User  |
| I get so tired of hearing people tell others that accomplish amazing gaming feats that they have no life. He has a life, his life. Simply put, that is an amazing feat! He deserves an award for that much work and dedication. ^_^ People don't mean it literally Of course he has a life, but he's not doing anything with it. Dedicating that much time to a game isn't really something to be proud of. | 2009-12-05 11:56:00 Author: Dexiro  Posts: 2100 |
| I get so tired of hearing people tell others that accomplish amazing gaming feats that they have no life. He has a life, his life. Simply put, that is an amazing feat! He deserves an award for that much work and dedication. ^_^ No, he doesn't. That's jsut sad. People deserve awards for figthing in the army, helping their country. People deserve awards in the emergency services. People deserve awards for *making* films games and music, which entertain people. Stuff like that can have awards. People like this guy, on the other hand, deserve nothing. He had his 'fun' playing the game, you don't need awards for having fun. Although how he can possibly have had fun for that long on that game i don't understand. He really does have no life whatsoever. I would love to see a picture of the guy.... I can imagine how he looks LOL ---------------- Now playing: Killswitch Engage - Irreversal (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/killswitch+engage/track/irreversal) via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/) | 2009-12-05 11:58:00 Author: Unknown User |
| I get so tired of hearing people tell others that accomplish amazing gaming feats that they have no life. He has a life, his life. Simply put, that is an amazing feat! He deserves an award for that much work and dedication. ^_^ It's manner of speaking you want to debate there. And you know what we mean by "having no life". Of course he's got a life -- as soon as you live you therefore have a life. Do you seriously think we didn't know that? So now I am too lazy to explain what "a no life" means, what the expression means and you know what it means anyways so... . | 2009-12-05 17:29:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| I get so tired of hearing people tell others that accomplish amazing gaming feats that they have no life. He has a life, his life. Simply put, that is an amazing feat! He deserves an award for that much work and dedication. ^_^ I agree. It's amazing that when someone accomplishes something like this, they have no life, but when someone spends long hours in their dimly lit basement carefully making sticker cuts in LBP they're awesome. Does he have no life or is he just that dedicated? To be able to destroy a game like that is impressive. And this is Asia we're talking about, where professional gamers are treated like star athletes. It's a place where the world's best eater is skinnier than a twig. Just think about it for a second. | 2009-12-05 17:41:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| poor guy he died in the real life but his soul lifed on at warcraft | 2009-12-05 18:49:00 Author: Unknown User |
| He has "no life". In other words, he's not using the time to accomplish real things as a human in reality. His fantasy achievments makes him play more, almost as being proud. Sure he can get a reward, but what for? For waisting all that time, playing a game with no "real" rewards? He could have done something just as great in real life. He could have donated blood, or even helped at a community center. But he didn't, so he has "no life" in the real world, just a "false life" in a game. Until he does something in this real world called Earth, he is almost "non existant" here. | 2009-12-05 20:38:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| He has "no life". In other words, he's not using the time to accomplish real things as a human in reality. His fantasy achievments makes him play more, almost as being proud. Sure he can get a reward, but what for? For waisting all that time, playing a game with no "real" rewards? He could have done something just as great in real life. He could have donated blood, or even helped at a community center. But he didn't, so he has "no life" in the real world, just a "false life" in a game. Until he does something in this real world called Earth, he is almost "non existant" here. You don't seem to understand that there's no point to anything in life. The rewards are pointless, the jobs you do are pointless. The only thing that makes it worthwhile is the feeling of self-worth you get from it, even if it's all just an illusion. What's the difference between the real world and a virtual world? It's like the difference between the real world and sports. Athletes put all this time towards being able to run fast and kick a ball into a goal. What use does the ability to kick a ball in a whole serve outside the realm of soccer? Nothing, really, but no one would ever say a professional athlete has no life. Are you saying that World of Warcraft isn't real? It's a real virtual world. And it's not like you guys know if he has a life or not. You aren't certain he just sits in his house all day playing World of Warcraft. | 2009-12-05 20:45:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| Awesomemans said it best. I know what the expression means, but that isn't the point. Awesomeman said exactly what my reply was going to be in his last post. This is much the same as people that say PSN trophies are worthless. No, nothing is worthless. It's that feeling that you achieved something, whether in a form of entertainment like games, or helping people in need. All of it is just something you are doing in life as you wait to die. People do things they enjoy, and many are good at what they do. I myself have done amazing things in gaming, like a lot of the crazy hard challenges you might see on gamefaqs that are made by players themselves, like low level games in RPGs, etc . . . But what's the point? What's the point of even playing games? Why do you play them? It is all a waste of time, but you enjoy it. Someone accomplishing a feat like this deserves a gaming award, just as someone from the army that accomplishes something great and noble deserves a hero award. | 2009-12-06 09:39:00 Author: Unknown User |
| You don't seem to understand that there's no point to anything in life. The rewards are pointless, the jobs you do are pointless. The only thing that makes it worthwhile is the feeling of self-worth you get from it, even if it's all just an illusion. What's the difference between the real world and a virtual world? It's like the difference between the real world and sports. Athletes put all this time towards being able to run fast and kick a ball into a goal. What use does the ability to kick a ball in a whole serve outside the realm of soccer? Nothing, really, but no one would ever say a professional athlete has no life. Are you saying that World of Warcraft isn't real? It's a real virtual world. And it's not like you guys know if he has a life or not. You aren't certain he just sits in his house all day playing World of Warcraft. I don't agree with this... Playing video games is great as a hobby, and is usually best kept that way. Of course, if you're job is to play videogames (be it a tester, or if you're good enough gaining your money through competitions) then that's fine and this argument is invalid. There's one major thing wrong with what you are saying... people such as top athletes, top doctors/surgeons and others of that nature do have a purpose, and that is making this world we live in a better place. The athletes bring entertainment to this world (unfortuanatly there are thugs who take things too seriously and fight over sport... but thats pathetic and on their hands), the doctors SAVE LIVES, and heck... the poor people who pick up rubbish in the street for a living make the world a more hygienic place. The only reason they of course get paid so little for an important and needed job is that it's a job anyone could do, and requires little knowledge and little skill. But that's irrelevant. People who play video games generally don't serve any greater purpose to the world. You ask what use does the ability to kick a ball as a whole serve outside the realm of soccer? Indeed it doesn't have a use, but that doesn't matter because that's his job. The skill is obviously important for is job and earns him alot of money so there is a practical use. On the other hand, what use does it have to be able to fight off demons and elves in a virtual reality? I can't really see any. Sure, he could sell his character and earn a few bob (nowhere near worth the hours he put in), but if he was going to do that he might as well get a trainer (or whatever the program thing is, a mate in uni used it) to play the game for him while he is out making something of himself and then sell this character in the evening once it is top level. Or just play it himself (say a few hours each evening) and do this. The problem is the guy who has beat this game must have a poor social life and not a very good job (if any). We know there are people out there who play WoW non stop for months on end and never complete it, so how is it this guy has? Clearly the hours he has put in this game must be insane. You also started off by saying rewards in life are pointless. I suppose they are really in a certain extent, because when I used to skateboard and ollie'd my first 7 stair set I felt a huge achievement, something I also get out of video games too. However, saying the jobs people do are pointless is quite ignorant. Jobs aren't in this world because we as a human race decided it is fun to suffer (lolwut), but because jobs are needed to make the world run. It seems that you need to open your eyes a bit in that respect. To justify someone who has wasted many hours of their life on a game machine by saying that everything else is pointless so what he's doing is fine is a very naive thing to say. To say that 'the only thing that makes it worthwhile is the feeling of self-worth you get from it, even if it's all just an illusion' is very selfish. It comes off that you aren't much of a people's person (I'm not saying you aren't, in fact I'm led to believe you are from your time on LBPC here  ). There's a brilliant Friends episode which actually is based on that sentence, in a way, and shows that every good action you ever do is because it makes you feel better. Why are you a doctor? Because it makes YOU feel good that you saved someones life. Apparently there is no selfless good deed. It's a funny episode, but in the end of the day you also make other people feel better and that is what is important (as I stated before). Making this world a better place. Innit, lol.And you're argument on WoW being real just makes no sense, to me anyway. Of course WoW is real. It's a real game. But that doesn't stop it from being just that. A virtual reality and real life are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. In games there are no real consequences for you actions. Okay so you're playing GTA:IV and you have to decide whether to kill Dwayne or Playboy X. There are consequences for your actions in game. But where it's different is that if you make a mistake... you can just do it again. In real life there are no second lives, and no turning back time. I am sorry if I seem like a total **** from all this, but there's some things in life I feel quite strongly about. Don't get me wrong, I love videogames, and I play them alot. I've spent alot of money on them, and will continue to do so. But what it must be kept at is a hobby, and not an addiction. There is a distinct difference between the two and many people don't realise when the two have intertwined for them. This guy seems like a prime example. I will actually argue against a few of my points myself lol. I mentioned that videogames bring only self worthy satisfaction unlike real life. Now one marvellous game has actually changed that. LittleBigPlanet (ofcourse there were others before like GarrysMod but this is the biggest mainstream one yet) actually brings satisfaction to others through the sharing of levels, and is truly a fantastic game. It brings happiness and people together. For some it has brought fame. So this is one of those exceptions. Having my level be mentioned on the sony US blog brought me a huge amount of achievement. However, I still stand by when saying that its best kept at a hobby and not an addiction. I doubt anyone will read this fully through but at least its out of my system | 2009-12-06 16:33:00 Author: ryryryan  Posts: 3767 |
| well that was quite a long post i agree with you Ryan video games should be kept as a hobby | 2009-12-06 19:47:00 Author: rseah  Posts: 2701 |
| I don't agree with this... Playing video games is great as a hobby, and is usually best kept that way. Of course, if you're job is to play videogames (be it a tester, or if you're good enough gaining your money through competitions) then that's fine and this argument is invalid. There's one major thing wrong with what you are saying... people such as top athletes, top doctors/surgeons and others of that nature do have a purpose, and that is making this world we live in a better place. The athletes bring entertainment to this world (unfortuanatly there are thugs who take things too seriously and fight over sport... but thats pathetic and on their hands), the doctors SAVE LIVES, and heck... the poor people who pick up rubbish in the street for a living make the world a more hygienic place. The only reason they of course get paid so little for an important and needed job is that it's a job anyone could do, and requires little knowledge and little skill. But that's irrelevant. People who play video games generally don't serve any greater purpose to the world. You ask what use does the ability to kick a ball as a whole serve outside the realm of soccer? Indeed it doesn't have a use, but that doesn't matter because that's his job. The skill is obviously important for is job and earns him alot of money so there is a practical use. On the other hand, what use does it have to be able to fight off demons and elves in a virtual reality? I can't really see any. Sure, he could sell his character and earn a few bob (nowhere near worth the hours he put in), but if he was going to do that he might as well get a trainer (or whatever the program thing is, a mate in uni used it) to play the game for him while he is out making something of himself and then sell this character in the evening once it is top level. Or just play it himself (say a few hours each evening) and do this. The problem is the guy who has beat this game must have a poor social life and not a very good job (if any). We know there are people out there who play WoW non stop for months on end and never complete it, so how is it this guy has? Clearly the hours he has put in this game must be insane. You also started off by saying rewards in life are pointless. I suppose they are really in a certain extent, because when I used to skateboard and ollie'd my first 7 stair set I felt a huge achievement, something I also get out of video games too. However, saying the jobs people do are pointless is quite ignorant. Jobs aren't in this world because we as a human race decided it is fun to suffer (lolwut), but because jobs are needed to make the world run. It seems that you need to open your eyes a bit in that respect. To justify someone who has wasted many hours of their life on a game machine by saying that everything else is pointless so what he's doing is fine is a very naive thing to say. To say that 'the only thing that makes it worthwhile is the feeling of self-worth you get from it, even if it's all just an illusion' is very selfish. It comes off that you aren't much of a people's person (I'm not saying you aren't, in fact I'm led to believe you are from your time on LBPC here ). There's a brilliant Friends episode which actually is based on that sentence, in a way, and shows that every good action you ever do is because it makes you feel better. Why are you a doctor? Because it makes YOU feel good that you saved someones life. Apparently there is no selfless good deed. It's a funny episode, but in the end of the day you also make other people feel better and that is what is important (as I stated before). Making this world a better place. Innit, lol.And you're argument on WoW being real just makes no sense, to me anyway. Of course WoW is real. It's a real game. But that doesn't stop it from being just that. A virtual reality and real life are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. In games there are no real consequences for you actions. Okay so you're playing GTA:IV and you have to decide whether to kill Dwayne or Playboy X. There are consequences for your actions in game. But where it's different is that if you make a mistake... you can just do it again. In real life there are no second lives, and no turning back time. I am sorry if I seem like a total **** from all this, but there's some things in life I feel quite strongly about. Don't get me wrong, I love videogames, and I play them alot. I've spent alot of money on them, and will continue to do so. But what it must be kept at is a hobby, and not an addiction. There is a distinct difference between the two and many people don't realise when the two have intertwined for them. This guy seems like a prime example. I will actually argue against a few of my points myself lol. I mentioned that videogames bring only self worthy satisfaction unlike real life. Now one marvellous game has actually changed that. LittleBigPlanet (ofcourse there were others before like GarrysMod but this is the biggest mainstream one yet) actually brings satisfaction to others through the sharing of levels, and is truly a fantastic game. It brings happiness and people together. For some it has brought fame. So this is one of those exceptions. Having my level be mentioned on the sony US blog brought me a huge amount of achievement. However, I still stand by when saying that its best kept at a hobby and not an addiction. I doubt anyone will read this fully through but at least its out of my system This shows you didn't get what he was saying, and yes I did read it fully. He didn't say jobs are pointless. It's a philosophy referring to life in general and what people do to spend their time living it. You get nothing for anything you do in life except a feeling of self-worth, whether you saved a life or completed a hard game 100%. Now if I had the opportunity to save a life, would I feel better about that then accomplishing an amazing gaming feat? Of course I would. But that isn't the point. And you said athletes make the world a better place. No they don't, not any more than a videogame would. They are both forms of games for the purpose of entertainment. There is professional gaming just the same as their are professional leagues in sports. And just for the record, games do serve a purpose. Video games are good exercise for the mind/mentality, but at the sacrifice of physical exercise. However people can maintain a balance between both. Once upon a time researchers believed that gaming served no purpose and was bad kids. However it's been easily proven to improve motor skills, and in certain games intelligence. I got into philosophy and ancient history from playing RPGs. Oh, and even though games are simulations, a lot of those simulations imitate the real thing. Someone that doesn't even know how to fly a plane could easily being in a serious situation where the pilot isn't cnscious and he/she must try and land the plane saving everyone's lives, and they might say use what they know from a game that simulates real flying. Also, the army uses video games in their training for reasons I've already given. Research it if you don't believe. So games do serve a purpose. Everything in life serves a purpose. But to put a value on those purposes is pointless in the end. The problem is that some people aren't looking at the bigger picture. | 2009-12-06 20:20:00 Author: Unknown User |
| This shows you didn't get what he was saying, and yes I did read it fully. He didn't say jobs are pointless. But you didn't quite get what I was saying either... my conclusion was that videogames should be kept to a hobby. The guy we are talking about here has indeed achieved an amazing feat of completing WoW, but it will always be looked down upon by most people. Why? Because think of what he could of accomplished in the real world in that time to make his way of life better! He could of earned money to make his life more comfortable, assuming he isn't loaded, and if he is there is so much more to life than just money anyway, he could always do something else. [argues self] Now this is all lovely talking about what he could of done but lets face it, who really goes out there every day and gives it their all? People who are actually somewhere, and to be honest there's not many people like that in this world (I'm certainly not for example). Anyway I've trailed off again. This guy deserves no awards, because he already has them. The little bars being full on that screen is the most rewarding thing for him, as he is the first person to ever do so. And I do think it's sad. One of the greatest things in life is friends and socializing. Face to face. I'm all up for facebook and talking to people online (I do have a few friends I game with, some I've never met and that's all dandy) but when one only has the internet, nomatter who's online, you can still feel very very lonely. I know I have at times when my friends aren't about. I suppose what I'm trying to say is - the kid (man?) needs to get out more. If he does - great. I don't know him, I don't know his way of life, but I've already said how it seems he's an addict. It's a philosophy referring to life in general and what people do to spend their time living it. You get nothing for anything you do in life except a feeling of self-worth, whether you saved a life or completed a hard game 100%. With a job you get money. Which gives you the ability to live a comfortable life. A videogame doesn't give this. There's quite a clear distinction. The philosophy is just, well, a philosophy. If you can get at what I'm saying... Now if I had the opportunity to save a life, would I feel better about that then accomplishing an amazing gaming feat? Of course I would. But that isn't the point. Indeed. And you said athletes make the world a better place. No they don't, not any more than a videogame would. They are both forms of games for the purpose of entertainment. There is professional gaming just the same as their are professional leagues in sports. I was referring to jobs, not athletes as individuals as making the world a better place >.> It cannot be denied that jobs make this world better. Maybe some don't, but in general they really do. This really isn't part of my argument as a whole but oh well. Now it's on the table... lol. And as I stated at the beginning, my arguments are invalid against professional gaming.[/quote] And just for the record, games do serve a purpose. Video games are good exercise for the mind/mentality, but at the sacrifice of physical exercise. However people can maintain a balance between both. Once upon a time researchers believed that gaming served no purpose and was bad kids. However it's been easily proven to improve motor skills, and in certain games intelligence. I got into philosophy and ancient history from playing RPGs. I've never disagreed with this. However, video games are good exercise in moderation, which is my point all along. Looking at a screen all day is very bad for your mind, both physically and mentally. But yeah, I have got into things I never thought I would through gaming, I agree, but this isn't part of what I'm trying to say. Oh, and even though games are simulations, a lot of those simulations imitate the real thing. Someone that doesn't even know how to fly a plane could easily being in a serious situation where the pilot isn't cnscious and he/she must try and land the plane saving everyone's lives, and they might say use what they know from a game that simulates real flying. That's an extreme example but yes I see your point. Also, the army uses video games in their training for reasons I've already given. Research it if you don't believe. So games do serve a purpose. Oh I've read plenty on it I did say that people don't generally serve a purpose because there are exceptions. But let's face it, most of the people who play videogames are on an RPG or an FPS or whatever which really isn't doing much for them.Everything in life serves a purpose. But to put a value on those purposes is pointless in the end. Well, I disagree. If I was to compare the purpose of someone with a mundane job (say standing in a production line of bottles checking each one is made correctly) compared to someone on Modern Warfare 2 about to save the world from nuclear disaster... I'd say this bottle guy has more of an importance  HOWEVER, I wouldn't say some guy at the top of a business as a manager is more important than this bottle guy. Sure, in practicality of course he is, but a job is a job and I treat everyone as equals. All opinion there, no facts. Anyway all this job talk is so irrelevant. Just saying lol.The problem is that some people aren't looking at the bigger picture. Errr that's my point exactly xD | 2009-12-06 21:39:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767 |
| Right, My two cents in a nutshell, Hes payin' for the game, Is it his fault if he wants to get some achievement out of it? its like saying creating in LBP is pointless because you feel happy when you get lots of hearts on your level, all im saying is, If you paid for something and it makes you happy Do it! | 2009-12-06 22:10:00 Author: Kern  Posts: 5078 |
Wow, this is getting a bit heated  Of course I missed what most people would have talked about and went straight to the pictures (ADD kicked in...) | 2009-12-06 22:20:00 Author: Hibbsi Posts: 203 |
| You also started off by saying rewards in life are pointless. I suppose they are really in a certain extent, because when I used to skateboard and ollie'd my first 7 stair set I felt a huge achievement, something I also get out of video games too. However, saying the jobs people do are pointless is quite ignorant. Jobs aren't in this world because we as a human race decided it is fun to suffer (lolwut), but because jobs are needed to make the world run. It seems that you need to open your eyes a bit in that respect. To justify someone who has wasted many hours of their life on a game machine by saying that everything else is pointless so what he's doing is fine is a very naive thing to say. You know how little kids always ask "why"? They ask why until you get to a point where it's like "Gee, I guess there really is no reason". Jobs are pointless. They just help people make money, or they help people, or they help the world, but what good does that do? In the vast scheme of things, we're nothing. To paraphrase Prince of Persia, we're just a grain of sand in the desert. If you remove one grain of sand, the desert will continue on as always. I think you need to open your eyes to the fact that the Universe doesn't need Earth. If Earth exploded right now, the Universe would go on unaffected. I guess I shouldn't have chosen that sports analogy, so what about climbing Mount Everest? It certainly isn't for entertainment, and it isn't to help the world, unless it's for charity or something, so what's the point? I'll tell you what: self accomplishment, much like this guy from playing World at Warcraft. He's the best at World at Warcraft. I don't understand what's wrong with striving to be the best at something, whether it be picking your nose or eating your poop. I am sorry if I seem like a total **** from all this, but there's some things in life I feel quite strongly about. Don't get me wrong, I love videogames, and I play them alot. I've spent alot of money on them, and will continue to do so. But what it must be kept at is a hobby, and not an addiction. There is a distinct difference between the two and many people don't realise when the two have intertwined for them. This guy seems like a prime example. Addiction and dedication are almost synonymous, aren't they? Each have different connotations, but they are almost the same. I love music. I make music every day. I can practice for hours and hours on end. Does that make me dedicated or addicted? I guess the difference between dedication and addiction is that dedication is something that you push yourself to do and an addiction is something you feel like you have to do, but I honestly feel like I need to play music when I get the urge. I think we can't control doing these things we like so much. Drug addiction, well that's a different story. | 2009-12-06 23:06:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| lol. Yeah you do have a point, but also think that if everyone thought like that, so if all the grains of sand were taken out of the desert... then where's the desert?? Teamwork is needed I don't think people need to open their eyes that much and look at it in the scope of the universe... cause it really wouldn't get you anywhere. I mean, nearly every human, in the scope of the world, won't even reach outside of our planet. Infact it would be silly to think at such an open state. People need to have an open mind while staying as a pretty down to earth person, as the saying goes. And yeah that is a perfect example, as there is nothing out of it for anyone else. I'm sure he'd do other things with his life too, just like I'm sure (well, more towards hope) that this guy who completed WoW does other things with his life. I just don't feel that staring at a screen all day is healthy. I still do it myself, but I also have a good social life, which may be questionable about this WoW guy. Oh well in the end of the day it's opinions, some will salute, some will do the opposite. | 2009-12-06 23:25:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767 |
| 1 grain can wear down a mountain | 2009-12-07 18:27:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Oh, i forgot to mention... WoW is ****.... So not only has he wasted his life, he's done it on a really bad game. /fail | 2009-12-07 18:30:00 Author: Unknown User |
| @Ryan: Yeah, I did get what you were saying as you just repeated it and my reply was to that. The point is no one in life is more important than someone else. The person that saved someone's life is worth no more than someone playing a video game or the homeless man down the block. They are all people living a life. In the long run you don't know what the results are, and even right then at that moment. Everything most people think they know comes from what they hear and see in life from other people and their surroundings. But some people think outside the box, the wise-person. But back to what I said earlier the wise-person is not worth more than those that allow themselves to be programmed by others, their surroundings, books, etc, because wise or not we all arrive at the same point. No matter what we do with our time living we all end up at the same point. You can't put a value on things because the value is the same no matter what you do. And as for the things people do, unless you know everything (which is impossible for a human to know), then you do not know the chain of events or results of any given action, whether that action is playing a game or saving a life. It could have bad or good results, but regardless of whether the results are good or bad, those results are still something happening during your time living. Also, you use a lot of stereotypes. That is another thing that is wrong. As for your RPG comment, all genres of games have good results, even the FPSs, but any given thing can have bad results also. Anyways, take murder for example. Is murdering someone wrong? Or is it a natural part of life? Sure, I think it's wrong, but that is because it is what I've been taught. But I know it is a natural thing much like it is in the animal kingdom. People murder a lot. Those animals that are butchered to be meat on someone's plate. That is murder. A human's life is no more valuable than an animals. People and animals kill out of survival. However, I am glad that order is kept in most of the world. Or what about people that say that song is a bad song? No, there is no such thing as a bad song because there will always be people out there that like it. Therefor the song is only bad to that person, and enjoyable to another. Or take curse words? Are they really bad words or just words? I mean somehow when you combine an f, a u, a c, and a k it magically forms a bad word. That is simply because a human put a meaning behind it. What is a rock? Sure, humans called it a rock, but what is it really called? Or is it called anything? School is another good example. Many would say school is a good thing. But school does just as much harm as it does good. It's not a safe place to be, which results in a lot of drop-outs. I really admire people that drop-out and forge their own path and become successful in what they do. Graduating is no better than dropping out. They both can have good or bad results and what you do after is again something you do to spend your time until death. And for another example, being the president of the country is no more important than playing a video game. If you are somehow living, regardless of how you're doing it, then you are spending your time until your turn to die comes. Even someone saved by paramedics is only having their life prolonged, but eventually you can't be saved. And what happens next no one knows. Anyways, here is something to think about . . . If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? There's some food for thought. One of my favorite famous quotes of all time. | 2009-12-07 20:17:00 Author: Unknown User |
| *sneaks in...* ...I agree with the South Park... *...sneaks out...* | 2009-12-07 21:34:00 Author: KoRnDawwg  Posts: 1424 |
| I love that episode of south park. What's even funnier is that I loved it before playing WoW, then after I'd played WoW I actualyl enjoyed it more, even though I was technically the butt of the joke TBH, spending that much time on a single game is kinda pointless, especially when you consider he must've done many of the early quests just for the sake of doing them when he was at a much higher level. i.e. there would be no in-game reason for doing them, no XP, no quest items; there would be no challenge in them either. Other than ticking them off your list, there is no motivation for achieving them. I can't understand how anyone can actually gain any enjoyment from that TBH - it's more akin to a to-do list of household chores than a hobby. *looks at list of household chores* *sighs* *switches off LittleBigPlanet* | 2009-12-07 22:04:00 Author: rtm223  Posts: 6497 |
| @Ryan: Yeah, I did get what you were saying as you just repeated it and my reply was to that. The point is no one in life is more important than someone else. The person that saved someone's life is worth no more than someone playing a video game or the homeless man down the block. They are all people living a life. In the long run you don't know what the results are, and even right then at that moment. Everything most people think they know comes from what they hear and see in life from other people and their surroundings. But some people think outside the box, the wise-person. But back to what I said earlier the wise-person is not worth more than those that allow themselves to be programmed by others, their surroundings, books, etc, because wise or not we all arrive at the same point. No matter what we do with our time living we all end up at the same point. You can't put a value on things because the value is the same no matter what you do. And as for the things people do, unless you know everything (which is impossible for a human to know), then you do not know the chain of events or results of any given action, whether that action is playing a game or saving a life. It could have bad or good results, but regardless of whether the results are good or bad, those results are still something happening during your time living. Also, you use a lot of stereotypes. That is another thing that is wrong. As for your RPG comment, all genres of games have good results, even the FPSs, but any given thing can have bad results also. Anyways, take murder for example. Is murdering someone wrong? Or is it a natural part of life? Sure, I think it's wrong, but that is because it is what I've been taught. But I know it is a natural thing much like it is in the animal kingdom. People murder a lot. Those animals that are butchered to be meat on someone's plate. That is murder. A human's life is no more valuable than an animals. People and animals kill out of survival. However, I am glad that order is kept in most of the world. Or what about people that say that song is a bad song? No, there is no such thing as a bad song because there will always be people out there that like it. Therefor the song is only bad to that person, and enjoyable to another. Or take curse words? Are they really bad words or just words? I mean somehow when you combine an f, a u, a c, and a k it magically forms a bad word. That is simply because a human put a meaning behind it. What is a rock? Sure, humans called it a rock, but what is it really called? Or is it called anything? School is another good example. Many would say school is a good thing. But school does just as much harm as it does good. It's not a safe place to be, which results in a lot of drop-outs. I really admire people that drop-out and forge their own path and become successful in what they do. Graduating is no better than dropping out. They both can have good or bad results and what you do after is again something you do to spend your time until death. And for another example, being the president of the country is no more important than playing a video game. If you are somehow living, regardless of how you're doing it, then you are spending your time until your turn to die comes. Even someone saved by paramedics is only having their life prolonged, but eventually you can't be saved. And what happens next no one knows. Anyways, here is something to think about . . . If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? There's some food for thought. One of my favorite famous quotes of all time. Of course it does. Just because no one can hear it doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound. Seeing as sound is created through the vibration of air, for it not to mka e a sound it would have to make no impact whatsoever, or the air would vibrate. It would have to slice perfectly through the air, or the air would make a noise because i would vibrate etc. etc. Just because no one hears it doesn't mean the laws of physics and sound change. ---------------- Now playing: Killswitch Engage - Rose Of Sharyn (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/killswitch+engage/track/rose+of+sharyn) via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/) | 2009-12-07 22:44:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Of course it does. Just because no one can hear it doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound. Seeing as sound is created through the vibration of air, for it not to mka e a sound it would have to make no impact whatsoever, or the air would vibrate. It would have to slice perfectly through the air, or the air would make a noise because i would vibrate etc. etc. Just because no one hears it doesn't mean the laws of physics and sound change. The vibrations of the air reaches our ears, which transform the input to electric pulses, which are translated into 'sound' by our brain. (Contrary to what most people think, we actually hear/see/taste/feel with our brain.) No, a falling tree does not produce sound. A falling tree vibrates the air around it. | 2009-12-08 01:20:00 Author: ffha  Posts: 48 |
| 1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. Technically, a tree falling in the forest with no one being around to hear it does not make a sound. This definition from Dictionary.com. | 2009-12-08 01:50:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I say the trees plot against us when we aren't around. They whisper to each other plotting our demise. | 2009-12-08 01:56:00 Author: chezhead  Posts: 1063 |
| *sneaks in...* ...I agree with the South Park... *...sneaks out...* I thought the South Park episode was hilarious because it did what I think in every sandbox game. I hectically try to complete all these missions, then when I finish them, I exhale a sigh of relief and say "Now, I can finally play the game." It's the same odd mentality that I have sometimes. | 2009-12-08 01:57:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| So the "speed of sound"... explain that one chaps, if you're feeling clever if it's not sound until it reaches our ears, then how do we have a speed of sound in the air. Also, explain the term "sound engineer" - he'd better not be messing around inside my head!! The actual reason why you'd get a "no" from berkeley's (sp?) question is rather more metaphysical than technical. Personally I feel he was being a smarmy git, but the underlying philosophy is quite interesting. The idea of perception of sound vs the actual sound is exactly what the whole thing is about. Looking up a (probably quite erroneous and at best over-simplified) definition in an abridged dictionary misses the entire point... | 2009-12-08 02:01:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| See, there's my point. Every single person that answered that question failed. And why is that? The wise person knows that can't be answered. While everyone else will try and answer it based on how they've been programmed/taught, whether it be from school, a book, tv, or others in general or any observations. It's much the same as how the unwise person believes time exists, but the wise person knows time is an illusion. That tree question happens to be the most famous question in philosophy, and the question in and of itself is the ultimate example of why no one can truely know anything. | 2009-12-08 04:45:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Just looking in here at the end of this thread (IE, the last post), so if it's in some context that I'm unaware of from previous posts, please correct me ... That tree question happens to be the most famous question in philosophy, and the question in and of itself is the ultimate example of why no one can truely know anything. The tree in the forest thing ... I actually believe that needs to be updated. Because scientifically, yes - it creates a soundwave, based on how we define what a soundwave is, and we could hypothetical detect and confirm it without ever hearing it. The essence of it is good, but the phrasing of it is arguably a bit obsolete now-a-days. (Much like the "Chicken and the Egg", by the way - it was the egg, by a huge gap of time) Personally, I think a better version of the question may be to ponder the difference between a universe with no living things (now, past, or ever) alive to witness it (a "dead" universe), and no universe at all, and see if you can attribute any more value to one than the other. Don't get me wrong, I'll all for Socrates and "knowing that you know nothing". It's just that in a day and age that we know a bit more about the physical world, we should probably choose new "proofs" of our ignorance. | 2009-12-08 04:52:00 Author: Jagrevi Posts: 1154 |
| See, there's my point. Every single person that answered that question failed. And why is that? The wise person knows that can't be answered. While everyone else will try and answer it based on how they've been programmed/taught, whether it be from school, a book, tv, or others in general or any observations. It's much the same as how the unwise person believes time exists, but the wise person knows time is an illusion. That tree question happens to be the most famous question in philosophy, and the question in and of itself is the ultimate example of why no one can truely know anything. Okay, this is getting ridiculously off topic. Extremely ridiculously off topic. How did we come to this tree thing, anyway? I guess it really depends on your definition of sound. It would produce soundwaves, and if that's what you mean by "making sound" then yes, it would make a sound. If you mean that you sound as in the sense, no, you do not sense the tree falling. Define "make a sound" and I can give you an answer. That "philosophical" question, to me, is stupid. It's like "If there's a medium-rare steak sitting at the dinner table and no one is there to eat it, does it have a taste?" Well, of course it has a taste, silly. You can't taste it though, because you aren't there. If you were there, it you could taste it, and it's my understanding that things don't have a taste just when I enter the room because a lot of other people say they taste things as well. You could go to an extreme and say that flavor and sound might be controlled by little invisible imps who preform mischief when we aren't around, twisting time and warping reality, but that would mean you got rid of all logic. Does a tape recorder count as someone there to hear the sound? Is the tree in space? Falling doesn't constitute making a sound. There's not a problem with trying to answer. It's just that the question is too broad. "It's much the same as how the unwise person believes time exists, but the wise person knows time is an illusion." So you define wisdom, huh? That seems a bit smug of you, but whatever. Time is an illusion? Really? What do you mean "time"? I'm pretty sure time needs to exist. It may not be fixed, but it does exist. It's just the flow from event to event. Okay, no one can "know" anything for sure, but that's where logic steps in. It's up to you to have enough sense to know that there aren't little invisible imps controlling time and space while you're away. While it's a possibility, it's also retarded. | 2009-12-08 06:21:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| No person is more wise than the next. Maybe in specific subjects yes, but not in general. Cause in the end of the day it's all opinion. This time, flavour, sound etc talk is nonsense. Getting back on topic... WoW kid, get your butt outside. | 2009-12-08 12:39:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767 |
| i got abused for telling my friends who play WoW that someone beat the game "No they havent!" "Its impossible to beat the game!" "What about the dailys?" "You know nothing michael" | 2009-12-08 18:43:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| You can prove that a tree makes a sound by leaving a video camera there. No one is there to hear it, yet it will all be picked up by a camera so you can see it alter. The world doesn't change as soon as humans leave. When i walk through a forest, i don't expect everything to appear normal until i leave, at which point leprechauns come out with their pots of gold, the foxes plot against the hares, and the birds began a bird song version of Pachabels canon. Things stay the same, regardless of whether a human is there or not. | 2009-12-08 22:42:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Ok, how can I say this... This person played WoW. A lot. Maybe he had a reason. Maybe not. We don't know, and will never know. It is quite unique, this story, but that doesn't mean that we should judge what somebody did that was out of the ordinary. I don't condone playing any game that much, but then again, I don't know why this particular person would if they didn't have a reason. Their reason may be obsession, perfectionism, or maybe WoW was just that darn fun to them that they wanted to play it all of the time. So, it may not seem reasonable to anybody, including me, that a person should play a game that much. BUT, that was that person's life, their choice, and it does not affect what we make our lives and our choices. So why insult the guy? Once again, I do not understand why on earth somebody would have that much dedication to a game, but I am saying that it should not be such a heated debate, and that we should, in general, look at this and say, "well that's cool/interesting/different/strange/unbelievable!" and then discuss what happened, not debate over whether this guy has a life or not. He has a life, and he chooses to play WoW in it. I've heard stranger stories, to be honest. Not to say that this guy shouldn't find other things to do too, but who knows, he may already have a bunch of hobbies and he's just that ridiculous at WoW and he is able to complete everything really fast. Unlikely, but not impossible. You can prove that a tree makes a sound by leaving a video camera there. No one is there to hear it, yet it will all be picked up by a camera so you can see it alter. The world doesn't change as soon as humans leave. When i walk through a forest, i don't expect everything to appear normal until i leave, at which point leprechauns come out with their pots of gold, the foxes plot against the hares, and the birds began a bird song version of Pachabels canon. Things stay the same, regardless of whether a human is there or not. Although we've diverged from the subject, I think that, even though you have said what is logically sensible, you've missed part of what it meant. If the phenomenon in question is observed in any way, then the resulting effects of that phenomenon will be detected as they would first-hand by a person that is capable of detecting the same thing. So, there's no way to tell what happens when 'nobody is there to hear it' because observing by any means, be it video, audio, or any type of recording, or witnessing it personally, would mean that there was 'somebody there to hear it', and therefore you wouldn't be able to hear what happens when there is nobody to hear it, because you are there to hear it. The whole phrase is meant as an example of a paradox, where the act of observing is the variable in question. To observe what happens when nobody is observing is impossible. | 2009-12-08 23:36:00 Author: Hibbsi Posts: 203 |
| Just looking in here at the end of this thread (IE, the last post), so if it's in some context that I'm unaware of from previous posts, please correct me ... The tree in the forest thing ... I actually believe that needs to be updated. Because scientifically, yes - it creates a soundwave, based on how we define what a soundwave is, and we could hypothetical detect and confirm it without ever hearing it. The essence of it is good, but the phrasing of it is arguably a bit obsolete now-a-days. (Much like the "Chicken and the Egg", by the way - it was the egg, by a huge gap of time) Personally, I think a better version of the question may be to ponder the difference between a universe with no living things (now, past, or ever) alive to witness it (a "dead" universe), and no universe at all, and see if you can attribute any more value to one than the other. Don't get me wrong, I'll all for Socrates and "knowing that you know nothing". It's just that in a day and age that we know a bit more about the physical world, we should probably choose new "proofs" of our ignorance. No actually. There's a reason the question is used all the time in philosophy courses. Read Hibbs reply above, his text beneath the quote. Okay, this is getting ridiculously off topic. Extremely ridiculously off topic. How did we come to this tree thing, anyway? I guess it really depends on your definition of sound. It would produce soundwaves, and if that's what you mean by "making sound" then yes, it would make a sound. If you mean that you sound as in the sense, no, you do not sense the tree falling. Define "make a sound" and I can give you an answer. That "philosophical" question, to me, is stupid. It's like "If there's a medium-rare steak sitting at the dinner table and no one is there to eat it, does it have a taste?" Well, of course it has a taste, silly. You can't taste it though, because you aren't there. If you were there, it you could taste it, and it's my understanding that things don't have a taste just when I enter the room because a lot of other people say they taste things as well. You could go to an extreme and say that flavor and sound might be controlled by little invisible imps who preform mischief when we aren't around, twisting time and warping reality, but that would mean you got rid of all logic. Does a tape recorder count as someone there to hear the sound? Is the tree in space? Falling doesn't constitute making a sound. There's not a problem with trying to answer. It's just that the question is too broad. "It's much the same as how the unwise person believes time exists, but the wise person knows time is an illusion." So you define wisdom, huh? That seems a bit smug of you, but whatever. Time is an illusion? Really? What do you mean "time"? I'm pretty sure time needs to exist. It may not be fixed, but it does exist. It's just the flow from event to event. Okay, no one can "know" anything for sure, but that's where logic steps in. It's up to you to have enough sense to know that there aren't little invisible imps controlling time and space while you're away. While it's a possibility, it's also retarded. Your post is the perfect example of the prdinary mind, or the mind that's been programmed by other humans, a mind that lacks the ability to function to its fullest. This is not an insult though for the reason I give below. And this is where many lack understanding. Over 90% of the world's population will not understand the question because it is extremely rare for someone to have a mind capable of perceiving in ways that they weren't taught to perceive. Read Hibbs reply to this above. How do you know about sound waves? That is something that was observed by humans, and as Hibbs said if the sound is recorded in any way, then it is being witnessed. The point in general is that if no one is around to hear it, then what? You can't know. It's impossible to know. As for the existence of time. It doesn't exist. Time is a way to record and plan events and keep track of the position of the sun and earth made by humans. These are called illusions as they are things humans forged/created, which can easily make one forget about the reality of things. If time existed, then we would be many years past the 1960s. Every day is not a new day. It is the same day repeating itself over and over. The earth circles around the sun turning on it's axis in a continuous rut. But what we do in that day is what makes it different and what humans call time. And your imp comment also proves that lack of understanding. How do you know what exists and what doesn't? You don't. You are using a programmed logic, which is how we're taught from birth, which is a suppression of a human's full potential of mind. Therefor your judgement and observation is limited. It is like that for most, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You can be very smart, but your intelligence might not be capable of thinking past human illusions. And for this reason, it is futile for me or anyone else to try and explain it. I would be silly for trying to explain it, as I just did, lol. EDIT: I don't mean the ordinary mind comment the way it comes across. It's hard to explain what I mean and can easily be taken as an insult. I just can't think of how to word it without it sounding the wrong way. I was referring to a way of thinking that is outside the ordinary mind. It wasn't meant to say you lack intelligence, so I hope you didn't get that impression. | 2009-12-09 05:14:00 Author: Unknown User |
| The thing is though sNs is that while you say these things, they are from what you may have read or been taught. Therefore if what you are saying is true, then what you are saying is nonsense because it is an opinion of that from a 'mind that's been programmed by other humans'. Or if you are getting this from nowhere, then ofcourse that once again is nonsense. I don't mean to be rude, I'm just pointing out an observation. EDIT: And of the talk of time, there is no point in discussing it. Through my course in uni I have realised that time is a very relative thing. | 2009-12-09 11:28:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767 |
| Just popping in to say that time is indeed relative. As a frame of reference obtains speeds of a relativistic magnitude (anything above half the speed of light, really) with respect to another frame of reference, the way that these two frames of reference perceive time will vary. By extension, then, the way that these two frames perceive distance (and a few other physical quantities) will vary. It's really very wild stuff, and it can actually be proven on Earth using high speed particles (as you'd expect to find in the Large Hadron Collider). If you want to get more into the whole relativity thing, it's known that our universe is surrounded by uncertainty. When you consider the exact position of an object, you are considering something that does not exist. We cannot actually find the exact position of something to any degree of certainty. If it sounds all very convoluted... that's because it kind of is! /Modern Physics. ---- Edit: Dangit, where is my head!?  Guys, this has nothing to do with the WoW post initially made. Or does it? I dunno. Let's either try to stay on topic, or perhaps we should make another thread to discuss such things. I know I sound hypocritical, by someone else had pointed it out to me. I am at fault, too! What do you say...? Take this elsewhere? | 2009-12-09 11:45:00 Author: comphermc  Posts: 5338 |
| No actually. There's a reason the question is used all the time in philosophy courses. Read Hibbs reply above, his text beneath the quote. Although we've diverged from the subject, I think that, even though you have said what is logically sensible, you've missed part of what it meant. If the phenomenon in question is observed in any way, then the resulting effects of that phenomenon will be detected as they would first-hand by a person that is capable of detecting the same thing. So, there's no way to tell what happens when 'nobody is there to hear it' because observing by any means, be it video, audio, or any type of recording, or witnessing it personally, would mean that there was 'somebody there to hear it', and therefore you wouldn't be able to hear what happens when there is nobody to hear it, because you are there to hear it. The whole phrase is meant as an example of a paradox, where the act of observing is the variable in question. To observe what happens when nobody is observing is impossible. I've bolded what I believe the problem is with the language of the question, because the implication you're associating with it is not true using modern, common terminology. Again - I understand the premise of it, but it still strikes me as poor wording, as in a modern sense "Being there to hear it" is not strictly the only way to observe it. Setting up an audio-detector to that sends a text message to my phone while I'm in another country, for example, I would not count as "being there to hear it". I would however, count it as a relevant observation for detecting the presence of the phenomena. I would still, at the very least, change it to "What does an unobserved tree falling sound like?" or something more explicit in this way, because in a modern context "Observing Sound" =/= "Being there to hear it", as we live in an era where we can typically make reasonably accurate inference from related data. It's largely how I can measure the temperature of a far away star without "being there to touch it" - I can even observe changes in its temperature (assuming they happened quick enough for me to witness in my lifetime) by witnessing a change in its spectroscopy. You might make the argument that only "being there to hear it" or "being there to touch it" type observations are "true" observations, and other methods are merely inference, but ALL observations, including those with your own ears, are inference, so we still qualify these types of inference as observation. I'm not trying to destroy "the heart of the question" ... it's just that modern understanding of the world DOES often solve paradoxes, so if these type of things want to stay relevant, they should also stay up to pace with human understanding. I brought up the "Chicken and the Egg" thing as a solved paradox, but the list goes on and on. I.E. "Can an object ever bump into itself heading one way while it heads another?" Yes - we now understand that this happens all the time on the quantum level. Of course, there's still mystery to be plumbed here from this situation ... a ton of it, in fact. It's just that the question as it is no longer provides it. No one is, or at least I am not, attempting to devalue the use of paradox to illustrate one's own ignorance. On the contrary, I think those things have value. That being said, if you wish to baffle human understanding, some attempt must be made to keep up with it - and I believe the classical phrasing of the "tree in the forest" question is inches away from getting caught up on a technicality. I know people have a love of "classical" ideas ... but honestly, if your goal is to communicate a base concept to a modern public, it should be put in the language of modern understanding. Tell a group of even remotely educated people about the paradox of "How the Sun can be so massive but does not fall to earth?" now-a-days, and certainly you will get many people noting exactly why that is and why it is to be expected. I'm only calling for the paradox at the core of the question to be put in a better language for a modern audience. Even if you think the old wording is valid, the mere fact that people disagree merely on the basis of terminology goes to evidence that its not a paradox that's been put into relevant, modern language, and should - for the sake of accomplishing it's implied goal - be reworded. Let me address a specific part of the quote that I think also goes to the heart of the matter. Although we've diverged from the subject, I think that, even though you have said what is logically sensible, you've missed part of what it meant. This is, in fact, the problem - but it's a problem that should be put on the construction of the question given that there are alternative versions of the exact same paradox that do not suffer from this "avenue of attack". Posing a question like this in a modern cultural context is a challenge - if the question can be easily answered now than the question has failed - you cannot people to leave a question they can easily answer unchallenged and merely "get" the unsolvable paradox at the heart of it. That doesn't mean the paradox has failed - but it means the "ancient vessel of its communication" has, at least for the effective purposes in a modern forum. Short response - If you are given a logically sensible solution to a question you've asked, but do not feel you communicated what you wish to communicate, you should use a different question. | 2009-12-09 14:38:00 Author: Jagrevi Posts: 1154 |
| "Count" "your" "hours" "on" "lbp" "dudes". | 2009-12-09 15:58:00 Author: BasketSnake  Posts: 2391 |
| Your post is the perfect example of the prdinary mind, or the mind that's been programmed by other humans, a mind that lacks the ability to function to its fullest. This is not an insult though for the reason I give below. Wow ... no, that is an insult - even if you somehow "didn't mean it as one" - and you're fully aware of this. Your post is the perfect example of the prdinary mind, or the mind that's been programmed by other humans, a mind that lacks the ability to function to its fullest. This really sounds like someone managed to sell you a book on tape about "self enlightenment". Yes, we are all "programmed" by the world and society at large - as are you (although the degree to which can vary). Your implied claim to be using the mind "to its fullest", while Awesomeman does not, is something I would be curious to see if you can defend. Furthermore, we're already talking about an agenda here, without having addressed what it is. What is a "Mind functioning to it's fullest"? I mean, I lack agoraphobia, which is itself a mental process - so is this then my mind "not functioning to it's fullest"? It's a mental process that I am lacking. The key here is, that you are claiming that you are going through mental processes that Awesomeman is not. Given by the ton of ... things ... you spew right after this post, I would agree. The question is, however, are these extra mental processes of any value - and that itself, in turn, depends on what your goal is. If we infer a "goal" of mental processes to be to facilitate logical understanding, which is the most practical of all mental goals, I would also argue, then I believe your "heightened mental abilities" are less than admirable. Much like the "heightened mental abilities" of a mild schizophrenic. And this is where many lack understanding. Over 90% of the world's population will not understand the question because it is extremely rare for someone to have a mind capable of perceiving in ways that they weren't taught to perceive. When can a schmoogle eat purpop leaves? Now, I wouldn't be surprised if your one of the common folk and don't understand the REAL meaning behind this question. It's ok if your mind is simply too frail to grasp its true meaning - most don't. That being said - not understanding this question is really not an insult. I have a "meaning" for it - but the question then is ... does my "meaning" have any objective value? How do you know about sound waves? We infer their existence from observation, and repeatedly "bumping up our ideas" against reality in order to test their validity. We set up experiments that have the possibility of showing us if we don't understand sound as well as we think we do, and time and time again the results underline our current understanding of soundwaves. We contend that this is the most practical form of gaining understanding, that knowledge that is not tested is typically of lesser practical value. We understand that this is inference, but it is inference that has allowed us to develop technology with success. The point in general is that if no one is around to hear it, then what? You can't know. It's impossible to know. It's impossible to know anything 100% ever. This doesn't make leprechaun hunting an equally valuable activity as obtaining clean water. That being said, we do "know" of the existence of sound within any reasonable balance of probabilities, and such a knowledge has utility. We are sure enough in the existence of sound to warn people and yell "fire" when the building catches on fire ... and I certainly hope you're confident enough in its existence to do the same. Again, all knowledge is contextual. However, in this context we utilize what we "know" because it has value. As for the existence of time. It doesn't exist. Yes, it does. Time is a dimension that is tied up with space. It's not what most people think it is, admittedly. It is very bizarre and is something we do not fully understand. People's personal mental constructs of time may not exist, but "time", as it is scientifically defined, does "exist" - as "existence" is defined, as we infer its existence through experimentation. Yes, it's all in context of the world as we experience it ... but we define knowledge in the context of the world as we experience it because it is impractical to do otherwise. It often feels like you define knowledge as some sort of omniscience, and then when it fails to meet your standards of omniscience, you toss it away as invalid - or at least claim to. You are correct that knowledge is not omniscience, and that everything we "know" is only in the context that we know. That being said, I wonder if you do not "know" that you should eat again sometime this month. If time existed, then we would be many years past the 1960s. Is there any logic behind this statement whatsoever? How is this any more valid than "If time existed, then we would be many years BEFORE the 1960s." Every day is not a new day. It is the same day repeating itself over and over. Define "day". The earth circles around the sun turning on it's axis in a continuous rut. Not forever. How do you know what exists and what doesn't? We never (omniscience) know anything. We do however (practical/applicable) know alot. Within the context we live, we can use knowledge to make accurate predictions. That's why it's practical. You are using a programmed logic, which is how we're taught from birth, which is a suppression of a human's full potential of mind. So logic is "not a mind's full potential", implying that to meet our "mind's full potential" we should engage in the illogical. Again ... when we are talking about "potential", we need to determine what our agenda is. For example, I've failed to meet my potential of standing, drooling in the middle of the freeway today. However, in practical terms, I highly recommend everyone fail to meet this 'potential'. So I ask you - what VALUE is this extra mental process of yours? I can go find many people with "extra mental processes" that I would hardly recommend they brag about. Therefor your judgement and observation is limited. Of course, this is implied before a conversation even begins. Knowledge is contextual, not omniscience. It is like that for most, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You can be very smart, but your intelligence might not be capable of thinking past human illusions. And we get back to the heart of the matter. We do not employ logic out of any oppression save that inherent in existence itself. We do so, because it is practical - it is how we survive, it is how we keep civilization functioning. However, yes, none of these things has any inherent value. They are necessary though, if continued survival is anywhere near the top of your priorities. There are realms of thought beyond logic, of course. For example ... delusional bliss, or blabbering idiocy. And yes, should you choose some other mode of thought, there is nothing of any inherent lesser value in it ... however, in the practical context we live in, you would still be in delusional bliss, or blabbering idiocy. | 2009-12-09 16:13:00 Author: Jagrevi Posts: 1154 |
| This thread is now really interesting. *grabs pop-corn* . | 2009-12-09 20:17:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| This thread makes me think of this http://mohel.dk/grafik/andet/Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg | 2009-12-09 21:00:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767 |
| The South Park video is in french | 2009-12-09 21:10:00 Author: phil_003  Posts: 609 |
| No actually. There's a reason the question is used all the time in philosophy courses. Read Hibbs reply above, his text beneath the quote. Your post is the perfect example of the prdinary mind, or the mind that's been programmed by other humans, a mind that lacks the ability to function to its fullest. This is not an insult though for the reason I give below. And this is where many lack understanding. Over 90% of the world's population will not understand the question because it is extremely rare for someone to have a mind capable of perceiving in ways that they weren't taught to perceive. Read Hibbs reply to this above. How do you know about sound waves? That is something that was observed by humans, and as Hibbs said if the sound is recorded in any way, then it is being witnessed. The point in general is that if no one is around to hear it, then what? You can't know. It's impossible to know. As for the existence of time. It doesn't exist. Time is a way to record and plan events and keep track of the position of the sun and earth made by humans. These are called illusions as they are things humans forged/created, which can easily make one forget about the reality of things. If time existed, then we would be many years past the 1960s. Every day is not a new day. It is the same day repeating itself over and over. The earth circles around the sun turning on it's axis in a continuous rut. But what we do in that day is what makes it different and what humans call time. And your imp comment also proves that lack of understanding. How do you know what exists and what doesn't? You don't. You are using a programmed logic, which is how we're taught from birth, which is a suppression of a human's full potential of mind. Therefor your judgement and observation is limited. It is like that for most, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You can be very smart, but your intelligence might not be capable of thinking past human illusions. And for this reason, it is futile for me or anyone else to try and explain it. I would be silly for trying to explain it, as I just did, lol. EDIT: I don't mean the ordinary mind comment the way it comes across. It's hard to explain what I mean and can easily be taken as an insult. I just can't think of how to word it without it sounding the wrong way. I was referring to a way of thinking that is outside the ordinary mind. It wasn't meant to say you lack intelligence, so I hope you didn't get that impression. So you know that you can't know anything? That's a paradox. And I know that I don't really know anything. Science is all a bunch of theories that imperfect humans have come up with, but they make sense to me. I know that I can't know anything for sure. We especially can't come up with why reality is the way it is, so that means everything we theorize is pretty much invalid if we don't know why everything is here. We don't even know what reality is. What if this is all just some huge dream? After all, dreams alter our memories and allow us to perceive illogical as logical. Don't act like you're "special" because you realize that we don't know anything, just assume. I'm sure more people have thought about that stuff than you think. I'm sure more than 90% of people (you definitely pulled that out of your ***) can and do think about that kind of stuff. Next time you try to stealthily insult my intelligence, spell ordinary correctly. And you're whole post, as well as mine, is completely hypocritical, but I won't try to explain that to someone who tries to insult someone's intelligence because it's "programmed" by using programmed intelligence. And finally, I would much rather trust in a whole history's worth of mathematicians and scientists who were confident that they knew something rather than someone telling me to believe and know you know (which is again, a paradox) nothing. But that's probably because the magic oompa-loompas behind my eyes are making me think this way. | 2009-12-09 22:06:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| I'm not gonna make myself look like I understand your argument but I do agree that Little Gray has indeed slain one hell of a giant. How he did it we don't know; maybe he did put it an ungodly amount of time into the game, maybe he's extremely skilled at this, honed by past games like Final Fantasy XI and the Elder Scrolls series among others, or maybe he hacked it and the staff didn't realize. All we know is that he mastered a game which practically all of the world's gaming population have at least played once. | 2009-12-09 22:33:00 Author: Grimdour  Posts: 142 |
| I've bolded what I believe the problem is with the language of the question, because the implication you're associating with it is not true using modern, common terminology. Again - I understand the premise of it, but it still strikes me as poor wording, as in a modern sense "Being there to hear it" is not strictly the only way to observe it. Setting up an audio-detector to that sends a text message to my phone while I'm in another country, for example, I would not count as "being there to hear it". I would however, count it as a relevant observation for detecting the presence of the phenomena. I would still, at the very least, change it to "What does an unobserved tree falling sound like?" or something more explicit in this way, because in a modern context "Observing Sound" =/= "Being there to hear it", as we live in an era where we can typically make reasonably accurate inference from related data. It's largely how I can measure the temperature of a far away star without "being there to touch it" - I can even observe changes in its temperature (assuming they happened quick enough for me to witness in my lifetime) by witnessing a change in its spectroscopy. You might make the argument that only "being there to hear it" or "being there to touch it" type observations are "true" observations, and other methods are merely inference, but ALL observations, including those with your own ears, are inference, so we still qualify these types of inference as observation. I'm not trying to destroy "the heart of the question" ... it's just that modern understanding of the world DOES often solve paradoxes, so if these type of things want to stay relevant, they should also stay up to pace with human understanding. I brought up the "Chicken and the Egg" thing as a solved paradox, but the list goes on and on. I.E. "Can an object ever bump into itself heading one way while it heads another?" Yes - we now understand that this happens all the time on the quantum level. Of course, there's still mystery to be plumbed here from this situation ... a ton of it, in fact. It's just that the question as it is no longer provides it. No one is, or at least I am not, attempting to devalue the use of paradox to illustrate one's own ignorance. On the contrary, I think those things have value. That being said, if you wish to baffle human understanding, some attempt must be made to keep up with it - and I believe the classical phrasing of the "tree in the forest" question is inches away from getting caught up on a technicality. I know people have a love of "classical" ideas ... but honestly, if your goal is to communicate a base concept to a modern public, it should be put in the language of modern understanding. Tell a group of even remotely educated people about the paradox of "How the Sun can be so massive but does not fall to earth?" now-a-days, and certainly you will get many people noting exactly why that is and why it is to be expected. I'm only calling for the paradox at the core of the question to be put in a better language for a modern audience. Even if you think the old wording is valid, the mere fact that people disagree merely on the basis of terminology goes to evidence that its not a paradox that's been put into relevant, modern language, and should - for the sake of accomplishing it's implied goal - be reworded. Let me address a specific part of the quote that I think also goes to the heart of the matter. This is, in fact, the problem - but it's a problem that should be put on the construction of the question given that there are alternative versions of the exact same paradox that do not suffer from this "avenue of attack". Posing a question like this in a modern cultural context is a challenge - if the question can be easily answered now than the question has failed - you cannot people to leave a question they can easily answer unchallenged and merely "get" the unsolvable paradox at the heart of it. That doesn't mean the paradox has failed - but it means the "ancient vessel of its communication" has, at least for the effective purposes in a modern forum. Short response - If you are given a logically sensible solution to a question you've asked, but do not feel you communicated what you wish to communicate, you should use a different question. True. At first I misunderstood what you said because of your wording, much the same as my post to Awesomemans was misunderstood based on my poor wording. At first I thought you were trying to say that sound exists because it has been proven. The question could be reworded, but I assumed the general meaning of the question was obvious. But it's apparent that not all will get it. Wow ... no, that is an insult - even if you somehow "didn't mean it as one" - and you're fully aware of this. This really sounds like someone managed to sell you a book on tape about "self enlightenment". Yes, we are all "programmed" by the world and society at large - as are you (although the degree to which can vary). Your implied claim to be using the mind "to its fullest", while Awesomeman does not, is something I would be curious to see if you can defend. Furthermore, we're already talking about an agenda here, without having addressed what it is. What is a "Mind functioning to it's fullest"? I mean, I lack agoraphobia, which is itself a mental process - so is this then my mind "not functioning to it's fullest"? It's a mental process that I am lacking. The key here is, that you are claiming that you are going through mental processes that Awesomeman is not. Given by the ton of ... things ... you spew right after this post, I would agree. The question is, however, are these extra mental processes of any value - and that itself, in turn, depends on what your goal is. If we infer a "goal" of mental processes to be to facilitate logical understanding, which is the most practical of all mental goals, I would also argue, then I believe your "heightened mental abilities" are less than admirable. Much like the "heightened mental abilities" of a mild schizophrenic. When can a schmoogle eat purpop leaves? Now, I wouldn't be surprised if your one of the common folk and don't understand the REAL meaning behind this question. It's ok if your mind is simply too frail to grasp its true meaning - most don't. That being said - not understanding this question is really not an insult. I have a "meaning" for it - but the question then is ... does my "meaning" have any objective value? We infer their existence from observation, and repeatedly "bumping up our ideas" against reality in order to test their validity. We set up experiments that have the possibility of showing us if we don't understand sound as well as we think we do, and time and time again the results underline our current understanding of soundwaves. We contend that this is the most practical form of gaining understanding, that knowledge that is not tested is typically of lesser practical value. We understand that this is inference, but it is inference that has allowed us to develop technology with success. It's impossible to know anything 100% ever. This doesn't make leprechaun hunting an equally valuable activity as obtaining clean water. That being said, we do "know" of the existence of sound within any reasonable balance of probabilities, and such a knowledge has utility. We are sure enough in the existence of sound to warn people and yell "fire" when the building catches on fire ... and I certainly hope you're confident enough in its existence to do the same. Again, all knowledge is contextual. However, in this context we utilize what we "know" because it has value. Yes, it does. Time is a dimension that is tied up with space. It's not what most people think it is, admittedly. It is very bizarre and is something we do not fully understand. People's personal mental constructs of time may not exist, but "time", as it is scientifically defined, does "exist" - as "existence" is defined, as we infer its existence through experimentation. Yes, it's all in context of the world as we experience it ... but we define knowledge in the context of the world as we experience it because it is impractical to do otherwise. It often feels like you define knowledge as some sort of omniscience, and then when it fails to meet your standards of omniscience, you toss it away as invalid - or at least claim to. You are correct that knowledge is not omniscience, and that everything we "know" is only in the context that we know. That being said, I wonder if you do not "know" that you should eat again sometime this month. Is there any logic behind this statement whatsoever? How is this any more valid than "If time existed, then we would be many years BEFORE the 1960s." Define "day". Not forever. We never (omniscience) know anything. We do however (practical/applicable) know alot. Within the context we live, we can use knowledge to make accurate predictions. That's why it's practical. So logic is "not a mind's full potential", implying that to meet our "mind's full potential" we should engage in the illogical. Again ... when we are talking about "potential", we need to determine what our agenda is. For example, I've failed to meet my potential of standing, drooling in the middle of the freeway today. However, in practical terms, I highly recommend everyone fail to meet this 'potential'. So I ask you - what VALUE is this extra mental process of yours? I can go find many people with "extra mental processes" that I would hardly recommend they brag about. Of course, this is implied before a conversation even begins. Knowledge is contextual, not omniscience. And we get back to the heart of the matter. We do not employ logic out of any oppression save that inherent in existence itself. We do so, because it is practical - it is how we survive, it is how we keep civilization functioning. However, yes, none of these things has any inherent value. They are necessary though, if continued survival is anywhere near the top of your priorities. There are realms of thought beyond logic, of course. For example ... delusional bliss, or blabbering idiocy. And yes, should you choose some other mode of thought, there is nothing of any inherent lesser value in it ... however, in the practical context we live in, you would still be in delusional bliss, or blabbering idiocy. As you may or may not know, which I'd be suprised if you haven't caught a glimpse of some of my other posts in the past, I tend to word things wrong a lot. I have a history of this. Anytime I am typing something fast and in a heated debate, this happens. My comment was not an insult, but after reading what I wrote it came across like that as I read it, but since I didn't feel like redoing the post I simply made an edit. You pretty much said what I was trying to say, that not everyone's process of thinking is the same. Some are capable in thinking in ways others can't. This doesn't mean they lack intelligence or are less of a person. The wise way of thinking does not make the wise person better than the ordinary, or any other various ways of thought. Everyone knows something that someone else doesn't, but depending on how you look at it we all know nothing. And as for being programmed, of course I am, although to an extent. It's impossible to not be. In order to not be you would have to know everything differently than what the rest of the world does. Even the words I am typing is a language I was programmed to know, and I use it because in the context of our lives it is all we know to communicate in such a way. This thread makes me think of this http://mohel.dk/grafik/andet/Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg I loled! ^o^ So you know that you can't know anything? That's a paradox. And I know that I don't really know anything. Science is all a bunch of theories that imperfect humans have come up with, but they make sense to me. I know that I can't know anything for sure. We especially can't come up with why reality is the way it is, so that means everything we theorize is pretty much invalid if we don't know why everything is here. We don't even know what reality is. What if this is all just some huge dream? After all, dreams alter our memories and allow us to perceive illogical as logical. Don't act like you're "special" because you realize that we don't know anything, just assume. I'm sure more people have thought about that stuff than you think. I'm sure more than 90% of people (you definitely pulled that out of your ***) can and do think about that kind of stuff. Next time you try to stealthily insult my intelligence, spell ordinary correctly. And you're whole post, as well as mine, is completely hypocritical, but I won't try to explain that to someone who tries to insult someone's intelligence because it's "programmed" by using programmed intelligence. And finally, I would much rather trust in a whole history's worth of mathematicians and scientists who were confident that they knew something rather than someone telling me to believe and know you know (which is again, a paradox) nothing. But that's probably because the magic oompa-loompas behind my eyes are making me think this way. *sighs* You're getting hostile for no reason, lol. Normally I'd respond in a hostile way also, but I know your hostile response was because you mistakenly thought my last post to you was an insult, which is my fault due to poor wording. Special!? Who said anything about being special? No one here is any more special than the next person. That was unexpected. As for the percentage, that is very accurate. Actually, that percentage is less than 10%, but close enough. And your comment on the spelling of ordinary reminds me of all those kids I see on the internet that often (my favorite one) point out some kind of spelling thing, but it makes them look dumb as it's pointless and they assume it was spelled wrong when sometimes people make typos, a lot actually. Anyways, I did not spell ordinary wrong, and if it was spelled wrong somewhere in that post, then it is obviously a typo, or somehow I magically spelled it right in all other uses but then supposedly spell it wrong in one or two uses. And no I haven't looked back to see where the typo was. But I know in my edit it is spelled fine. But that is pointless and silly pointing out typos like that. Anyways, read my response to Jagrevi above if anything needs clarifying. | 2009-12-10 02:00:00 Author: Unknown User |
| This thread makes me think of this http://mohel.dk/grafik/andet/Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg I loled! ^o^ It is rather cute. | 2009-12-10 02:07:00 Author: Jagrevi Posts: 1154 |
| This thread makes me think of this http://mohel.dk/grafik/andet/Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg Haha! XKCD FTW! | 2009-12-10 03:06:00 Author: Hibbsi Posts: 203 |
| True. At first I misunderstood what you said because of your wording, much the same as my post to Awesomemans was misunderstood based on my poor wording. At first I thought you were trying to say that sound exists because it has been proven. The question could be reworded, but I assumed the general meaning of the question was obvious. But it's apparent that not all will get it. My comment was not an insult, but after reading what I wrote it came across like that as I read it, but since I didn't feel like redoing the post I simply made an edit. You pretty much said what I was trying to say, that not everyone's process of thinking is the same. Some are capable in thinking in ways others can't. This doesn't mean they lack intelligence or are less of a person. The wise way of thinking does not make the wise person better than the ordinary, or any other various ways of thought. Everyone knows something that someone else doesn't, but depending on how you look at it we all know nothing. And as for being programmed, of course I am, although to an extent. It's impossible to not be. In order to not be you would have to know everything differently than what the rest of the world does. Even the words I am typing is a language I was programmed to know, and I use it because in the context of our lives it is all we know to communicate in such a way.[/COLOR] I loled! ^o^ *sighs* You're getting hostile for no reason, lol. Normally I'd respond in a hostile way also, but I know your hostile response was because you mistakenly thought my last post to you was an insult, which is my fault due to poor wording. Special!? Who said anything about being special? No one here is any more special than the next person. That was unexpected. As for the percentage, that is very accurate. Actually, that percentage is less than 10%, but close enough. And your comment on the spelling of ordinary reminds me of all those kids I see on the internet that often (my favorite one) point out some kind of spelling thing, but it makes them look dumb as it's pointless and they assume it was spelled wrong when sometimes people make typos, a lot actually. Anyways, I did not spell ordinary wrong, and if it was spelled wrong somewhere in that post, then it is obviously a typo, or somehow I magically spelled it right in all other uses but then supposedly spell it wrong in one or two uses. And no I haven't looked back to see where the typo was. But I know in my edit it is spelled fine. But that is pointless and silly pointing out typos like that. Anyways, read my response to Jagrevi above if anything needs clarifying. So you think that because I choose to think logically instead of philosophically when it comes to a question I personally find stupid, I'm incapable of thinking in that way? Of course there's no way to prove that the tree makes a sound if it's not being recorded or witnessed, but by using common sense and experience I assume it makes a sound. Actually, in my original post I said it didn't make a sound because sound is the sensation when the ears pick up soundwaves, but that doesn't matter. Just because I choose to think logically for one question doesn't mean I'm incapable of thinking differently, I just chose to think a certain way. Yes, it's impossible with current technology to tell if it made a sound (though I bet in the future it could be), but I think it's important to use logic in any situation, be it programmed knowledge or not. I can think philosophically, and I do, but I don't think that way all the time. You know why? No one likes a smug philosopher. I heard somewhere that only a fool would call himself wise. Wisdom is completely subjective, and for that reason, if you think you're wise, you're dumb. (Of course this isn't referring to you, unless you think you're wise...) | 2009-12-10 20:20:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| Golly, what a nerd... /leaves | 2009-12-10 20:26:00 Author: ARD Posts: 4291 |
| Personally, I don't think this is as sad as this (http://kotaku.com/5422154/achievement-chore-she-plays-for-gamerscore-whether-its-fun-or-not), a stay at home mom spending all her money on games to boost her achievement score... So yes, let's debate how useless HER life is instead? :kz: And yes, I'm changing the subject. SUE ME :kz: | 2009-12-10 20:30:00 Author: RockSauron  Posts: 10882 |
| Why spend our time judging others, when it is ourselves we should be judging? | 2009-12-10 20:48:00 Author: Gilgamesh  Posts: 2536 |
| /thread Gilgamesh just imploded it, am i not rite? | 2009-12-10 21:02:00 Author: Astrosimi  Posts: 2046 |
| @Astrosimi Maybe. I don't know. I just thought this thread would have been just a simple "Look at this, he actually did it" type of thing. I never expected for everybody to start giving their critism and defences for this man. Maybe we learned about what not to do in life. Maybe we found an outlet/excuse to release what we feel on this topic. I found this topic both an outlet/excuse to post my reasons why not to obsess over a game. I just hope we don't get out of control, like a "Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!" thing. If it comes to this, I'll delete this thread, hoping to hide and ridden the critism and negative side of our humanity. Seriously, know on likes being singled out for something we think is wrong/right. | 2009-12-11 01:41:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139
Threads: 69970
Members: 9661
Archive-Date: 2019-01-19
Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.