They're not unrelated. The first of those paragraphs explains what he means by "enemies" in the other. He is introducing a concept before using it.

Yes. Light guns are for vampire hunting.

to me it seemed like the heart of the post: that he created the game to highlight the idea that people tend to see people as enemies, and to distance himself from that behavior, concluding that his only "enemies" are the people who see other people as enemies

No. His enemies are "people who pin their unhappiness and problems on other people".

more recent phenom of [...] ones capable of bearing arms.

Fair enough.

Also:

so let me try to summarize them in simpler language:

[snip]

The "seeing people as enemies" thing comes off more like an introduction to the bit where he tells us who his enemies are. And right after that comes the bit where it's about distinguishing himself from something or other. I'd say it takes some pretty selective reading to take that as him trying to distinguish himself from people who see others as enemies, and not just from his enemies.

(but not necessarily that he made it for that reason)

I did intend on offending as many people as possible

Muslim Massacre is a grand experiment in making you upset

You can argue that it wasn't his sole, or primary, purpose or whatever. But it was part of the reason why he made the game, or he's been posting nonsense.

Yes. It's a mystery.

I just enjoy killing things that resembles humans. I want the Dead Rising of zombie games.

It's only depiction that makes someone's mother throw a fit that counts.

Gnarf: I think comics depicticting sexual acts between adults and children are illegal

Is that what you meant by what I quoted? It looks like you're just saying that pedophiles are criminals -- if you meant that making that kind of game is illegal, then maybe yes sure I dunno. That wasn't what I responded to, like.

If you don't, it's just a sex game to stimulate pedophiles- what we consider criminals in our society.

Hello. I think maybe you are Jack Thompson. You might want to look into that.

Strapping Young Lad guy? Name rings bell.

Syndicate is very cool.

Wouldn't both design and programming discussion move to the more dev-centric channel anyway?

Excellent Idea! My brother had the same point so because I use a 2 colour drawing system One colour on left one on right. I did it so that pressing a hot key does the same thing. No as quick I know but nearly. I was thinking of the space bar since it is so large and would be easy to hit quick.

I prefer Ctrl, because that's what I'm used to (Pro Motion). And I like it if it's like Ctrl+mouseclick picks a color for the button you clicked.


Zooming in/out with the mouse wheel is also pretty essential to me. I'd also like it if I could hold a hotkey (say, Alt) in order to use the mouse to drag the view around (i.e. while holding Alt, the mouse works quite like the Hand Tool in Adobe Reader).

If the host doesn't know, then if you pick a goat door, the host will only open a goat door 1/2 times. If you pick the car door, the host will always open a goat door.

If he doesn't know:

1/3 times you pick the car door and the host opens a goat door.
1/3 times you pick a goat door and the host opens a goat door.
1/3 times you pick a goat door and the host opens a car door.

And you know that the host did not open a car door.

The three options are as likely as each other and you know it's not the third one.

like it's perfectly possible he said it this way:

are those flowers for me?

yes, don't they smell nice?

yes, they smell very nice. you are a nice person

journalist writes down: you gonna smell me whether you want it or not!!

Damn journalists!

And, uh,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Why_the_probability_is_not_1.2F2

If the host is clueless, it makes no difference whether you stay or switch. If he knows, switch

...The door is already open. It's a goat. How the hell does it make any difference if the host knew it was going to be a goat or not?

I guess it's like, if the host does know:

1/3 times you pick the car door and the host opens a goat door.
2/3 times you pick a goat door and the host opens a goat door.

If he doesn't know:

1/3 times you pick the car door and the host opens a goat door.
1/3 times you pick a goat door and the host opens a goat door.
1/3 times you pick a goat door and the host opens a car door.

And you know that the host did not open a car door.

2 out of 3 times, you pick a goat door first; if you pick a goat door first, switching will get you the car. 1 out of 3 times you pick the car door first; if you pick the car door first, staying will get you the car.

Goats are more awesome than cars though.

I'm trying to find consistency. I'm asking for help It's mostly about this bit:

i think the best policy is to just let people do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone

If you just let people do what they want, unless they're hurting someone, then I don't understand what you're trying to do with the post I quoted.

There are two ways I can think of that makes it all add up (and so, the two questions). Maybe you're not trying to get Mipey et al. to do anything different. I.e. you are just letting them do what they want, but they are not just letting Sigvatr do what he wants to do.

Or maybe all the ridicule is clearly hurting someone, whereas what Sigvatr is up to does not hurt anyone. And so your interfering is justified while the ridicule is not.

Do you think your pointing out is more "let[ting] people do whatever they want" than Mipey et al.'s ridicule is? Alternatively, do you think the ridicule, as opposed to what is being ridiculed, hurts someone? (keeping in mind that what is being ridiculed was intended to "offend as many people as possible")