You guys are sooo stupid

lolololololololol

By the way,

Anyways, Icycalm has a very unique way of writing with his constant fragmentations and semicolons and other grammatical nuances.

That's not unique. Anyone who's read Nietzsche recognises it instantly, and anyone who closely studies Nietzsche* can't help but be influenced by it. William Plank shows the same influence in his book on Nietzsche.

*Well, anyone who closely studies him with sympathy, I guess...

[WAKE UP SHEEPLE]

lmfao

Which writers do you suspect are Icycalm?

yay! let's compare notes! ^_^

btw, "Gizmonicgamer" is P Diddy

the posts are just too similar (you thought you could trick me by slightly changing your grammar? doesn't make a difference when the content is the SAME you joker)

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

That is not even remotely what I said (great usage of straw man, by the way), but now that you mention it, yes.

An important part of intelligent argument is anticipating and addressing objections before your opponent even gets to make them. You can't just trivialise that by crying "straw man" every time it occurs -- especially when you go on to explicitly show that you were going to make that very objection anyway ("now that you mention it, yes").

Look at it this way: Incision did not really put words in your mouth. He simply took your line of reasoning to its logical extreme; it's what you would have said anyway. That's not the same as misrepresenting you.

How the fuck would you even guess what he's doing when he's not posting.

Allow me to help you out here by linking to my very own post from my very own account on my very own forum.

Here you are, friend.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=12715#12715

OMG HOW DID HE DO THT SOF FAST WEN ROMG HOWBUT THTSZ NOT NORMAL THATSAS CARAZY HOW COUD HE KNOW ALSO MARHTA STREWART IS ILLUMINATI

[is]

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32625&p=663336

You idiot!!!  Gardenia is Icycalm you stupid stupid chimp.  This is all he does, he doesn't have a life outside of the internet.

This is silly, by the way. My posts in that shmups thread are nothing like icycalm beyond superficial syntactic similarities -- for a start, most of what I wrote was, in hindsight, fucking dumb, lol. Very juvenile.

k

"lol", of course

In other news, Jews did 9/11.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=3415&start=25

And "milk" is probably "Gardenia" from this thread:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=28676

lol, so the only one who gets it right in the end is icycalm. "Quelle surprise".

Damn, I forgot about that thread. I'll bet it's more than slightly embarrassing to read my posts there now.

Edit: to anyone who reads it -- notice the all-too-familiar cries of "you defend icy, ergo you are icy". It's nothing new, P Diddy just happens to be taking it to new levels of in(s)anity.

Hey, man.

How do I know you aren't icycalm?

Moreover...

How do you know you aren't?

Dude, you just went on near 2 pages. You are a fucking nutcase. Get help.

By the way, you missed my "fagotistical" a while back. I'm disappointed.

Why don't you go further and denounce icy for forgoing ontology as well, or whatever other fagotistical terms you can find

Only a man who is hiding would take offense to the idea that he is his idol.

Beyond a joking context (that is to say: the only context within which I can tolerate your nonsense) I do actually find your tinfoil hat ramblings pretty offensive for this very reason. Nothing I've written in this thread is anywhere near icycalm's league; I could easily go back over previous posts of mine (or maybe you could just find them for me, since you're probably more familiar with them now than even I am) and point out so many mistakes and words that I'd take back or modify or -- well, nevermind. Such is the nature of a forum like this one, one where you won't be immediately banned for such stupidities.

It's the same reason I don't post on insomnia -- compared with some of the stuff there I have no illusions as to the worth of what I can currently say. That doesn't bum me too much, because I'm young (probably younger than most people here) and expect to grow over time. And this is exactly where the problem arises when you make your silly comparisons! To compare what I've said here to what icycalm has said elsewhere is insulting to him. I don't give a shit if you insult me, and clearly icycalm doesn't give a shit if you insult him, but I'd still rather not be the vessel through which you do so.

I get "defensive" (not really) because icycalm is an "idol" of mine -- do we not tend to have a high opinion of our idols? Will we not tend to defend them from ill-informed criticism when necessary? Further -- if we are indirectly the cause of this criticism, will we not take double the offence?

Now in seriousness: this is where we put an end to this silly charade. If this thread is ever to go anywhere (and believe it or not, I would like to see that happen!) it will certainly not be through you repeatedly making these retarded conspiracist posts. Enough.

link me to it

I would guess he is referring to this: http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=14551&sid=61cf132bc0f8802a2060bc1c50830dbe

Which isn't a recent thread at all, it's just that the last post in it was recent.

"Whereas playing for score opens whole new levels" -- usually OF INANITY.

which isn't a bad summary, but leaves out some things i'd consider fundamental. most of the stuff above is actually just a summary of thus spake zaratustra (which is the most popular nietzshe book, but not the most important), with a little bit of will to power in there, not a summary of nietzsche's entire philosophy -- for instance, it doesn't mention his metaphysics or epistemology at all, just his ethics and politics.

This reads like a first year student awkwardly trying to impress his elders -- sir, there is no metaphysics here! No epistemology at all! Whatever are we to do?

Why don't you go further and denounce icy for forgoing ontology as well, or whatever other fagotistical terms you can find on Wikipedia's Categories:Philosophy?

First: "not the most important", lol. Okay then, what is? Nietzsche himself considered the book his most important; that is enough for me... it's certainly the most important exposition of his philosophy (and it's not even my favourite). So I will continue to regard this book as Nietzsche's most important; for the time being at least -- let's see if Paul Eres can convince me otherwise.

Second: there is no metaphysics in Nietzsche, only metaphor. The little that you could construe as metaphysics (and you would be lying to yourself and your audience) is not integral to Nietzsche's philosophy anyway.

And no: eternal recurrence is not metaphysical.

As for epistemology: well, what of it? Tell us then. What has icy left out?

On a related note: how did Paul Eres suddenly become a Nietzsche scholar overnight?

Hey man, it's not too late to send me a Valentine's card. Let's say it still counts if it gets here before March.

Let's check out Mr. Pittman's "tastes" for "good writing", then.

This is exactly why I don't like Insomnia's reviews, icy's in particular. They don't match my tastes for good writing.

They read like some angsty kid on the interwebs

"angsty kid on the interwebs". The key point here being that "angsty kid" is a stupid term this retard has learned from "the interwebs". You don't even think about what this means; all you're saying is this: "icycalm sometimes writes in an indignant manner". Yeah, so what? So do many people, adolescent or otherwise. How does that make him an "angsty kid"? It doesn't; you just think it'll sound more degrading to use that term, as you've seen it applied to so many other people with similar styles on internet forums (or the "interwebs" if you like -- i.e. the only place you've ever fucking learned anything, i.e. the reason you think like such a retard).  

trying to sound smart with big words and philosophical quotes.

First: there is not really an abundance of "big words" in icy's writing. For me it's always crystal clear. Plus, check out his recent remarks on obscurantism -- he has deliberately cleared up and explained so many woolly terms - even those used by other philosophers - that you can not even attempt to charge him with wordy pomposity. The writing is totally lucid; if you still can't comprehend it, that's not icy's problem. It's your own problem for being stupid.

Second: "philosophical quotes". lol. What this amounts to is a call to your fellow retards: "hey, this guy uses quotations I can't understand! And you guys can't understand them either, right? Okay, that means they're irrelevant! Who does he think he is? How dare he quote from books? Doesn't he know there's much more to be learned from wikipedia and internet forums, i.e. the classrooms our kind have been raised in? Oh wait, I know! I know exactly what he is! -- pretentious. Guys, use that word! It means something bad! [Emoticon] [.gif] [meme]"

I couldn't care less if a game I enjoyed gets five stars or two; that's the author's opinion and it doesn't affect me either way. But when reviews are sprinkled with profanity and words like "journlolism" and "artfagot," I tune out.

So you tune out at "big words" and philosophical quotes, and you also tune out at profanity. You tune out at the highest writing possible, and also at the lowest (because profanity instantly makes writing substandard, right? Right). So what the fuck are you after? What are your "tastes" for "good writing"? Oh yeah -- the middle ground, the average, the mediocre. Quelle surprise.

Here are some specific examples:

Great, you can quote a line or two and show that it can look silly when you view it completely out of context.

Remember kids: Caps Lock is cruise control for cool, and commas can just go wherever you feel like putting them.

More internet educated babbling. "cruise control", lol. The dude is actually using internet memes to make a point. To refute another point. Seriously. This is where we are at.

Fuck off.

That's some writing worthy of the GameFAQs forums if I ever saw it.

And there can be no doubt that you have seen plenty of that.

I was serious before when I said that the internet-educated are a very real class of people. Still serious now. Just look at this shit. And there is no point in genuinely engaging with it; you're better off just pointing it out and moving on.

If you cannot express yourself at a level above the average IGN forum user then I don't give a fuck about your "tastes" for "good writing".

This is exactly why I don't like Insomnia's reviews, icy's in particular. They don't match my tastes for good writing.

bahahahahahahaa

[merely catalysts for the exploration of our own experiences of both the world that the game creates and our own world in which we carry out our lives]

Games, like any art form, are merely catalysts for the exploration of our own experiences of both the world that the game creates and our own world in which we carry out our lives. As such, games cannot be objectively criticized, like you can perhaps analyze the integrity of a new steel formula, or the speed of a computer algorithm. Games are subjective beasts by their very nature. Trying to find an objective base for criticism in games is a fruitless endeavor from the start. The best way to criticize a game is to explore how the game made you feel, and what it meant to you.

Speak for yourself, artfagot. I don't need an artistic 'catalyst' to help me 'explore' my 'experience' of the world. I tend to explore and experience the world by virtue of, you know... being alive. lol

[@Blademasterbobo:]

@Blademasterbobo: Why don't we take this to the drome now. At the very least it'll stop you from posting on the general boards.

@milk: Did you just call me a pile of sticks?

I called you exactly what you are. Now go remedy that by reading a fucking book for the first time in your miserable abortion of a life.

Edit: not sci-fi.

yeah u mad

You forgot your gif, you illiterate little fagot.

By the way, I do think JRPGs are equal to Chess, in some sense. They both have different values which can't be compared. There's nothing in Pokemon that compares to the strategic depth of Chess, but there's nothing in Chess which compares to the joy of your Magikarp evolving into Gyarados.

You then go on to say it's hard to rank games because they have "different values" blhablhablh. Okay great, but here's the thing: strategy is a "value". The grin that forms on your obese cheeks when your favourite Magikarp named after your dog turns into a Gyarados is not a "value". That's just some random shit you pulled out of nowhere -- anyone could come up with a hundred other "values" just like it and then concede that, cause they're different, games as a whole are "too different".

But in the end that's all bullshit, and we're left with only one solid point to take from what you said -- strategy is one aspect games can be judged on, at least if that's an important part of a game. So there's one. Keep going and you'll find some more. But I promise you there will not be very many.

Seriously, do you not even see that if you follow your "different values" reasoning to the end it will become near impossible to rank games altogether? Every attempt we make we'd have some stupid manchild prodding our shoulder -- "hey dude, actually, when I play Spyro it totally reminds me of when i was 10 and i ate so much icecream i passed out, hey maybe nostalgia or something is a value idk".

Enough! Jesus christ.