YesNoOk
avatar

Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken (Read 132731 times)

Started by hjk, May 14, 2008, 02:06:08 am
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#381  May 28, 2008, 11:05:20 am
  • ******
  • Limited time to use Infinite power !
    • France
    • network.mugenguild.com/cybaster/
Wow, Sepp wrote "fuck" twice in a single reply, and he bolded the wrong "a" in "compatability" ... HJK must be friving him crazy. :laugh:
BASELESS WALL OF TEXT AND QUOTES
#382  May 28, 2008, 11:16:14 am
  • ******
  • ゴゴゴゴゴ
I can't believe you guys are still wasting time replying to hjk.

I'd love to see what kind of retarded stunt he pulls if everyone just ignores him.
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#383  May 28, 2008, 12:27:05 pm
  • ******
  • Double-Crosser
  • I'm not standing out. This isn't weird at all.
    • USA
He'll quit Mugen and shut down his site as a protest to warehousers.

Wait.

hjk

Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#384  May 28, 2008, 12:33:58 pm
  • ****
  • Watch my fro grow as you go, go, go, go, go.
    • Afghanistan
LOL, Caddie's the man!! ;)

I'm as real as the runnin, I just happen to rap, Nigaas London, Japan, and i'm scared of dat tap.

I suggest extending my banning, cuz when I come back, it's gonna be hell. You think I was annoying before, oh man, it's on now :)
hjk vs. 99% of MFG. I will win.

RIP Poo Bear Tell my Dead Homie isson, for the year my partner.
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#385  May 28, 2008, 06:07:38 pm
  • ******
  • [E]
    • Mexico
It's funnier if you get the reference, Demon.
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#386  May 28, 2008, 07:47:58 pm
  • avatar
  • ******
Quote
Byakko, tell me how it is possible taht you ended up not replying to this?:
Same reason you haven't replied to my own posts.
Quote
in reference to you saying, "blame,"  are you saying that you made your post about the common1, because I stated something badly, or is your word "blame" in reference to something else.
Blame generally. Everytime there's a discussion, it's because of that. The communication mistakes that happen between you, Cyanide, me. The way your post looked. The way Cyanide needed to reply to you the very irst time (before you "yelled" at him").
Quote
My point is that you KNOW there is more than one reason why someone may post in large text. Why is it that you jumped toward teh negative and why couldn't you just ask.
Becauuuuuse you haven't read anything of what I've said. I may know that there are several reasons an apple falls from a tree (someone shakes the tree hard enough, someone hits the apple, or mere gravity) but if I don't see anything that may be a direct cause, I'll assume the apple fell because it was ripe. I'm not going to ask "hey was there anyone hitting the tree with an axe ? You know, I looked very hard and there really wasn't anyone, but still I should ask..."
Your post didn't look like anything else, so it was the only reasonable solution I assumed.
Quote
Out of your playbook, it looked to you like I was yelling.
It looked like that to everyone else as well. You would know if you didn't just ignore what others tell you. Remember when Cyanide pointed it out too ? You're just making clearly false statements here.
Quote
The fact still remains you could have asked.
No.
Quote
You have yet to challenge my 'why.'
Because you're a moron who still don't understand what we are even talking about.
Quote
No. The details made you wrong. Challenge my 'why.'
The details did not make what I was saying wrong because they were not related to what I was saying, and I have no reason to do anything about your "why" because it's useless and irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote
How did I misunderstand? You need to kill my 'why.'
The fact that you're still asking about your "why" is the very proof that you don't get it.
Quote
Your language was bad.
You did not understand my language and that was the fault of your own inability to understand anything of what you're told. You're the only one who didn't get what I was talking about.
Quote
In the beginning of teh argument, when you posted your thing about the common1 (same point as Cyanide), had I said something like, "Byakko, your post is irrelevant, (well actually it should have been 'understood' that I was implying this anyway)" would you have made this post?
http://mugenguild.com/forumx/index.php?topic=80111.msg678847#msg678847
I mean, your post there was of a 'why' point, right? This argument started off by me challenging your 'why.'
Either way, I'd say your 'why' was irrelevant as well because the NOTE, about me mislabeling the glitch, already existed, and let's not forget the fact that you understood teh note, meaning it wasn't my bad wording that made you post something irrelevant, it was something else.
You're not making any sense.
Quote
Are you honestly saying that anyone as an onlooker would get some other idea than you effectively saying, 'Byakko, is a better person?'
Uh ? His post does NOT look anything like that. He's replying this to have you shut up and not ask about soething that is (as usual) irrelevant. Also me having more friends has absolutely nothing to do with me being a better or worse person. You're just being retardedly stupid.
Quote
You know how your point would be interpretted
He showed you a link expecting you to read it because he felt it was appropriate as something you are in need of learning. You're the one who brought that up out of nowhere.
Quote
you made a point taht ignored precious facts in an effort to counter me
... What he was saying had absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying right now.
Quote
I've posted and reposted this. I didn't decide that Byakko, was talking about me. I'm asking that 'IF I HAD GOTTEN THAT INTERPRETATION WOULD IT HAVE BEEN FAIR?'
If someone kills my 'why' it would have been reasonable if had I actually concluded that I was the [AI Coder], I will concede. Just kill my 'why.'
You've gotten your reply several times already. You've ignored all of it so far.
Quote
I guess I'm being kind of harsh with how I'm viewing Sepp's posts but in these it seemed as though he was trying to suggest I had issues...:
Yeah, it's pretty much what he's saying. And it has nothing to do with me, it doesn't even have anything to do with the actual argument between us, but about why we are arguing in the first place.
Quote
I dunno. Maybe it's the way Sepp is going about it that is kind of getting to me.
Then you're the one who has a problem. Sepp is one of the guys that even I can't just go and say he's wrong when it comes to making an analysis.
Quote
he got the actions of the [AI Coder] wrong.
You still don't understand that the identity of "the AI coder" doesn't matter in what I'm saying. I've explained that several times and you have ignored all of it.
Quote
Besides the bit that matched up with me, qwer never went behind KFM's back and released the patch (none of us did that at all).
I already pointed out I did not say that, but you're a moron who doesn't understand what you're told.

TDS said:
And for crying out loud, Byakko... just say "I'm sorry"
I don't even know what I'm supposed to apologize for.



Let's study communication for a moment.
"The AI coder passed the patch around even though KFM said no, and the patch was made public, therefore this is a leak and it is bad, whether it was intentionnal or not"

Do you see the point I'm making here ? Maybe not since you missed it the first time one or two years ago. Let's try another version of saying the exact same point.
"You hjk passed the patch around even though KFM said no, and the patch was made public, therefore this is a leak and it is bad, whether it was intentionnal or not"

See what the connection is and what the difference is ? Let's try a third version that is making the exact same point only with again an irrelevant detail changed :
"qwer passed the patch around even though KFM said no, and the patch was made public, therefore this is a leak and it is bad, whether it was intentionnal or not"

Now you should see what stays the same and what changes, what my point is and what details of the sentence don't change my point.
Still, let's try another version of the exact same point :
"The patch was passed around even though KFM said no, it was made public, that's bad, it's a leak whether it was made intentionally or not"
See where I'm going there ? The irrelevant detail that nobody cares about in the point I'm making is gone.
All these sentences mean the exact same thing, and if you focus on something that is so blaringly a detail compared to the point I'm clearly making, you're the one who has a big problem in reading comprehension.

Do you understand the point I'm making here ? Do you see how much it is irrelevant to wonder about who actually coded the patch and passed it around ? I'm saying that the fact that it was made public after KFM said no is a bad thing. Whether it was you, qwer or the pope who actually did it, it doesn't change anything to the point I'm making. You have absolutely no reason to get pissy over how I said it because you're talking about something that doesn't change anything of the point I'm making.
If I struggled to the end of my determination, to the end of my way of life with my followers, if the result is ruin, then this ruin is inevitable. Grieve. Shed tears. But you cannot regret.
Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 08:18:20 pm by Baiken
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#387  May 28, 2008, 09:33:03 pm
  • *****
  • can see your halo
    • Germany
    • Skype - panchasell
    • www.mugenguild.com/
Rough attempt at catching two different sides. At least the core; details are sketchy. Not to be taken literal---where I neglect to say so explicitly, always insert "I guess/think/believe it may be that..."

Different manners and etiquettes.


Iced inquired about and tried to talk to Byakko in the past. To no great avail, I think, but he made attempts. But then that same Byakko insulted him later!

1) Iced had previously made efforts to defend Byakko
2) insults are not really an acceptable form of communication; lack of respect!!
3) Byakko has shown no sign at all of remorse or made any apologies
4) Instead, it seems like Baiken felt it was perfectly natural to do and doesn't understand what the fuss is all about (what's wrong with that Byakko guy?! Was he raised by a gorilla?!) . And anyway, the situation is long done and over now for him anyway, time to move on.

What troubles Iced is that someone insulted him like that---which is just not something you do to somebody in general, and especially not if that person went out of his way for your benefit in the past.

Sure Iced might have been wrong but there are certain rules of communicating with your fellow beings---though Iced may have been wrong, by insulting him, you wronged him. Did him a great[er] wrong, I mean. And then, above all, Byakko acts puzzled afterwards as to why Iced would now have sort of a grudge against him and does not want to talk to him anymore. What the heck?!? It is as if Byakko thinks it's okay to insult people and doesn't get that they might not like it??

Doesn't Baiken see that insults might burn some bridges for good?!? Not even an apology? Then our relationship is ended.

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty



Baiken is more fire and forget: if you---in his opinion---mess up really bad and keep saying something wrong even after the wrong parts have been pointed out, then you're well deserving of some sort of derogatory remark or insult. For this it really doesn't matter all that much what good you did in the past or who you were before.

You wouldn't hear the first few times---so fuck you, if you refuse to see your stupidity you deserve to be called a dumbass for it (since it's clearly no use talking to you about it normally) and have no cause to complain.

The next time or even the next sentence you post might be perfectly okay again, and if you don't mess up anymore despite having been stupid in the past, hooray---no grudges. You get what you deserve for your actions, each time, and insults can be part of that but are not such a big deal.

You want an apology? Uh, for what? It was justified. Don't be stupid then you won't get insulted anymore. Easy.

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
"Several times now, Achamian thought he had glimpsed golden haloes about Kellhus's hands. He found himself envying those, such as Proyas, who claimed to see them all the time."
--R. Scott Bakker
The Thousandfold Thought (2006)

hjk

Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#388  May 28, 2008, 10:33:41 pm
  • ****
  • Watch my fro grow as you go, go, go, go, go.
    • Afghanistan
*Going back through the thread, I think I should have made this clear*
Quote
Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
When I said, 'enemy' RSers, I meant exclusively those that continued to rant about the Guild Forum. I mean, it dawned on me that people may have thought I meant the full staff there, but I kind of dismissed that possible interpretation. I thought some of my replies would clear it up, but... I should have explicitly said it.
Found out some new details on that question BTW and... Jeez.
*Plus, Advice Taken*  :sugoi:

- Byakko, I just want to ask you to go to the bottom of my post first and reply to my last point -


Quote
Byakko, tell me how it is possible that you ended up not replying to this?:
Same reason you haven't replied to my own posts.
I've tried reading everything you've said, and attempted to reply to every question you've handed to me. Every time I have been unable to, i've noted it. Maybe, though, just as I've said, I haven't answered your questions as you wanted.

Quote
in reference to you saying, "blame,"  are you saying that you made your post about the common1, because I stated something badly, or is your word "blame" in reference to something else.
Blame generally. Everytime there's a discussion, it's because of that. The communication mistakes that happen between you, Cyanide, me. The way your post looked. The way Cyanide needed to reply to you the very irst time (before you "yelled" at him").
That was shaping up to be quite civil, but I'm not quite sure that end part kept to it.
What I'm asking you, is in this specifc situation, were you blaming the reason you made that first post which you deleted on my bad language?

Quote
My point is that you KNOW there is more than one reason why someone may post in large text. Why is it that you jumped toward the negative and why couldn't you just ask.
Becauuuuuse you haven't read anything of what I've said. I may know that there are several reasons an apple falls from a tree (someone shakes the tree hard enough, someone hits the apple, or mere gravity) but if I don't see anything that may be a direct cause, I'll assume the apple fell because it was ripe. I'm not going to ask "hey was there anyone hitting the tree with an axe ? You know, I looked very hard and there really wasn't anyone, but still I should ask..."
Your post didn't look like anything else, so it was the only reasonable solution I assumed.
Personally, I didn't like that example because this situation is based on a person to person interpretation over a person to occurence interpretation. That probably won't make sense to you, but I dunno how to word it better and an explanantion would take up a ton of space.
I'm glad that you said, you assumed.

Quote
Out of your playbook, it looked to you like I was yelling.
It looked like that to everyone else as well. You would know if you didn't just ignore what others tell you. Remember when Cyanide pointed it out too ? You're just making clearly false statements here.
I'm probably being a little harsh when I say this, but this is exactly why I'm saying you like to post to onlookers. A huge portion of this discussion was me differenciating between what you and Cyanide actually said. First of all, I haven't ignored Cyanide's posts, I've quoted them every time and answered them. How many times have I lined your posts up one beneath the other to challenge what seems to be your suggestion that you said, "seemed like." Let me clarify, you said your post was the same as Cyanide's (You almost made it seem like your original post added I the 'seemed like'). In an effort to show you just how wrong that was, I posted yours and Cyanide's quotes and highlighted the fact that Cyanide said, 'hjk, your post did come off as shouting' (<- Not Definite), whereas yours said, 'hjk, you were yelling' (<- Definite). That is the STRICT fact.

Quote
The fact still remains you could have asked.
No.
Wel actually yes, it does. You can always ask, but let me switch it up and ask you this again.
Byakko, PLEASE, won't you please in the future try to slow down and ask people some questions if a situation like this comes up again.

Quote
You have yet to challenge my 'why.'
Because you're a moron who still don't understand what we are even talking about.
What? I posted the reasons why your language was bad. If you deny that your language was bad at all, then why don't you challenge what I've utlined?

Quote
No. The details made you wrong. Challenge my 'why.'
The details did not make what I was saying wrong because they were not related to what I was saying, and I have no reason to do anything about your "why" because it's useless and irrelevant to the discussion.
Oh but they did make you wrong. No way that you plug your opost into the situation that you were "summing up," could the details in your post be crrect.

Quote
How did I misunderstand? You need to kill my 'why.'
The fact that you're still asking about your "why" is the very proof that you don't get it.
Sure it is.

Quote
Your language was bad.
You did not understand my language and that was the fault of your own inability to understand anything of what you're told. You're the only one who didn't get what I was talking about.
Fine. Since you feel that way, please read my 'why' your language was bad, and make a reply that kills my points.

Quote
In the beginning of the argument, when you posted your thing about the common1 (same point as Cyanide), had I said something like, "Byakko, your post is irrelevant, (well actually it should have been 'understood' that I was implying this anyway)" would you have made this post?
http://mugenguild.com/forumx/index.php?topic=80111.msg678847#msg678847
I mean, your post there was of a 'why' point, right? This argument started off by me challenging your 'why.'
Either way, I'd say your 'why' was irrelevant as well because the NOTE, about me mislabeling the glitch, already existed, and let's not forget the fact that you understood the note, meaning it wasn't my bad wording that made you post something irrelevant, it was something else.
You're not making any sense.
I was afraid you'd say sometjhing like that. Let me attempt to clarify my question:
Was the post that I provided the link to, blaming my bad language for why you made an irrelevant reply.

Quote
Are you honestly saying that anyone as an onlooker would get some other idea than you effectively saying, 'Byakko, is a better person?'
Uh ? His post does NOT look anything like that. He's replying this to have you shut up and not ask about soething that is (as usual) irrelevant. Also me having more friends has absolutely nothing to do with me being a better or worse person. You're just being retardedly stupid.
So then what the heck does the post mean? And by the way, the way that conversation went down, its more like:
- I thought by providing the link, Sepp was trying to give 'me' advice on how to become a more likeable
- I, in response, suggested that I was a better person than you (admitted arrogance  --;, I guess I started that)
- Sepp, in response to me stated you had more friends and influence (I wonder what interpretation anyone would get from that?)
- I outlined just why you would have more friends and influence, just to make the point that the argument should not have been on the 'personality' traits of the users.
*I really want to ask Sepp, what interpretation I should have gotten from his reply?*

Quote
You know how your point would be interpretted
He showed you a link expecting you to read it because he felt it was appropriate as something you are in need of learning. You're the one who brought that up out of nowhere.
I wouldn't say nwehere. I read the title and mislead myself. That is my fault indeed. I'm happy I eventually asked what the post was about, but yes, it did bring me a degree of shame (if Sepp's post about the articles contents is correct).

Quote
you made a point that ignored precious facts in an effort to counter me
... What he was saying had absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying right now.
Answered/outlined above.

Quote
I've posted and reposted this. I didn't decide that Byakko, was talking about me. I'm asking that 'IF I HAD GOTTEN THAT INTERPRETATION WOULD IT HAVE BEEN FAIR?'
If someone kills my 'why' it would have been reasonable if had I actually concluded that I was the [AI Coder], I will concede. Just kill my 'why.'
You've gotten your reply several times already. You've ignored all of it so far.
Actually I haven't. I'm saying if you're going to make a fair' reply, challenge my 'why.'

Quote
I guess I'm being kind of harsh with how I'm viewing Sepp's posts but in these it seemed as though he was trying to suggest I had issues...:
Yeah, it's pretty much what he's saying. And it has nothing to do with me, it doesn't even have anything to do with the actual argument between us, but about why we are arguing in the first place.
But isn't it pretty clear that the argument between US TWO, started with you?

Quote
I dunno. Maybe it's the way Sepp is going about it that is kind of getting to me.
Then you're the one who has a problem. Sepp is one of the guys that even I can't just go and say he's wrong when it comes to making an analysis.
So wait, Sepp can say that he probably has bias, does not trust me, and come in making a post that wasn't necessarily a good reflection of me, and I shouldn't have a problem? I'll say no to that thank you.

Quote
he got the actions of the [AI Coder] wrong.
You still don't understand that the identity of "the AI coder" doesn't matter in what I'm saying. I've explained that several times and you have ignored all of it.
You didn't even quote all of that reply. You know that no matter how you line up the situation, your facts were wrong, minus the fact that your language was abd.

Quote
Besides the bit that matched up with me, qwer never went behind KFM's back and released the patch (none of us did that at all).
I already pointed out I did not say that, but you're a moron who doesn't understand what you're told.
Oh please. You need to read, why your language was bad, byakko. I outlined it for you:
http://mugenguild.com/forumx/index.php?topic=80111.msg684252#msg684252

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
The sad fact is Byakko, that is not what your sentences said.
This is your sentence:
"In this case the [AI Coder] asked the representative of the original creator if he could release the patch. The creator said, "No" and what do you know, the [AI Coder] did it anyway....I'm just summing things up"

In your sentence, you make the [AI Coder] out as someone who knowingly, knowingly, KNOWINGLY betrayed his word. None of your posts up there come close to saying the same. "In the case" you were defining, not one of the people involved had betrayed their word.

*I could go on, but first I just want to see you address that fact*
You want to actually READ the rest... the 'why' it's here (save the part that kills your AI Coder] in that sentence being 1 person... STRICT LANGAUGE):
http://mugenguild.com/forumx/index.php?topic=80111.msg684252#msg684252
LOL, Caddie's the man!! ;)

I'm as real as the runnin, I just happen to rap, Nigaas London, Japan, and i'm scared of dat tap.

I suggest extending my banning, cuz when I come back, it's gonna be hell. You think I was annoying before, oh man, it's on now :)
hjk vs. 99% of MFG. I will win.

RIP Poo Bear Tell my Dead Homie isson, for the year my partner.
Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 10:39:30 pm by What did you just say???
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#389  May 28, 2008, 10:36:42 pm
  • ******
  • Double-Crosser
  • I'm not standing out. This isn't weird at all.
    • USA
Sepp forgot to point out the "DAMMIT READ MY POST I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, IT'S SO OBVIOUS I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO LINK TO THAT POST, GO FIND IT YOURSELF" trend
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#390  May 28, 2008, 11:16:06 pm
  • avatar
  • ******
Quote
is in this specifc situation, were you blaming the reason you made that first post which you deleted on my bad language?
Uh ? The first post I deleted ? I said already that I deleted it because it was inappropriate. That's not related.
Quote
I'm glad that you said, you assumed.
... I said that several time. Ever since you explained that no, you weren't yelling. I still blame it ("it" as in, the way I and everyone else assumed that you were yelling) on the way you post and express yourself.
Quote
A huge portion of this discussion was me differenciating between what you and Cyanide actually said.
We've already gone over how it was normal for me to say "you were yelling" without adding "it seems like" back the first time. Of course what I and Cyanide said are different. It's perfectly normal.
Quote
(You almost made it seem like your original post added I the 'seemed like').
No, I didn't. I've said it before, but I've mentionned my original "you're yelling" only twice until you exploded about it. And those two times, I said... Well, the same thing. If you looked like you were yelling, it's normal that I said "you're yelling". I said it because it looked like you were yelling. And after you pointed out that you really weren't, I certainly did not backtrack and act like I said "looked like" the very first time. I already accepted that you really weren't yelling and I have also accepted that saying "you're yelling" was incorrect. I'm still saying it was normal of me to make such a mistake.
Quote
Wel actually yes, it does. You can always ask
I could ask, but if you really didn't look like anything other than yelling, I would have no reason to even think about asking. Like I said, if it really, really, really looks like that, I have no reason to even doubt, to even think it might be anything else. Even if it turns out it was incorrect. So no, I can't ask about anything. I can't go and ask, are you really sure it's 9 PM ? Isn't it 9:01 PM instead ? Are you really, really sure that there's no cloud in the sky ?
Quote
Byakko, PLEASE, won't you please in the future try to slow down and ask people some questions if a situation like this comes up again.
In a situation similar to this ? No. I made a mistake by saying "you're yelling" the very first time, it turned out that you really weren't yelling, but the reason I said it to begin with is that you really did look like you were yelling. I can accept that I made a mistake and that you really weren't yelling, but you kinda are the one who expressed yourself improperly and ended up looking like you were yelling.
Quote
I posted the reasons why your language was bad.
No, you posted the reason why you misunderstood it, but if you're the only one who misunderstood it, it's not really my fault, it's how *you* ave a tendency to interpret improperly what others tell you. I'm sorry you misunderstood, but here as well, it's not really my fault. While my language was surely not perfect, it wasn't "bad", it was normal. If I made a mistake in thinking you were yelling, you also made a mistake when misreading my language.
Quote
Oh but they did make you wrong.
It didn't change anything of my point and only details were changed, details that did not matter in the point I was making, so it made my point "not accurate" but not "wrong".
Quote
please read my 'why' your language was bad, and make a reply that kills my points.
Well you say it was bad but you're the only one who thinks so. So the conclusion is that you're the one who misinterpreted it. Because of your own comprehension problems.
Quote
Was the post [...] blaming my bad language for why you made an irrelevant reply.
I'm sorry, even making it as short as possible, I don't understand the sense of your question. If I look at the post you link to, all I can say is that I already answered that : this post was saying that I blame those kind of circumstances (generally speaking) on your problems in expressing yourself and understanding others. It was not directly relevant to the glitch itself, but it was relevant to how Cyanide made his very first reply at you and how you "looked like" you were yelling at him afterward.
Quote
So then what the heck does the post mean?
Eh-- wha-- UH ?? BUT I JUST SAID IT in what you quote !
Quote
what interpretation I should have gotten from his reply?*
I suggest you point out which reply, then. When he gave you the link, or when he replied that I have more friends/influence than you ?
If it's the link, it's because he thought it would help you. If it's about the friends/influence thing, he already explained it and I repeated it in what you just quoted of me.
Quote
I'm saying if you're going to make a fair' reply, challenge my 'why.'
Why it would or not have been reasonable to think you were the AI coder ? I've explained that several times already.
-You knew about qwer and I didn't, so it's you who should have pointed it out to let me know
-I already said the identity of the AI coder didn't change anything of the point I was making, so jumping to conclusions on a detail was not a fair conclusion.
Quote
But isn't it pretty clear that the argument between US TWO, started with you?
I made a statement in saying that you don't express yourself properly. An insulting comment, certainly. You made an argument out of it. You can't just go and put all the blame on me. You replied to my insult ? Well, I replied to how you posted like a jackass. I still blame "it" on your comprehension/expression problems.
Quote
So wait, Sepp can say that he probably has bias, does not trust me, and come in making a post that wasn't necessarily a good reflection of me, and I shouldn't have a problem?
Exactly, because all of that does not influence anything of the suggestion he is making to you. It's still true that you need to shorten your posts, it's still true that you need to organize your thoughts and the way you express yourself, it's still true that you have a problem in understanding others.
Whether Sepp has a bias or not, whether you can't be really trusted, doesn't change any of that. So it's still a valid "feedback", a comment, a suggestion to improve, and it still stands. Just because you don't like it, just because Sepp has a bias, doesn't change the fact that it's true.
Quote
your facts were wrong
My DETAILS were wrong. Not my facts. And those details did not change anything of what I was saying. So thanks but no thanks.
Quote
You need to read, why your language was bad, byakko.
All of this is still your own interpretation of it. If you're the one who has problems understanding people, it doesn't make my language bad. Yes, I said in this case, yes, the actions of the AI coder matched you, big deal. We've gone countless times over why it didn't change anything and why you're the one focusing on the WRONG things.
Quote
The sad fact is Byakko, that is not what your sentences said.
This is your sentence:
"In this case the [AI Coder] asked the representative of the original creator if he could release the patch. The creator said, "No" and what do you know, the [AI Coder] did it anyway....I'm just summing things up"
Yes and it's still exactly the same thing. Also, I did say "whether it was intentional or not" and you didn't keep that. My point still stands, all of those sentences, including the one you say I said, including the entirety of what I really said, including the point I really was making whether you understood it properly or not, mean the same thing.
Quote
In your sentence, you make the [AI Coder] out as someone who knowingly, knowingly, KNOWINGLY betrayed his word.
Unless you're not quoting all of it and are leaving out the part where I added "whether it was intentional or not". My point was still about how the LEAK was a bad thing, whether it was intentional or not. Not the "betraying his words" part. I was talking about the fact that the file was made public at all, not about betrayal or whatever. All of this was in reply to people who were wondering why KFM didn't want the file up, so I explained, with a shortened summary, that it was a leak. Intentional or not, leaked by you or qwer, coded by you or qwer, it didn't matter. And I did point that out.
If I struggled to the end of my determination, to the end of my way of life with my followers, if the result is ruin, then this ruin is inevitable. Grieve. Shed tears. But you cannot regret.
Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 12:08:12 am by Baiken
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#391  May 28, 2008, 11:49:30 pm
  • ******
  • 日本は素晴らしい国です。
Sepp forgot to point out the "DAMMIT READ MY POST I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, IT'S SO OBVIOUS I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO LINK TO THAT POST, GO FIND IT YOURSELF" trend

Please, re read my posts in this thread as of now with more attention , you will find the answers you are searching for in there,if you still cant manage to grasp what I was trying to tell you I will try to convey another way with which to express myself, no need to lose your cool.
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#392  May 28, 2008, 11:53:26 pm
  • ******
  • Legendary XIII
  • I am the eye of the storm to come!
    • New Zealand
    • network.mugenguild.com/cyanide/
I would like to point out that anyone replying to a post that consists mostly of

YOU ARE NOT READING MY POSTS I DID NOT SAY THAT MY TEXT SHALL NOW INCREASE IN SIZE!!

Would certainly not ask said person "Are you yelling?" Nor would they backtrack and say "stop yelling, unless you're not yelling in the first place"

People come to logical conclusions based on prior experience. Prior experience would lead just about everyone to believe you to be yelling.

Misunderstanding of one person != first person writing anything incorrectly.

Misunderstanding of everyone = first person writing badly.


In M.U.G.E.N there is no magic button

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

OZ

Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#393  May 29, 2008, 02:47:20 am
  • ******
  • ಠ_ಠ
HJK, you should realy come to France in preparatory classes for engineer schools. In litterature lessons, they teach you how to summarize a 3 pages text in 120 words (+/- 10%). If you put one word more than what is authorized, you get a "0" mark.

Out of curiosity, I decided to see how many sheets of paper it would take to print out this page.
The answer is 14.
Do you hate the trees so much ? :(

Hell, I'd run out of ink long before I ran out of paper.
Thank god for print preview.

And +1 for France.
May your moustaches stay curly, and may your statements stay succinct.


This drama thread has stayed alived for longer than any topic I have ever seen.
Most drama threads appear to faulter when the fanbase diminishes, but this one would appear to be self-supporting.
ಠ_ಠ
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#394  May 29, 2008, 02:53:35 am
  • *****
  • corner push pusher

hjk

Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#395  May 29, 2008, 04:27:50 am
  • ****
  • Watch my fro grow as you go, go, go, go, go.
    • Afghanistan
- Thank You for this reply Byakko -
- I'm just going to make this note, because now I'm starting to get irritated:
    Cyanide, read the post order outlined please (that is all I'm going to say for now). YOU MUST READ THAT POST ORDER.  -

Quote
is in this specifc situation, were you blaming the reason you made that first post which you deleted on my bad language?
Uh ? The first post I deleted ? I said already that I deleted it because it was inappropriate. That's not related.
Wait, then what was your second post "blaming" me for?

Quote
I'm glad that you said, you assumed.
... I said that several time. Ever since you explained that no, you weren't yelling. I still blame it ("it" as in, the way I and everyone else assumed that you were yelling) on the way you post and express yourself.
Wait, woah, woah, woah, we need to get some post orders down, because this situation just got a whole lot more confusing:

Cyanide said (in respnse to my glitch post):
NOOO! No more mugen glitches, please. There is invulnerability in the base common1.cns during the getup state and it lasts for 5 ticks afterward. Other people may change this. Please go and LOOK before calling it a glitch, even then, it's probably not a glitch.
Most AI characters on wakeup would attack with something like a combo starter or a super... In this situation, they'd probably get thrown instead.
... *Big Text*
I mislabeled it though; that is not a "wake-up" glitch (no that isn't meant to be a taunt).
*Reply you deleted*
Baiken said:
Well obviously you missed the part where it's flat-out written in the common1.cns and called it a glitch anyway !
*My reply which I later deleted because you had deleted yours*
hjk - Tee Hee Hee said:
OMG Byakko, did you read that. I'm not calling that a glitch, I switched what I was talking about.
Try reading  ::)
I blame again your complete incapacity at explaining yourself properly. And if you aknowledged that you used the wrong word and fixed it, you're really a goddamn jackass to write like you did in your previous post. Don't tell people to read your posts properly if you can't write properly.
WHAT THE FUCK.
YOU WERE WRONG FOR NOT READING. That, "I mislabeled it though; that is not a "wake-up" glitch" was there from the beginning; stop being hasty and read.
You called it a glitch first, Cyanide replied, you corrected yourself. Where am I wrong ? You're still a goddamn jackass and can't accept it when you make mistakes.
"Yelling" was not mentioned until 2 posts later. I think this is the source of our current confusion.


Quote
A huge portion of this discussion was me differenciating between what you and Cyanide actually said.
We've already gone over how it was normal for me to say "you were yelling" without adding "it seems like" back the first time. Of course what I and Cyanide said are different. It's perfectly normal.
Ah good. Some of your posts seemed to suggest you were equating them.

Quote
(You almost made it seem like your original post added I the 'seemed like').
No, I didn't. I've said it before, but I've mentionned my original "you're yelling" only twice until you exploded about it. And those two times, I said... Well, the same thing. If you looked like you were yelling, it's normal that I said "you're yelling". I said it because it looked like you were yelling. And after you pointed out that you really weren't, I certainly did not backtrack and act like I said "looked like" the very first time. I already accepted that you really weren't yelling and I have also accepted that saying "you're yelling" was incorrect. I'm still saying it was normal of me to make such a mistake.
OK. I'll leave it there.

Quote
Wel actually yes, it does. You can always ask
I could ask, but if you really didn't look like anything other than yelling, I would have no reason to even think about asking. Like I said, if it really, really, really looks like that, I have no reason to even doubt, to even think it might be anything else. Even if it turns out it was incorrect. So no, I can't ask about anything. I can't go and ask, are you really sure it's 9 PM ? Isn't it 9:01 PM instead ? Are you really, really sure that there's no cloud in the sky ?
I wouldn't exactly equate these examples to this situation, but I do understand what you're saying.

Quote
Byakko, PLEASE, won't you please in the future try to slow down and ask people some questions if a situation like this comes up again.
In a situation similar to this ? No. I made a mistake by saying "you're yelling" the very first time, it turned out that you really weren't yelling, but the reason I said it to begin with is that you really did look like you were yelling. I can accept that I made a mistake and that you really weren't yelling, but you kinda are the one who expressed yourself improperly and ended up looking like you were yelling.
I addressed this above.
It's really funny, but this whole situation is screwy.

Quote
I posted the reasons why your language was bad.
No, you posted the reason why you misunderstood it, but if you're the only one who misunderstood it, it's not really my fault, it's how *you* ave a tendency to interpret improperly what others tell you. I'm sorry you misunderstood, but here as well, it's not really my fault. While my language was surely not perfect, it wasn't "bad", it was normal. If I made a mistake in thinking you were yelling, you also made a mistake when misreading my language.
I can't reply to this. Damn it, I would feel so bad.

Quote
Oh but they did make you wrong.
It didn't change anything of my point and only details were changed, details that did not matter in the point I was making, so it made my point "not accurate" but not "wrong".
Ehhh.

Quote
please read my 'why' your language was bad, and make a reply that kills my points.
Well you say it was bad but you're the only one who thinks so. So the conclusion is that you're the one who misinterpreted it. Because of your own comprehension problems.
I wouldn't say that. It's a clear fact that no one really likes to read my posts, so if someone would be kind enough to address why my comprehension problems were bad as it concerned my outline, I would be very appeciative. It would probably lead to a better understanding.

Quote
Was the post [...] blaming my bad language for why you made an irrelevant reply.
I'm sorry, even making it as short as possible, I don't understand the sense of your question. If I look at the post you link to, all I can say is that I already answered that : this post was saying that I blame those kind of circumstances (generally speaking) on your problems in expressing yourself and understanding others. It was not directly relevant to the glitch itself, but it was relevant to how Cyanide made his very first reply at you and how you "looked like" you were yelling at him afterward.
I mean no offense to you, but I posted the conversation above.
"Yelling" appeared very late.

Quote
So then what the heck does the post mean?
Eh-- wha-- UH ?? BUT I JUST SAID IT in what you quote !
It'll be hard to explain what I mean. I guess I'll need Sepp's actual reply to attempt to clarify what i mean afterward.

Quote
what interpretation I should have gotten from his reply?*
I suggest you point out which reply, then. When he gave you the link, or when he replied that I have more friends/influence than you ?
If it's the link, it's because he thought it would help you. If it's about the friends/influence thing, he already explained it and I repeated it in what you just quoted of me.
I'll be rereading. Given how the conversation went though, I'm not sure I'll be able to wrap myself around it.

Quote
I'm saying if you're going to make a fair' reply, challenge my 'why.'
Why it would or not have been reasonable to think you were the AI coder ? I've explained that several times already.
-You knew about qwer and I didn't, so it's you who should have pointed it out to let me know
-I already said the identity of the AI coder didn't change anything of the point I was making, so jumping to conclusions on a detail was not a fair conclusion.
I would really hate to make a reply to this.

Quote
But isn't it pretty clear that the argument between US TWO, started with you?
I made a statement in saying that you don't express yourself properly. An insulting comment, certainly. You made an argument out of it. You can't just go and put all the blame on me. You replied to my insult ? Well, I replied to how you posted like a jackass. I still blame "it" on your comprehension/expression problems.
I'll give you that. It does take 2 to Tango.

Quote
So wait, Sepp can say that he probably has bias, does not trust me, and come in making a post that wasn't necessarily a good reflection of me, and I shouldn't have a problem?
Exactly, because all of that does not influence anything of the suggestion he is making to you. It's still true that you need to shorten your posts, it's still true that you need to organize your thoughts and the way you express yourself, it's still true that you have a problem in understanding others.
I have to cut it off there. Sepp's initial posts were more like him saying he feels uneasy about me, whereas he trusts you. The ones about language, as I recall and could be wrong, came later.

Whether Sepp has a bias or not, whether you can't be really trusted, doesn't change any of that. So it's still a valid "feedback", a comment, a suggestion to improve, and it still stands. Just because you don't like it, just because Sepp has a bias, doesn't change the fact that it's true.
I dunno. I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but I feel as though if I replied on what I was getting, I'd be starting a new case of drama.

Quote
your facts were wrong
My DETAILS were wrong. Not my facts. And those details did not change anything of what I was saying. So thanks but no thanks.
Uh. Yes and No, but I don't want to create a more dramatic situation.

Quote
You need to read, why your language was bad, byakko.
All of this is still your own interpretation of it. If you're the one who has problems understanding people, it doesn't make my language bad. Yes, I said in this case, yes, the actions of the AI coder matched you, big deal. We've gone countless times over why it didn't change anything and why you're the one focusing on the WRONG things.
Addressed above. I would like someone to really sit down and disect that post and tell me why my points for why were misguided.

Quote
The sad fact is Byakko, that is not what your sentences said.
This is your sentence:
"In this case the [AI Coder] asked the representative of the original creator if he could release the patch. The creator said, "No" and what do you know, the [AI Coder] did it anyway....I'm just summing things up"
Yes and it's still exactly the same thing. Also, I did say "whether it was intentional or not" and you didn't keep that. My point still stands, all of those sentences, including the one you say I said, including the entirety of what I really said, including the point I really was making whether you understood it properly or not, mean the same thing.
Woah, from what I remember the "whether it was intentional or not," was not in your original posts of the thread. The "whether it was intentional or not," as I recall, came after I posted what teh true details of the situation was. What I'm really focused on, was that sentence and its wording, but... *it iis teh drama.*

Quote
In your sentence, you make the [AI Coder] out as someone who knowingly, knowingly, KNOWINGLY betrayed his word.
Unless you're not quoting all of it and are leaving out the part where I added "whether it was intentional or not". My point was still about how the LEAK was a bad thing, whether it was intentional or not. Not the "betraying his words" part. I was talking about the fact that the file was made public at all, not about betrayal or whatever. All of this was in reply to people who were wondering why KFM didn't want the file up, so I explained, with a shortened summary, that it was a leak. Intentional or not, leaked by you or qwer, coded by you or qwer, it didn't matter. And I did point that out.
Addressed just above.

I would like to point out that anyone replying to a post that consists mostly of
YOU ARE NOT READING MY POSTS I DID NOT SAY THAT MY TEXT SHALL NOW INCREASE IN SIZE!!
Would certainly not ask said person "Are you yelling?" Nor would they backtrack and say "stop yelling, unless you're not yelling in the first place"
People come to logical conclusions based on prior experience. Prior experience would lead just about everyone to believe you to be yelling.
Misunderstanding of one person != first person writing anything incorrectly.
Misunderstanding of everyone = first person writing badly.
Cyanide, I'm tempted to just say what I really, really, want to, but I'll just say, READ. I outlined how the conversation went above, and I think that is the major source of the misunderstanding.
LOL, Caddie's the man!! ;)

I'm as real as the runnin, I just happen to rap, Nigaas London, Japan, and i'm scared of dat tap.

I suggest extending my banning, cuz when I come back, it's gonna be hell. You think I was annoying before, oh man, it's on now :)
hjk vs. 99% of MFG. I will win.

RIP Poo Bear Tell my Dead Homie isson, for the year my partner.
Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 04:37:33 am by What did you just say???
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#396  May 29, 2008, 05:08:12 am
  • ******
  • Legendary XIII
  • I am the eye of the storm to come!
    • New Zealand
    • network.mugenguild.com/cyanide/
I can't make a reply to you that won't come off as horribly offensive. So i won't.


In M.U.G.E.N there is no magic button

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.
Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
#397  May 29, 2008, 07:52:56 pm
  • avatar
  • ******
Quote
Wait, then what was your second post "blaming" me for?
[...]
I mean no offense to you, but I posted the conversation above.
"Yelling" appeared very late.
I blamed the fact that Cyanide needed to reply to you the way he did (the very first time) and your reaction to it, the way you posted. Like I said in my first post not counting the deleted one, you posted like a jackass. I was referring to your constant change of size and caps and all. What I blamed was the way the discussion was going. The general behavior.
Quote
I dunno. I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but I feel as though if I replied on what I was getting, I'd be starting a new case of drama.
Take a universal truth. No matter who is saying it, no matter what sentiments made that person say it, whether he hates the one he's saying it to or trusts him blindly, it's still a universal truth. No bias affect that truth in any way. That's the point I'm getting at.
Quote
What I'm really focused on, was that sentence and its wording
i.e., a detail.
Let's compare it to the current situation. I first said you were yelling, then you replied that it wasn't your intention and explained why it looked like that. And I dropped it and stopped saying "you're yelling".
So, when that very first sentence ticked you off, but I pointed out that it may or may not have been intentional (and I'm still pretty sure I said it the very first time), what stopped you from just accepting it and dropping it now that it was cleared ? You just can't have kept going on if you did get that I was specifying "whether it was intentional or not", if your version is correct.


Quote
Cyanide, I'm tempted to just say what I really, really, want to, but I'll just say, READ.
Uh, you haven't even read what he said. Reading the exact situation has nothing to do with what he said in what you quote. Why would he need to reread the precise details of the whole thing ? It's completely unrelated to the point he's making. &gt;_&gt; Again, reading comprehension.
If I struggled to the end of my determination, to the end of my way of life with my followers, if the result is ruin, then this ruin is inevitable. Grieve. Shed tears. But you cannot regret.

hjk

Re: Coliseum - hjk vs Baiken
New #398  May 30, 2008, 07:51:42 am
  • ****
  • Watch my fro grow as you go, go, go, go, go.
    • Afghanistan
Quote
Wait, then what was your second post "blaming" me for?
[...]
I mean no offense to you, but I posted the conversation above.
"Yelling" appeared very late.
I blamed the fact that Cyanide needed to reply to you the way he did (the very first time) and your reaction to it, the way you posted. Like I said in my first post not counting the deleted one, you posted like a jackass. I was referring to your constant change of size and caps and all. What I blamed was the way the discussion was going. The general behavior.
I see. I thought you were blaming my language for your deleted reply (just based on how that conversation was going).

Quote
I dunno. I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but I feel as though if I replied on what I was getting, I'd be starting a new case of drama.
Take a universal truth. No matter who is saying it, no matter what sentiments made that person say it, whether he hates the one he's saying it to or trusts him blindly, it's still a universal truth. No bias affect that truth in any way. That's the point I'm getting at.
For me again, based on the conversation, yes, it was a truth, but the message did't come off too well to me (that sentence was hard to word... and be short with).

Quote
What I'm really focused on, was that sentence and its wording
i.e., a detail.
Let's compare it to the current situation. I first said you were yelling, then you replied that it wasn't your intention and explained why it looked like that. And I dropped it and stopped saying "you're yelling".
So, when that very first sentence ticked you off, but I pointed out that it may or may not have been intentional (and I'm still pretty sure I said it the very first time), what stopped you from just accepting it and dropping it now that it was cleared ? You just can't have kept going on if you did get that I was specifying "whether it was intentional or not", if your version is correct.
What really kept me going was you telling me to learn English in the past. While I admit that sometimes I have problems expressing myself properly on the net, I just thought I'd use that sentence to flip your assertion back onto you.
The difference I saw between this situation with the yelling and the situation with Yun, was that one was based on the 'text size' vs. the other which was based on actual wording  :-\

Quote
Cyanide, I'm tempted to just say what I really, really, want to, but I'll just say, READ.
Uh, you haven't even read what he said. Reading the exact situation has nothing to do with what he said in what you quote. Why would he need to reread the precise details of the whole thing ? It's completely unrelated to the point he's making. &gt;_&gt; Again, reading comprehension.
I think it was the fact he kept the topic at yelling that got to me, but meh. Really my point was that the conversation between you and I didn't 'seem to' start off with a discussion about yelling. Rereading Cyanide's post though, I don't think I should reply (not to be rude, just to avoid any argument).
LOL, Caddie's the man!! ;)

I'm as real as the runnin, I just happen to rap, Nigaas London, Japan, and i'm scared of dat tap.

I suggest extending my banning, cuz when I come back, it's gonna be hell. You think I was annoying before, oh man, it's on now :)
hjk vs. 99% of MFG. I will win.

RIP Poo Bear Tell my Dead Homie isson, for the year my partner.
Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 08:18:42 am by What did you just say???