Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support DONE!!!!!

"

Mythabril wrote:

It's just botters crying about non-bottable content. Proof me wrong!

His join date gets an "o" rating, so that proves he's not being deceptive. He's legit.

"

mark1030 wrote:

Did I say any of what you are suggesting I said? You're acting like a politician and fabricating arguments where there are none because that's the rebuttle you already have written on your response cards. Where did I say I believed only a handful of lab haters are all that posted? Where did Shovelcut say that? Neither of us is suggesting that. What we're contesting is that you are stating an unprovable thing as a fact. The proof you give is not proof of what you claim is a fact.

Put me down for 10 votes saying lab is ok as is. Because the only requirements for proving you're a separate voter is account creating date and supporter titles.

Again an occasional alt account is irrelevant. For it to be a handful of people it would require someone to have many hundreds of alt accounts that were created prior to March 2016. You claim that is reasonable though you don't believe it? Sorry but your argument seems bogus. By this type thinking I guess it would mean that that 9/11 and the landing on the moon are not provable facts because they could be government conspiracies? Although you think they really did happen but they are not provable facts. That is rather convoluted logic and a completely unconvincing argument.

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't know about everybody else, but the more people whine about something , the more I don't want to see it changed.

Mmmm

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't want to see anybody bullied into changing something just like I don't want to see a mommy give in and buy her kid a toy when he's making a scene in a toy store.

Who's bullied in your example.

I don't fully understand your position.

"

Turtledove wrote:

There was one person that we know of that did what you are saying about spamming the forum with such threads

This further proves how deceitful you're being. There were over 26 accounts on your list that had posted many useless threads on the subject. It even still says this in the OP. Unlike you, I've actually taken the time to go through every single thread in the OP and made a list of how many posters made multiple threads. But please, continue making provably wrong statements...

"

mark1030 wrote:

What we're contesting is that you are stating an unprovable thing as a fact. The proof you give is not proof of what you claim is a fact.

Quoted for emphasis. Doubt it's going to help though since we're getting the same copy/paste reply that has nothing to do with the point we're making.

"

Mythabril wrote:

It's just botters crying about non-bottable content. Proof me wrong!

LMAO! Sounds legit! xD

"

Turtledove wrote:

By this type thinking I guess it would mean that that 9/11 and the landing on the moon are not provable facts because they could be government conspiracies?

*Facepalming intensifies further*

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

There was one person that we know of that did what you are saying about spamming the forum with such threads

This further proves how deceitful you're being. There were over 26 accounts on your list that had posted many useless threads on the subject. It even still says this in the OP. Unlike you, I've actually taken the time to go through every single thread in the OP and made a list of how many posters made multiple threads. But please, continue making provably wrong statements...
{spoiler="From the OP"}

"

Turtledove wrote:

Of the 28 accounts with multiple threads, those 28 thread authors account for 65 of those threads.

{/spoiler}

Here's what you said.

"

Other than the obvious use of threads that serve no purpose other than to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads. It actually hurts the anti-laby movement because if any of the devs actually care enough to look thru the list, they have to wade thru a ton of shit posts before they reach the feedback gold that is in there.

My interpretation of that was focused on "serve no purpose other than to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads". You're actually being ridiculous in your claims. There is no way for you to get into their minds and know what they were thinking!!! I suspect the real reason they were doing it was because they were frustrated and it made them feel better to lash out in that way. Instead of me being a damn jerk and thinking you were an idiot, I tried to more reasonably interpret your statement to mean people posting more than 2 or 3 threads and then the time a small group of people that were posting new threads of the same name. Now even those two examples, it can be reasonably argued that it could have easily served other purposes than to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads. But if you want to think that I was being deceitful then fine. Let's see how low you're willing to go.

"

qwqwqw333_final wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't know about everybody else, but the more people whine about something , the more I don't want to see it changed.

Mmmm

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't want to see anybody bullied into changing something just like I don't want to see a mommy give in and buy her kid a toy when he's making a scene in a toy store.

Who's bullied in your example.

I don't fully understand your position.

In what you quoted, the only person being bullied is the mother. Buy me a toy or I'm going to be annoying until you cave in.

"

turtledove wrote:

There is no way for you to get into their minds and know what they were thinking!!! I suspect the real reason they were doing it was....

So shovelcut can't get into their minds and know what they were thinking, but you can? If his argument isn't valid, then yours is equally not valid.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

qwqwqw333_final wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't know about everybody else, but the more people whine about something , the more I don't want to see it changed.

Mmmm

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't want to see anybody bullied into changing something just like I don't want to see a mommy give in and buy her kid a toy when he's making a scene in a toy store.

Who's bullied in your example.

I don't fully understand your position.

In what you quoted, the only person being bullied is the mother.

Bully: A person who is cruel to others, especially those who are weaker or have less power.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bully#English

Where is the cruelty in your two examples? Also, the child and the person complaining about labyrinth have little power in these examples and are making suggestions and pleas to a person in much greater power.

Mark1030, that is a very unusual use of the word bully. It still doesn't really make sense to me either.

edit:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

turtledove wrote:

There is no way for you to get into their minds and know what they were thinking!!! I suspect the real reason they were doing it was....

So shovelcut can't get into their minds and know what they were thinking, but you can? If his argument isn't valid, then yours is equally not valid.

????this makes no sense? How am I getting into people's minds? I said "I suspect" and then gave a reasonable alternative example. I simply addded that I suspect it more likely than Shovelcut's assumed motivation???

Mark, I think you may need a break or something????

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

turtledove wrote:

There is no way for you to get into their minds and know what they were thinking!!! I suspect the real reason they were doing it was....

So shovelcut can't get into their minds and know what they were thinking, but you can? If his argument isn't valid, then yours is equally not valid.

????this makes no sense? How am I getting into people's minds? I said "I suspect" and then gave a reasonable alternative example. I simply addded that I suspect it more likely than Shovelcut's assumed motivation???

Where did shovelcut Claim to know what people were thinking? I must have missed it. All I heard him say was that you can't know what they were thinking and claiming you can (by using the words "known fact") is not valid.

Edit: And since were pulling out dictionaries, why did you conveniently leave out the second definition of bully in your link? The one that says:

"

A noisy, blustering fellow, more insolent than courageous; one who is threatening and quarrelsome; an insolent, tyrannical fellow.

So people in weaker positions can't be noisy, blustering, insolent, threatening, or quarrelsome? And no one in your list of lab haters is showing any signs of any of that?

Is this the thread where I mention that I don't have a problem with the Labyrinth?

There's been some discussion about silent majorities and while I'm not completely silent I probably don't share my opinion as often as it seems I should.