OpenSceneGraph anyone?
category: general [glöplog]
Simple, your "judgement by screenshot" shows a very basic fallacy: the absence of evidence of quality is not an evidence of absence of quality.
skrebbel: well, gloom's just trying to win an argument on a subject he clearly shouldn't express himself on. It's a pretty petty way of having the last say on something, regardless of being right or just utterly, utterly wrong.
The formula is simple:
1. The moment people point out you're wrong, add a baseless direct analogy for an argument. Should this fail, just start to refer to another part of a quotation, sentence or argument. No matter how off-topic and irrelevant to the subject at hand (it's just to bend the discussion to a point where you're no longer facing the risk of being painted into a corner).
2. Occasionally ask if people actually know what you're talking about. Add some emoticon to feign you don't have a single worry in the world -you're right, after all.
3. Keep pointing out that your claims are still unshakingly concrete. Considering you are making a foxhunt out of what you're talking about, nobody would be able to properly pinpoint what it is all about
4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It may appear to some like you are really, really smart and at least two steps ahead thanks to a huge, enormeous brain. It's just a really dmub way of trying to be right about things.
Here's a little simulation of what would've happened if Bruce didn't keep the honor to himself:
Bruce: "That's pretty much like saying photoshop sucks when deviantart.com is your only frame of reference"
Gloom: "Thank you for proving my point, because Deviantart is not an Adobe website"
Bruce: "Are you implying that you could only get a good frame of reference from the official website? Because that would be really dumb."
Gloom: "As I stated before, you could definitely see on the OSG website that I'm right"
Bruce: "Allright, now you're just trolling"
Gloom: "On what exactly are you basing this?"
Gloom: "Oh and VR jokes are hilarious"
World+dog: "Okay, what the fuck?"
The formula is simple:
1. The moment people point out you're wrong, add a baseless direct analogy for an argument. Should this fail, just start to refer to another part of a quotation, sentence or argument. No matter how off-topic and irrelevant to the subject at hand (it's just to bend the discussion to a point where you're no longer facing the risk of being painted into a corner).
2. Occasionally ask if people actually know what you're talking about. Add some emoticon to feign you don't have a single worry in the world -you're right, after all.
3. Keep pointing out that your claims are still unshakingly concrete. Considering you are making a foxhunt out of what you're talking about, nobody would be able to properly pinpoint what it is all about
4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It may appear to some like you are really, really smart and at least two steps ahead thanks to a huge, enormeous brain. It's just a really dmub way of trying to be right about things.
Here's a little simulation of what would've happened if Bruce didn't keep the honor to himself:
Bruce: "That's pretty much like saying photoshop sucks when deviantart.com is your only frame of reference"
Gloom: "Thank you for proving my point, because Deviantart is not an Adobe website"
Bruce: "Are you implying that you could only get a good frame of reference from the official website? Because that would be really dumb."
Gloom: "As I stated before, you could definitely see on the OSG website that I'm right"
Bruce: "Allright, now you're just trolling"
Gloom: "On what exactly are you basing this?"
Gloom: "Oh and VR jokes are hilarious"
World+dog: "Okay, what the fuck?"
i recognize that pattern, somehow...
skrebbel: Yeah! I just switched to the WPF team and made some ps2.0 bump-mapped buttons that are lit by the mouse position, that's all pure wpf code.
They're a little crazy though.
They're a little crazy though.
lol Shifter :D
gb, ahh ok cool! i didnt know you worked at ms. is it nice there?
shifter, thanks for the clarification! note that i didn't really have an opinion, but just enjoyed that stefan had a comment on the way other people contribute to pouet.
Well, one could argue that Gloom has started stealing Stefan's thunder in the trolling department. Trolls can be somewhat territorial.
skrebbel: it really, REALLY depends on the group you're in. It can be a lot of fun, but you have to wow your interviewers with balls-ass crazy textmode demos to get into the good groups.