Local emoter stumbles into hemoter-infested game

The full first quote:



The full second quote is simply in the context of explaining how the hemote code works to someone who didn't understand it.

The full third quote is an extension of explaining the code, and relates to the probability of catching three hidden emotes in any order in a group of unknown size, since apparently a bunch of you failed to grasp probability in middle school.

Sober up, drunkie.

In this particular thread? This ... Thread.

Yes they do? In 'this' particular thread? If I was talking about the reddit thread, while writing in this thread, I would've said in 'that' particular thread.


It's okey. It happens. Kind of funny how eagerly you jumped on it when you misread it, but whatever.

Qwerty, you're the one misreading jcarter's posts, not the other way around. Not only that, but you're misreading my posts too. You took every quote of mine that you posted out of context, then I explained the context of those posts clearly, and you're still misreading them. So you're sticking to cherry-picked sentences and parts of sentences instead of expressing understanding that they're part of a post with an overall point that's different from the point you're implying.

The way I see it, there are three possible reasons for this:
1) You're still completely drunk and you have severe alcohol poisoning, and you don't have much time to write posts while you're in the hospital getting oxygen therapy, so you're just rushing them out as fast as possible.
2) English is your second language and you struggle with finding the "thesis statement" in an argumentative body of text.
3) You're intentionally misreading everything in order to claim that you/Armageddon are victims of a vast conspiracy where... uh... people post reviews about how Armageddon wasn't their type of game... or something.

Now if it's #1, lol. If it's #2, you have my sympathies, but you can get through that stumbling block pretty quickly by just reading things more carefully. But based on your behavior over the entire history of your account, I know it's #3. You're the premier defender of a dinky text-based game and you know that in order to defend the fact that Armageddon has a loophole in its rules, you will have to claim that the game is being trolled both on Reddit, and over here. You need to gaslight people by intentionally misreading stuff yourself and claiming that others are, in fact, misreading you, in order to save face.

Honestly, it's kind of embarrassing. What you're doing is the equivalent of ShaLeah's freakout on Reddit on the last review we saw. Your continued presence here is an embarrassment to Armageddon because it shows what Armageddon produces when it gets desperate with its self-defense. You could have gracefully conceded that Rule #2 has some gray areas and staff could benefit from rewording it, but instead, you doubled down and implied that nothing happened as described, and if nothing happened, then nothing needs fixing.

OK, so you just can't read, apparently.



Not to mention - again - you're repeating the "3 in a row" lie, which is vastly less probable than catching three hemotes in any order in a group of hemotes of unknown size. Again: it gets more likely to catch 3 hemotes in any order the larger the group of hemotes gets. The "mudsex hemote session" was a hypothetical way of describing a large group of hemotes and you're taking it way too literally, on purpose.

That's the last time I repeat myself. I always knew you were a joke, but I'm fully convinced at this point that you're also a moron, and that explaining this further would be punching down. Anyone who takes you seriously is also a moron. Take jcarter's advice and get some help.

Haha.

Argument: The likelyhood of someone catching 3 lewd hemotes with a noob watch is very low, therefore the review is likely fake.

counterargument: It's higher if it was a fingerbanging sessions. Here's data for it. The odds the person catching a hemote is 1 in 16. By extension, seeing 3 hemotes is not unlikely. It just means he missed 45 other hemotes. Logical extrapolation: Since all 3 were lewd hemotes. Then the other 45 hemotes were also lewd. Which is not unlikely, since they were likely in a ... fingerbanging session.  Especially since nobody hemotes in the tavern otherwise.

Observation: Since the events have been downgraded to a mudsex session, then yes, it would've required a consent.

Response: Nobody said there was a mudsex session. That was just hypothetical.

In that case, go back to the very first argument.