- 0 Posts
- 18 Comments
8·27 days agoI’d have to see the mapeditor and confirm it’s any good to care. We’ve had pretty capable (gen 3) map editing tools for years already. Considering what existing romhacking tools are already out there, I’m pretty skeptical that this will provide anything of value.
Go on, then, which part was false? Explain it slowly.
I think there is a term for this. The (insert name here) effect. You won’t leave because they’re there. They won’t leave because their audience is there.
You have less incentive to stay, really. What are you afraid of missing out on?
Idek the historical context or anything that’s going on in this situation right now, but your inability to see nuance and your insistent strawman is telling and exhausting.
51·1 month agoPretty uncharitable interpretation of something posted by someone who I would guess you have a common goal with.
People that give a fuck about “priceless art” or whatever are so silly. Lmao.
I’m not saying to not continue posting articles like this, but I do think that maybe your time would be better spent arguing with people who don’t believe in climate change instead of arguing with people who do believe in climate change.
Do you think we’re debating you? We’re mocking you.
You seem pretty obviously upset.
Lmao so you’re straight up admitting to being an accelerationist. Glad we could get there together. You want things to get worse faster so that hopefully other people will rise up.
It feels like you don’t understand the logic somehow.
They said “if you don’t vote for athlete’s foot, you’ll get terminal cancer”
You said “if you do vote for athlete’s foot, you’ll later have to vote for terminal cancer”
Let’s say that your logic is correct.
What you are advocating for is… getting terminal cancer now… so you don’t have to vote to get it later…
Pretty fucking stupid take.
What would make you think that a PC wouldn’t also be able to do this for longer? Lol.
This post borders on sovcit levels of delusion.
13·2 months agolol ok bud
REMINDER: THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED
MY POINT = PROVEN CORRECT
PLEASE KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOST
The paper wasn’t retracted until 2010 lol. The point is that fraudulent papers can be published.
Still lmao.
This just shows the resilience of publishing, and the scientific community to fraud and [alleged] corruption
Uh… sure it does, buddy.
Lol I despise people not knowing what a strawman is. Go back to english class.
Tell me more about how antivax scientists didn’t successfully publish a paper with tons of biases and nonsensical findings.
Removed by mod