Hold on. I don't want to beat a dead horse but this is fairly amusing to me and semi-involves me. I haven't diagrammed sentences in forever and this is fun.

Your words:

do you mind telling me your actual age? i think that would be the best way to
determine if we should speak at all to each other...

His words:

In a recent ladder game against each other he said that he couldn't be bothered to
speak to me if I couldn't prove I was old enough to deserve his attention.

So your question asks for his age. The second sentence indicates that based upon that answer you would or would not speak to him. His paraphrase says that you wouldn't speak to him unless he was of a sufficient age.

How is this misquoting? It seems fairly spot on. I mean, like better than 99% of news sources in terms of paraphrasing.

Also, I am so calling him Captain Jack Sparrow.

Captain Jack Sparrow: he said that he couldn't be bothered to speak to me if I couldn't prove I was old enough to deserve his attention.

- couldn't be bothered: impolite
- couldn't prove: assumes one is insisting
- deserve his attention: (a) assumes the matter is important
- overall: his language is strong, inflexible, impolite, direct

me: do you mind telling me your actual age? i think that would be the best way to
determine if we should speak at all to each other...

- do you mind: polite, he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to
- i think: states a non-binding opinion
- would: subjunctive
- to determine: it's one of many options
- if we should: must > have to > ought to > should
- at all: Captain Jack Sparrow was being a bit eccentric and wordy, i wasn't interested in replying but sensed that i had to say something since he did address me multiple times and with rather strong language
- overall: my language is not as strong, more flexible, less authoritative

i've eaten green oranges before. i've also eaten green apples. they are both round. they both have seeds. they are both fruits. inside they both have sugar and water. are they the same?

I have to agree with Dr. Typesomething here. For me its the same coffee in a different cup.

That sounds like Clinton trying to define the word "is". The wording is slightly different (it is a paraphrase) and the overall tone is obviously different. But the meaning is identical.

It's more like "I've eaten green apples before. I have also munched on jade apples before".

Hahahahahaha! Man, this thread is awesome.

Richie Rich, I know you're in denial about how condescending you are, but to be able to break down a sentence that way and believe wholeheartedly in that nonsensical explanation you came up with... that's a whole new level of denial. It's so impressive I feel like I should applaud you. I especially love the part where you point out that the word "would" is subjunctive. And then there's the part where the words "at all" indicate that Captain Jack Sparrow is eccentric and wordy. Highly entertaining. Bravo!

if gui was a thousand years old it would still be a waste of time to talk to him.

There is indeed a slight difference in tone between the two statements. However, the problem lies in that Gui states [not Captain >:)] Jack Sparrow misquoted him, when Jack Sparrow was not quoting him at all, but was paraphrasing him. Paraphrases are by their very nature bound to be different (in fact they must be or else it's plagiarism :P) Therefore, picking out minute differences in the tone of language is.... shall we say, petty?

Sorry there Gui, I quite enjoy your attempt though xD I almost agreed with you until I read it all again and realized this subtle difference.

Yes, I agree that differences in tone are sometimes important and reflect the subtle personal opinions of the person making the statement. However, in this case I don't think it was important enough to point out, and definitely not to the extent of language tone that you used toward Jack Sparrow though your word "misquoting." Well, at least it lead to the link of the chat in question and some amusement. :3

This is funny. I thought Dr. Pepper wanted to play a game, so I played.

I like how Willy Wonka makes fun of my post but then goes on to restate much of it.

Imagination's demotion of Willy Wonka from captain to matey is humorous too.

We even have Rated X for Perversity chiming in!

take my lunch money, just please dont beat me up.

Most underrated woo!

Using data from warlight's forums I am going to start developing an equation for how long it takes a thread to devolve into complete anarchy, it seems almost inevitable based off of this thread, the "religion" ones, and the "change the name of blacklist" thread

Gui, just curious, when you make up these super hilarious nicknames for people, do others usually find them humorous? Perhaps it is one of those kinds of humor that just doesn't work on the internet (or the written word, in general), but it kinda makes you seem like an asshole. Not the fun at a party kind of asshole, the kind of asshole that completely ruins a dinner party.

To be succinct, do you really think you are funny? To others, that is, obviously you quite enjoy yourself. That wasn't in any way a masturbation joke....or was it?!

[ZhongguoYangshuo]TexasJohn, I find the non-names many use to be a rather curious form of dissimulation and I don't take many names very seriously. For anyone with a fake name, I often adjust it (out of boredom) or shorten it (for the sake of simplicity). For those with real names (Mike, Chris) or historical names (Saladin), I always write the name as is, since it is an actual name.

No need to take the names too seriously, unless you truly believe yourself to be TexasJohn from the clan ZhongguoYangshuo and introduce yourself as such at your dinner parties: "Hi, I'm TexasJohn from the clan ZhongguoYangshuo," you say with your guitar strapped around your neck as you flip everyone off.

This environment is not to be taken too seriously. It's a mix of dissimulation, cesspool and sloth/apathy. To expect more is expecting too much.

If we all used real names, real photos and included real biographical information, I'm sure the level of conversation would be better: certain people wouldn't be so daring, others wouldn't be given the time of day.

And therein lies the advantage (possibly disavantage) of internet anonymity: People are more free to say whatever they please, because no statements can escape the internet to interfere with their lives. I was just a little put off by the "nicknames", since it's not quite obvious WHO some of the people you were referring to are.

Side note: You shouldn't call people Dr Pepper, or even mention it. It really makes me want Dr Pepper, and now I will be tempted into buying some online.

it was that or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyvcoRfO-Ic lol

Lobstrosity, here is the formula I would use. It hasn't been thoroughly tested but I think it's pretty close.

Start with 10 responses.

-10 if the post involves religion
-8 if the post involves politics
+10 if the post is actually about Warlight.
+16 if the post is constructive to improving Warlight.
+20 if the post is constructive to improving the ladder on Warlight.
+10 if the post is about improving a decent new map
-5 if the post is about a map deemed crappy by the Warlight community.
-10 if the post involves either glorifying or degrading the USA
-9 if Gui/Richeleiu/pick-an-archaic-European-leader responds with something hilariously self-gratifying but not completely correct and completely demeaning.
-7 if J Russell Mikkelsen says anything at all.

OK, I was going to resist but I can't.

Your words:
For those with real names (Mike, Chris) or historical names (Saladin), I always write the name as is, since it is an actual name.

Your words a few responses up:
Captain Jack Sparrow: he said that he couldn't be bothered to speak to me if I couldn't prove I was old enough to deserve his attention.

given his unique personal qualities and lack of playing experience, the honorable captain is the only exception. maybe it is a form of unintentional hazing.

dr, your expectations for this forum are a bit high. we could do an experiment on this (which would be related to your somewhat silly desire to categorize threads on a rather decadent forum).

(1) take anything related to WL that you have an opinion about and make a new thread. take your time to make it logically, factually and grammatically perfect -- or dont, since logic, facts and grammar dont really matter much here. (2) try to respond to people in a sincere way. (3) observe the quality of the responses. (4) my guess: eventually your being in this cesspool will be enough to soil you one way or another.

the only way to be involved in forum discussions without being sullied by the forum itself: only comment on or criticize what others put forth, never offer anything new, and never respond to others (ie, avoid having an actual dialogue).

forums in general: echo chamber + cesspool of anonymity
war game forum: echo chamber + cesspool + masculine aggressiveness

if i took myself seriously, i wouldnt write anything at all. but i find this amusing, since my current living situation is less than ideal. to each his own.

Gui, what exactly do you mean when you say the WL forum is "decadent"?

i dont think it represents the finer things in contemporary life but does reflect many of our weaknesses.