More reading, more thinking, less talking.
My .02
While a 42 and 50 year-old took offense to the fact that not everyone finds the same things as humorous as you.
I think they're taking offense to your claim that you recognised the humour, when you clearly did not, else you wouldn't have posted a serious reply. I think you're kind of a douche for doing so, too.
I don't know how to respond. Your first sentence has a logical fallacy, and your second one is just pointless, if not weak: "I think you're kind of..."
Okay, you clearly didn't recognise the humour, you're a liar for saying that you did despite your actions clearly showing otherwise, and you are a douche.
That definitive enough for you?
Okay, you clearly didn't recognise the humour, you're a liar for saying that you did despite your actions clearly showing otherwise, and you are a douche.
That definitive enough for you?
Why do get the idea that if I don't contribute to the "humor," then that "clearly" shows I didn't recognize it?
Okay, you clearly didn't recognise the humour, you're a liar for saying that you did despite your actions clearly showing otherwise, and you are a douche.
That definitive enough for you?
Why do get the idea that if I don't contribute to the "humor," then that "clearly" shows I didn't recognize it?
No, it's that you posted a reply that was clearly out of spirit with the rest of the thread.
Look, if you come into a troll thread and post a serious reply, you've clearly been had. Nobody posts serious replies in threads they know are jokes, so stop trying to convince us that's what you did. You're not fooling anyone, and you're making yourself look like more of a jerk every moment that you continue this charade.
Did my "serious" posts offend you guys? If so, I am deeply sorry. At any rate, it's ironic how they could have been ignored and the thread could continue, but you guys were determined to teach me a lesson on how I don't have the right to post with actual analysis.
Nobody said anything about rights; you're committing your own logical fallacies. I just don't appreciate bs-ers.
Did my "serious" posts offend you guys? If so, I am deeply sorry. At any rate, it's ironic how they could have been ignored and the thread could continue, but you guys were determined to teach me a lesson on how I don't have the right to post with actual analysis.
Apology accepted. As is the continued comedy contribution.
Yes, it's a Victorian opening system which is not generally played these days. Either Nf6 or d5 are avalable for black. It doesn't sufficiently pressurise black's position.
Here is a "trap"
The moves to get to it are 1.e4 e5 2. c3 Nf6 3. f3 Nc6 4.d4 d5 5.dxe5 Nxe5 6.f4 Nc6 7.e5 Ne4 8.g3 Bc5 9. Qe2They have "envented" another route for your contrition, @Matt. Don't bite.
A rabbit warren of pseudo-logic, with a dollop of derping at the end.
In any case, don't challenge them to a Cockney Slang Ryming match, or you'll definitely get rolled, again.
This opening already exists.
Don't you get the joke?
Sorry, didn't think it was funny :-) so I didn't respond afterwards.
This opening already exists.
Don't you get the joke?
Sorry, didn't think it was funny :-) so I didn't respond afterwards.
That's impossible. Everybody thinks this is funny, so you must not get the joke.
This opening already exists.
Don't you get the joke?
Sorry, didn't think it was funny :-) so I didn't respond afterwards.
That's impossible. Everybody thinks this is funny, so you must not get the joke.
I got it :-)
This opening already exists.
Don't you get the joke?
Sorry, didn't think it was funny :-) so I didn't respond afterwards.
That's impossible. Everybody thinks this is funny, so you must not get the joke.
I got it :-)
Alright, if you say so.
I'm trying to protect you here mattaattack. I was 16 once and more clever then than you are now. And then 34 years happened..
I'm touched, but you really don't have to protect me from whatever it is you think I'm threatened by.