You call that post radical? I call it lazy.
When Socrates annoyed the fuck out of the Athenian assembly so much that they ordered him to drink hemlock, was that lazy?
When Galileo gave the Pope the bird because he didn't want his research squelched because of dogma, was that lazy?
When Martin Luther pinned his ninety-five theses to the forehead of a Catholic priest, was that lazy?
When Isaac Newton invented gravity by making an apple fall from a tree, was that lazy?
When Michael Faraday made a book out of a candle, was that lazy?
When Nicola Tesla made a death ray and destroyed a huge chunk of Siberia for no good reason, was that lazy?
When Robert Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad Gita when he blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was that lazy?
Fuck no, those were all fucking radical, and the shit I'm bringing down on the RVS is just as fucking radical as all of these 100% accurate historical examples.
Jim, do you imply that participating in RVS while knowing your wincon is somehow more productive than doing the same without knowing it?
Knowing your win condition is automatically more productive than not, so yes, by default.
Was this question relevant at all?
Sure, if you'll do my dynamics homework. Are you any good with forced harmonic motion?
Is that the one with the non-homogeneous ordinary differential equation? Then yes.
Why go after the person who has asked two as opposed to the person or persons (like me) who have asked even fewer?
Everyone is equally guilty of not ending the RVS.
But I can only vote one player.
Jim
IronyOwl, what useless RVS questions are you going to ask and to whom, and why them?
First, on what can you define a useless RVS question, and why say it to someone who hasn't even asked anything?
Second, why so interested in knowing the reasons behind a useless question?
The only useful questions in the RVS are questions that lead out of the RVS. And I can't well ask IronyOwl what questions he's going to ask if he's already asked them, now can I?
The questions themselves are irrelevant. I'm interested in the choice of players he asks.
Jim: Do you feel you have received sufficient amounts of unpredictable bullshit so far?
No.
Are two questions always worse than three? How many of your own questions would you consider relevant?
Too few questions are always worse than too many. On the one hand, you have Bookthras. On the other, you have Org. I will leave it to you to provide the direction of the inequality between those two players.
I'd argue about 75% are relevant, since sometimes I really hate my fucking homework and want to let everyone know about it, and sometimes I try to be funny and I like to believe I succeed occasionally.
Because it's one of my flaws. And Toaster's odd question got me off balance a bit, as well.
Oh, really?
The RVS is useless, so nobody has anything to fear, yet you're off balance a bit, huh?
There's a term for what you are: nervous scum.
Shakerag mostly for his bad questions.
Nice timing.
I am certain that this was in no way, absolutely unequivocally, related to Tiruin voting you for being scum, and thus you reacting to it.