Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Necroshea wrote:People who sign their posts. I mean really, if you've spent at least 10 minutes on an online forum ever, you'll know that almost always you see an avatar and a name to your left, and their post in the center spanning to the right. There is no reason what so ever to sign your name after a post. It's redundant.

I again Agree.
-Asherian Command

Grakmar wrote:I don't get anyone who criticizes others based on their choice of product (XBox vs PS3), style (hipsters), music, or legal recreational activity. Really, how does other people's personal preferences matter to you?

Yeah, I don't get people who really, strongly identify with some mass consumer product or another. I used to wonder about this when it was Holden vs Ford (GM vs Ford in America). "I have built my identity around a purchasing decision". Same for XBox vs Playstation. I mean, it's weird when it's football teams or religion, but at least that might represent family or tradition, not just spending choices.

In fact, that's the worst thing about the whole hipster movement, it's all based around what people have chosen to buy.

I dont really get the sports team thing either, my dads crazy to the point where he wont even consider the other team played even remotely well.


Oh yeah, also Americans (sorry to generalise, but the US is the only place i see it) who say they like dubstep, when all theyve heard is 1 skrillex track. I mean come on, almost as bad as those who say anything that doesnt sound like skrillex isnt dubstep.

Yours faithfully,

Vitruvian XVII

Albatross wrote:Madness!

See, you're different to what I'm talking about, in that case. I've met people who only own like, 2 CDs, and claim not to like music really at all. That's weird. I can understand people not being particularly interested in it, but not liking it at all?

Yeah, I've met someone like that. It was so far outside of what I understood of normal human behaviour it took forever for me to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: I think I see what bic's saying Alb, I also say "I'm not into music" but I think your reading too much into what is essentially just an abbreviation meaning that you don't obsess over it. By saying your not "into" music nobody really means they don't listen to it do they? Every human has bought a cd for example at some point in their lives surely?!

Yeah, the examples you gave there are what I kept thinking this person meant when they said they weren't into music, but they actually, genuniely meant they just didn't get anything out of music. Like, you could put the radio on any station and it wouldn't matter to them, as one station is as good as any other, they barely notice it. As in, they own maybe two CDs, and they were given to them as birthday presents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Perkustin wrote:I dont get why people Need fancy mobile phones, bored? Read a book or like erm... Talk to someone?

I didn't get them either until I found out they had a GPS thing in them. As someone who is constantly lost this is a godsend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:How bronies happened. Someone criticised to show on 4chan because of its animation(it wad a paper) this convinced a few to watch the show for themselve. Obviously 4chan just doesnt give a crud s othey talked about it. it just grew from thre.

Thanks for the effort in explaining it to me, but I'm not really sure that helped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Wow, could you really be more intolerant? You obviously understand nothing about weightlifting and take yourself far too seriously.

I don't much about weightlifting, including how it relates to anything in this thread.

I love these people who bash bronies. Do you not realize how absurd you appear when you do that? You're an offshoot of the internet tough guy, the "really mature internet guy". I'm so mature that not only do I not watch MLP, I actively insult it and its viewers.

What? I didn't bash bronies. When another poster asked that, I clarified that I was most definitely not bashing bronies. I was simply saying I don't understand how it came to be a thing.

Please read more carefully, and don't go looking for offense.

In your OP you insult anyone who refuses to eat a vegetarian meal. Unless you take massive amounts of supplements it is incredibly difficult to consume enough protein to build strength and muscle mass without eating meat.

Ignorance is forgivable, but why do you even care what other people eat? That's their decision.

I post on Dakka.

I think that in and of itself is a baffling conundrum.

And why is Venom driving a car beeping a horn? It makes no sense.

Vitruvian XVII wrote:People who think a scientific theory, is theoretical and not fact. You don't believe in a scientific theory, you either choose to ignore it or its a fact. Its like someone saying i believe grass is green, not that i know it is.

People who give a theory/belief, then think its my job to disprove it. No. If you put forth something, you need to provide the proof to back it up. Im looking at you bible people...

Coolyo294 wrote:

Vitruvian XVII wrote:People who believe in God/any religion

People that wont listen to scientific FACT, despite the fact its a fact, because it doesn't suit them (eg. evolution)

People who dont agree with genetic breeding/stem cell research/ biofuel/anything that could be useful to humanity but is against so-called "morals"...

What if you believe in God and still believe in things like evolution?

You're free to believe what you want ofc, but it seems paradoxical to me.

Im a very scientific minded guy, theres absolutely no evidence for god whatsoever. Seems to me if you understand that evolution happened, it pretty much discontinues mcuh of the old testament.

I know the point of this thread isn't to get into arguments, but I felt the need to comment (this is one of the things that I do that confuses me):

1) Scientific theory is theory. It's all based on observation and assumptions that have been made based off of those observations. If the assumptions are false, then the theory falls apart. All you need to do is look throughout history at the "Scientific FACTS" and see how many have changed (eg. the Earth is flat) (then again, this is an assumption based on observation... so it's more of a theory I guess).
1) a) Previous experience does not necessarily mean that future experience will be the same. Just because gravity has worked for as long as I've been alive, does not necessarily mean that it will continue to 5 minutes from now.
1) b) Furthermore, since future events are unknown, the only way to know that any theory is a "scientific FACT" is to observe the entirety of the universe for all time, an inherent impossibility (and also problematic, as some atoms behave differently when observed and when not).

2) Nothing can be proven as true. You can only prove things false. So for something to be "true," all other possibilities must be proven false, which is inherently impossible as there are always additional possibilities.
2) a) Exception: pure definitions. A square is a square because that is what we call it.
2) b) Exception: math. Although I suppose this would fall under pure definitions.

3) Proving the lack o,f or existence of, a god is easy, it's all in the person's definition.
3) a) "God is the most powerful being in existence" is inherently true as the most powerful being in existence defaults to be God.
3) b) "God is the most powerful being that can be conceived" is inherently false, as I can always conceive of something more powerful.
3) c) The Christian God is enough of a paradox as to not be able to exist, assuming that the Bible is taken as complete truth (which, if you believe in Christendom, you have to).

4) Although I both do and don't believe in god (see 3 above), existence in of itself can be seen as proof of a god.

Well it took seven pages, but we've finally gotten around to trolling the religious.

I knew we'd get there sooner or later.

If my post was seen as trying to troll the religious, I did not intend it as such. I suppose I should have been more specific in 3.c. and said "the Christian god as put forth by the Christian church" although that's not much better. Although it does take me back to my post earlier in the thread where I think I said "organized religion"

Shrike325 wrote:If my post was seen as trying to troll the religious, I did not intend it as such. I suppose I should have been more specific in 3.c. and said "the Christian god as put forth by the Christian church" although that's not much better. Although it does take me back to my post earlier in the thread where I think I said "organized religion"

Disorganised religion is just as wrong.

Monster Rain wrote:Well it took seven pages, but we've finally gotten around to trolling the religious.

I knew we'd get there sooner or later.

Yeah I was sweating for a bit there..

Anyway Ill pitch in.

Burkha's eh? What the feth is that all about?!

I guess mine would be people who use emoticons ad nauseum. Once in a while is fine. I usually use them when I feel like my words aren't accurately refelecting my tone e.g. using a smiley to show my statement is a joke not an insult.

But man people who need a XD :( -_- every 2 words is just...odd.

Amaya wrote:Unless you take massive amounts of supplements it is incredibly difficult to consume enough protein to build strength and muscle mass without eating meat.

That's not true at all. When considered in terms of grams of protein per calorie, many vegetables are actually much higher in protein than many meats. The problem isn't the amount of protein, its the amino acid composition of that protein.

Its hard to not eat meat in America for the same reason many poor people are fat. A quality diet requires money and knowledge.

Amaya wrote:In your OP you insult anyone who refuses to eat a vegetarian meal. Unless you take massive amounts of supplements it is incredibly difficult to consume enough protein to build strength and muscle mass without eating meat.

I would take a picture of myself to prove you wrong but I'm not that vain.
Protein shake, beans, eggs, peas, cheese, milk.
Gaining muscle as a vegetarian is no more difficult than for a meat-eater.

mattyrm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Well it took seven pages, but we've finally gotten around to trolling the religious.

I knew we'd get there sooner or later.

Yeah I was sweating for a bit there..

Anyway Ill pitch in.

Burkha's eh? What the feth is that all about?!

You know what I hate?

Zoroastrians.

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Well it took seven pages, but we've finally gotten around to trolling the religious.

I knew we'd get there sooner or later.

Yeah I was sweating for a bit there..

Anyway Ill pitch in.

Burkha's eh? What the feth is that all about?!

You know what I hate?

Zoroastrians.

Isnt that the Religion where God is named after a Japanese car manufacturer?

Ok you talked me into it I hate them too.

Amaya wrote:In your OP you insult anyone who refuses to eat a vegetarian meal. Unless you take massive amounts of supplements it is incredibly difficult to consume enough protein to build strength and muscle mass without eating meat.

Ignorance is forgivable, but why do you even care what other people eat? That's their decision.

You're joking, right?

That's not what he wrote at all. He said he couldn't understand people who claim they could NEVER eat/enjoy a vegetarian meal. There really are people that silly out there. That's a whole different concept from people who choose to eat meat most (or even all) of the time but are willing to acknowledge and accept that they could eat and enjoy a meatless meal if they wanted to, or the situation called for it, socially.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Albatross wrote:

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:But then, I find it hard to trust people who don't like the Beatles. Perhaps that makes ME strange...

I really dislike the Beatles. It took a sex bribe for my ex to get me to watch Across the Universe. The music in which I actually ended up liking, and prefer to the original songs.

Bloody contrarian! I'll not rise to your bait.

Good day, sir.

I just had to pretend that I didn't read dogma saying that. I like him to much for there to be that kind of "Big Chill" that comes from someone not liking The Beatles.

/resumes forgetting that dogma doesn't like the band that wrote Let it Be and Here Comes the Sun.

I'm with you both. I respect dogma's thoughts on a lot of stuff, but in this department he be crazy. Though he's right to like Across the Universe. That rocked. I think the only kind of weak rendition on the whole thing is Blackbird (although I am refusing to acknowledge For the Benefit of Mr. Kite.). Fantastic flick, as are all of Julie Taymor's that I've seen.

Amaya wrote:In your OP you insult anyone who refuses to eat a vegetarian meal. Unless you take massive amounts of supplements it is incredibly difficult to consume enough protein to build strength and muscle mass without eating meat.

Ignorance is forgivable, but why do you even care what other people eat? That's their decision.

Of course. I didn't say otherwise, in fact I said this;
"People who insist, most strongly, that they could never eat a vegetarian meal. Not that they really like meat and don't want to give it up, that's fine, I like meat too. I mean people who claim the thought of eating a meal without meat somehow makes them ill. Did you put bacon on your corn flakes as a kid?"

My puzzlement is with people who simply would not eat a meal because it lacks meat, for no other reason than that it lacks meat. At no point did I state or imply that people on specific diets, such as someone on a high protein diet was bizarre. No, I simply said people who will only consider a meal if it has meat in it, for no other reason than because a meal ought to have meat in it according to them, make no sense to me.

Why you chose to interpret my statement that any and all people who only eat meals of meat, for any possible reason, is quite the puzzle.


In fact, that brings me to another thing that always puzzles me, people who think they're making a good point by taking another person's post in the most ridiculous manner possible. Why do these people act like that? What do they think they're achieving, in getting the other person to repeat their point they have, at best, just wasted five minutes of everyone's time, and at worst made themselves look like they're incapable of basic reading comprehension.

Given you decided to take such an action in this thread Amaya, can you explain why you chose to read into my post that I thought athletes on strict diets were puzzling, just like people who simply refuse to eat a meal with meat in it?

sebster wrote:
In fact, that brings me to another thing that always puzzles me, people who think they're making a good point by taking another person's post in the most ridiculous manner possible. Why do these people act like that? What do they think they're achieving, in getting the other person to repeat their point they have, at best, just wasted five minutes of everyone's time, and at worst made themselves look like they're incapable of basic reading comprehension.

I hate that most of all, its closely related to the slippery slope argument we see on dakka on a daily basis.

"If we legalise gay marriage, people will start marrying donkeys and raping babies!"

You made an ignorant sweeping statement and are now attempting to claim otherwise. No, I would never eat a vegetarian meal, not even for a social function. Likewise, I would never try to force a vegan or vegetarian to eat meat or for that matter questioning why they refuse to do so.

Insinuating that such people "put bacon on their cornflakes" is asinine. A more intelligent question would be, "did you put milk on your cereal?" There are vegetarians who do drink milk, but there are many (and vegans) who don't. Technically, cereal with milk is not a vegetarian meal making your query rather pointless.

I'd also like to point out that you contradict yourself in your OP.

"People increasing their hostility to something the more popular it gets. Like the mass of hatred that followed Avatar, which at worst could be called very well made but bland... that somehow sent some people into fits absolute hatred because, near as I can tell, it was really popular"

"Bronies. Most internet fads I kind of understand why and how they happened, even if I think it's pretty silly. I absolutely cannot begin to understand why young men started watching a show about ponies aimed a very young girls."

And if MLP wasn't popular and all over the internet would you even care?

No.

This confuses me.
How do you make a coin celebrating the killing of a human being(albeit one of the worse)
Seriously this is kindof a big middle finger and just kinda overly jingoistic. And profiting from 9/11
We must be the only country tht trys to make money off terrorism

How do you make a coin celebrating the killing of a human being(albeit one of the worse)

If one doesn't follow the belief that human life is always sacred, regardless of whatever actions that human took, I would think it's pretty understandable.

Amaya wrote:You made an ignorant sweeping statement and are now attempting to claim otherwise.

No, I didn’t. I said I don’t understand why people would limit themselves in the food they eat. That’s it. Nothing more. Everything else is just weirdness in your head.

No, I would never eat a vegetarian meal, not even for a social function.

You wouldn’t each such a meal out of a conviction that it wouldn’t have the dietary requirements you need, or because you just don’t want to eat something that doesn’t have meat in it? Because the former makes sense, the latter is just plain bizarre.

I mean, if I was at a friend’s house and my friend asked if I’d like to eat some of the dinner he’s just cooked, I’d try it. I think most every person on the planet would try it, unless they had a very specific reason not to. Most of those reasons would make good sense, they’d be dietary requirements, either it had something the person can’t consume (maybe nuts or meat products), or it might have something in it they won’t eat for personal or moral reasons (one or all kinds of meat), or as you already pointed out it might lack something that person is trying to get in every meal they eat, like a certain amount of protein.

But one answer I’ve come across a couple of times is that they won’t eat the meal because it doesn’t have meat. This is a completely bizarre thing that I cannot get my head around. It’s the same as saying I won’t try it because it doesn’t have mint in it. It’s just a completely bizarre reason to deny one’s self a whole variety of foods.

Likewise, I would never try to force a vegan or vegetarian to eat meat or for that matter questioning why they refuse to do so.

You’ve done it again. I never said anyone should be forced to eat vegetarian dishes, that’s just something you’ve made up in your brain, and then set about pretending I believe. I simply said it’s very strange that people would decline to eat a meal if it didn’t include meat.

Insinuating that such people "put bacon on their cornflakes" is asinine. A more intelligent question would be, "did you put milk on your cereal?" There are vegetarians who do drink milk, but there are many (and vegans) who don't. Technically, cereal with milk is not a vegetarian meal making your query rather pointless.

No, that would be incoherent nonsense, as we are not looking to understand the dietary limitations of a vegetarian or vegan, which are not very hard to understand, but to understand those of someone who only eats meat based foods. In which case, we can assume they eat, or at least used to eat, cereal in the morning, and we have to wonder if they found themselves craving meat to be added to that meal.

And if MLP wasn't popular and all over the internet would you even care?

No.

Obviously MLP becoming popular among young men caused me to care, because my question is ‘how did a show aimed at one audience, preteen girls, become wildly popular with another, young adult men’. If it hadn’t become popular among young adult men, I wouldn’t have had a question to ask.

There is no judgement in there, just puzzlement over a really weird bit of demographics. It’d be no different to me discovering that the core audience, and the most fanatical viewers, of, say, Seinfeld, was actually black women in their 70s, because you just wouldn’t think that show would have something that specifically appealed to that audience. It wouldn’t cause me to think any more, or any less, of black women in their 70s who watch Seinfeld, but it’d weird that they became the show’s core audience.

I shouldn’t have to be finding a third way to explain any of the above, and yet I typed all that out. Because you’ve decided to be ridiculous, and pick a fight with someone on the internet. Please take a step back, think about what I’ve actually written, and ask yourself what your actual complaint here is.

Yeah i have to agree with Seb there mate.. Im the ultra carnivorous man who has meat in almost every dish.. but i don't see your point, i mean ideological reasons aside taste dictates doesn't it? You can't say you wouldnt eat something just because it's meat free surely? Would you not eat a meal you loved the taste of just because it was meat free?

Ice cream has no meat in it.. and everyone likes ice cream!

Time to amend the topic title to "Stuff that pisses you off" methinks.

Girls and shoes. Yeah its a gross and sweeping generalisation but Im going to make it anyway.
Why do you need X+1 pairs of different shoes?

Why do we need Y+1 different little army mens? Its just a case of what makes people happy.

Touché.

Mannahnin wrote:Fantastic flick, as are all of Julie Taymor's that I've seen.

I aspire to make this scene something I do in life.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

daedalus wrote:

purplefood wrote:Actually a genuine one.
I don't get people who claim they are of a nationality that is 4/5 generations away...
I find it kinda weird...

I've noticed mostly Americans do it. Of course, that could just be because I interact with far more Americans than other nationalities on a daily basis. I always assumed the reason why we did it is because we lack historical nationality or culture.

I assumed that but i still don't understand it...

Well if you're from Kent, what the heck are you going to say? I'm from...Kent. All my people back to coconut eating diosaurs are from...Kent.

T'would depend if you're a man of Kent or a Kentish man really.


http://www.angelfire.com/tn/goldengreen/manokent.html

rockerbikie wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Fluff Nazis

those are the worst, we have one at our LGS that has a fit every time 2 loyalist armies are played against eachother.

One made a major fit when a Grey Knights player versed a Sister of Battles force.

Did you not inform him of this?

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Khornate_Knights

winnertakesall wrote:People who spell 'lose' 'loose'. I don't know why, in just annoys me massively. Also the term 'meal deal'.

THIS.

It's an instant way to make me dislike you online.