Re: Why "logic" is bullshit (RANT)
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:25 pm
Rereads thread.
Still don't see any attacks being made.
Still don't see any attacks being made.
Wow, is this ever a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black.rainwarrior wrote:How did we get to "SMW Central is toxic" exactly?
psychopathicteen linked a thread where he, apropos of nothing, declared "SMW hacking is bogging SNES homebrew down" and started about 5 different utterly pointless arguments about why he doesn't like some of the work people are doing there. What kind of response was warranted? Most people in that thread were IMO extraordinarily polite in response to such an antagonistic attack on their hobby.
If you're a troll who was just trying to make people angry, mission accomplished. If, however, you were somehow well meaning about this and you honestly believe that anything you said in that thread was helpful and should have been received with any kind of praise or thanks, maybe try to realize that it was not and you should probably evaluate your own behaviour if you want to have a better time in that community.
Well, that is exactly the problem and I can only hope that one day you do see it.psycopathicteen wrote:Rereads thread.
Still don't see any attacks being made.
If you want to talk about me, go ahead I guess, but I have nothing to do with how you behaved in that thread.psycopathicteen wrote:Wow, is this ever a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black.
...because you have no point.rainwarrior wrote:Well, that is exactly the problem and I can only hope that one day you do see it.psycopathicteen wrote:Rereads thread.
Still don't see any attacks being made.
If you want to talk about me, go ahead I guess, but I have nothing to do with how you behaved in that thread.psycopathicteen wrote:Wow, is this ever a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black.
If I was being a troll to just make people angry I would've typed in all caps, insulted people and swore like a sailor. I wouldn't be paying so much attention on backing up arguments and using correct grammar all the time. If I don't back up my argument enough, it's not because I am a troll and I have no valid argument, it's because sometimes the less said the better.If you're a troll who was just trying to make people angry, mission accomplished.
I'm sorry, what I meant was that your words in that thread more or less had the effect of a troll (which is also why that thread was locked). That's why I went on to clarify that I think you probably believed they were somewhat well-intentioned. I was pointing out that at face value they do not read as well-intentioned to me, or apparently to many people in that thread who felt directly insulted by you. I had to infer your intentions by the way you seemed to be shocked that someone might have called you an "idiot" at the end of that exchange.psycopathicteen wrote:Thanks a lot! Do you understand why I get so angry at people?
If you look at the thread and just see what people take exception to, do you not think they made it clear what is bothering them about what you said?psycopathicteen wrote:Okay, what was the most cringe worthy thing I said? You don't have to go into detail.
This is where the thread gets uncomfortable for me, aside from the "(RANT)" in the title itself. A few notes:psycopathicteen wrote:Because Sega fanboys are butt hurt that I can pull off action games on the SNES.
The internet is full of people with issues.mikejmoffitt wrote:This is where the thread gets uncomfortable for me, aside from the "(RANT)" in the title itself. A few notes:psycopathicteen wrote:Because Sega fanboys are butt hurt that I can pull off action games on the SNES.
[x] vs [y] "fanboy" debates don't seem like they have a place in 2017, among adults without serious social problems. Take a step back and think about the concept of getting emotionally invested in a psuedo-war between two large corporations from the '80s and '90s, and ask yourself if it is sensible to be so involved.
In this line you're implying that a bunch of "fanboys" are upset because you "pulled off" action games on the SNES. Do you actually think that is true?
Bregalad wrote: So, what about ignoring them ? This debate has already been done over and over, and every time the conclusion was the same.
No. The 65(X)XX series needs a 2 phase non-overlapping clock. Fundamental part of its design and timings. Although you could make it so it takes in a clock at 2x speed and then use that to make the internal 2 phase, and then call it a 1 phase as far as the external circuity is concerned??TOUKO wrote:i heard somewhere that the SA-1 is a 1 phase CPU, is this true ??
Yes i call it a 1 phase because RAM accesses can be close to the CPU frequency(so close to 1 cycle per access), and not a 1/2 cycle like the 65xxx standard .and then call it a 1 phase as far as the external circuity is concerned??