unforum

[FrcknFrckn]

Embarassing Virtucube Ranting

[Sin Vraal]

heh

[FrcknFrckn]

When it comes down to it, this board isn't actually too bad. The number of members is low enough the the signal-to-noise is fairly high.

My question is - at what point do you stop encouraging and start tuning out? The problem is that the schlock posters feed off each other. It's essentially an exponential relationship: double the posters, quadruple the crap to wade through.

Like I said, that was my problem with ilovebees. Enough halo fanboys came into the mix that it was virtually impossible to pull the pearls from the cesspool.

[skilletaudio]

Everyone one of us has been fitted with a bulls**t detector as we grew up. Once I had finally waded through the VOLUMES of data coming from all directions on my entry into ILB, I turned on the BS Detector from then on, and I really didnt put more than a few brain cycles on things that were obvious crud.

Honestly, if someone sets themselves up to go down a dead end, and when they get there, keep butting against the wall, that wall doesnt hurt me any. Let 'em smash against the bricks if they want, right?

[xmythx]

FrcknFrkcn,

It's one thing to promote "convoluted ideas" as definitely correct and then preach that belief, trying to sway public opinion. That cannot be tolerated.

However, it's quite another thing to suggest ideas to be interpreted by the public, knowing that most will quaff the theory while others may take something away from it.

At the time of my postings concerning the Lunar Cycle and I-Ching hexagram, it was common belief that the code was integrated with the moon somehow. That was the stage of our thinking. As for the I-Ching hexagrams, it was also postulated that the key sequence was going to be 64 to solve the Face 2 cipher.

All I did was propose an idea that could be linked to the solution, and I said that "I" was growing increasingly confident in it. I did not push that belief on anyone else, nor did I try and promote it. It was simply an idea that came to mind, and was somewhat substantiated although based on false assumptions.

Now, before you go ranting further, perhaps it would be prudent of you to determine what kind of effort I've put forth after the fact towards this puzzle, then maybe you'd realise I'm not some idealistic and convoluted "newbie", if you will.

Perhaps that will dampen the effect to which the general consensus perceives your ridiculous outburst.

[FrcknFrckn]

But apparently we aren't all born with bullsh*t detectors, as a browse through any messageboard would show you.

My point was not that it was hard to tell the bullsh*t from the good stuff; my point was that after the board hits a certain level it's just not worth the time and effort to do the sorting.

[skilletaudio]

I get your gist, but dont you think that what you are describing is a direct function of increased population on the ground floor? In other words, more cooks in the kitchen can spoil the soup, or make a bigger feast. Probably both at the same time, so is it worth it?

[FrcknFrckn]

xmythx,

As I said in my PM, my rant was not a personal attack on you. It was unfortunate that the two quotes I used were both from your posts - in hindsight, had I noticed beforehand, I would have changed one of them.

As you have brought it up however, I will point out the issue I have with your "I Ching"/moon posts. You claimed you were confident. You even claim now that is was "substantiated". But based on what exactly? The fact that the background was a picture of a moon. That's it. What you claimed was a theory based on an assumption based on a theory. There was absolutely nothing else connecting the puzzle to the moon. The same argument could be used to connect the puzzle and the color yellow. Or face 2 and a forest. Or face 3 and water.

If you're going to pose a theory, state it as a theory. There is no confidence in a theory. Lack of disproof is not proof. Lack of disproof is not substantiation. Until you have actual proof, you have nothing but a theory, and nothing to be confident in.

[FrcknFrckn]

My thoughts

[xmythx]

[FrcknFrckn]

A definition

[jzero]

Re: A definition

[Kizmet]

Frckn^2:

So tell me this, does the fact that you have tested over 20 million combinations as you have bragged give you ANY RIGHT to bash the works that the others are doing in this forum? No. I'm not sure just how long you have been involved with the whole ARG thing, but even cloudmakers had fluff posts, any that were spam were delt with a such, but NONE were bashed in this such a manner. In fact, several puzzles were solved by people shouting out different ideas.... It's called BRAINSTORMING...I am SHOCKED and APPALLED that you would want that to end. Also i want to know why you would use a puzzle topic in the forum to base your ridiculous rant and not start your own topic based on such. Not doing so just increases the amount of "FLUFF" that is in this forum, especially when i turn on my computer at three in the morning and see that there are new posts for a PUZZLE and have to wade through this bullsh*t.

Here's my advice to you and i hope that you take it in heart:
Be more tolerant of others, otherwise you come off as sounding like an ass as so many of us have already pointed out.

[Sin Vraal]

hey

[bill]

Re: Embarassing Virtucube Ranting