Piotr's been flooding the Magic Discussion board with repostings of user reviews. Why? They're not relevant to the game, and they don't add much discussion at all. I'm confused.
Well, when Piotr reads this I'll probably get yelled at but.
Piotr is inflating his ego. I'm assuming it ends up in Discussion (for MtG so, the wrong area) because that's the highest traffic area on the forums (that I'm aware of).
Quote from: Noblellama on April 08, 2016, 07:28:36 AM
(...) any one new sees these and just thinks the owner is bashing on anyone who leaves a negative review (...)
iMtG is not for idiots who compute as you just described. It is not for them.
It helps me if idiots avoid the app so that I do not waste my time supporting them. Better to focus on smart people, don't you think?
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 07, 2016, 05:37:45 PM
Piotr is inflating his ego.
No, I learned from {Donald Trump} and I discarded my ego. I have none left, it was just a nuisance.
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2016, 04:59:22 AM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 07, 2016, 05:37:45 PM
Piotr is inflating his ego.
No, I learned from {Donald Trump} and I discarded my ego. I have none left, it was just a nuisance.
Trump links to Mind Sculptor 😂
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2016, 04:59:22 AM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 07, 2016, 05:37:45 PM
Piotr is inflating his ego.
No, I learned from {Donald Trump} and I discarded my ego. I have none left, it was just a nuisance.
I find that very hard to believe.
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 23, 2016, 06:09:45 PM
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2016, 04:59:22 AM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 07, 2016, 05:37:45 PM
Piotr is inflating his ego.
No, I learned from {Donald Trump} and I discarded my ego. I have none left, it was just a nuisance.
I find that very hard to believe.
Find what hard to believe? The some one could learn from Donald trump? That trump discarded his ego? That an ego is a nuisance? Or that Piotr doesn't have an ego?
Quote from: Spencer Addington on April 24, 2016, 12:26:55 AM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 23, 2016, 06:09:45 PM
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2016, 04:59:22 AM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 07, 2016, 05:37:45 PM
Piotr is inflating his ego.
No, I learned from {Donald Trump} and I discarded my ego. I have none left, it was just a nuisance.
I find that very hard to believe.
Find what hard to believe? The some one could learn from Donald trump? That trump discarded his ego? That an ego is a nuisance? Or that Piotr doesn't have an ego?
3 and 5.
Ego is the ability to give a .love. what stupid people think. I lost it, so did {Donald Trump}. I find it easy to believe.
Quote from: Piotr on April 26, 2016, 06:35:06 AM
Ego is the ability to give a .love. what stupid people think. I lost it, so did {Donald Trump}. I find it easy to believe.
Where is this definition from? Because most people use Webster for that and it's nothing like that
Webster definition is confusing, is it not?* The point is, if Trump had no ego, he would behave exactly as he does. Richard Feynman also had no ego. Check his book: What Do You Care What Other People Think?
* I mean, my definition works well for me, how about you ;]
I didn't know we were allowed to make up new definitions for words..
Quote from: Spencer Addington on April 26, 2016, 12:25:42 PM
I didn't know we were allowed to make up new definitions for words..
Lol yes you are :D Language is a living thing, my definition fits how the people use and understand the word. It works with the Webster definition too, in a funny kind of way. Only stupid people have ego, you see ;]
This definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego and what words you use to define it are different. Yes words change and evolve. Just because you and your group of friends define it that way does not make its meaning change to the rest of the world. Being a society ( if you are being part of it) you agree to certain things being true. Example using Webster as a use for defining words. Yes there can be a language difference but that still does not make it correct.
Quote from: Piotr on April 26, 2016, 11:05:11 AM
Webster definition is confusing, is it not?* The point is, if Trump had no ego, he would behave exactly as he does. Richard Feynman also had no ego. Check his book: What Do You Care What Other People Think?
* I mean, my definition works well for me, how about you ;]
No the definition works fine for me I do not find it confusing. English is my first language so it may be unfair me to expect you who speaks several other languages to understand English as well.
No I didn't read his book but that is a whole other discussion that I do not wish to delve into at this time possibly ever.
I just don't see how you can say you or Donald trump do not have an ego under the Webster defines it.
Quote from: Rass on April 26, 2016, 01:09:57 PM
This definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego and what words you use to define it are different. Yes words change and evolve. Just because you and your group of friends define it that way does not make its meaning change to the rest of the world. Being a society ( if you are being part of it) you agree to certain things being true. Example using Webster as a use for defining words. Yes there can be a language difference but that still does not make it correct.
It does if my definition includes the definition used by the rest of society. It does. I have no view of myself, I am myself. I have no ego by neither of the definitions, same for Trump.
Quote from: Piotr on April 26, 2016, 03:33:01 PM
Quote from: Rass on April 26, 2016, 01:09:57 PM
This definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego and what words you use to define it are different. Yes words change and evolve. Just because you and your group of friends define it that way does not make its meaning change to the rest of the world. Being a society ( if you are being part of it) you agree to certain things being true. Example using Webster as a use for defining words. Yes there can be a language difference but that still does not make it correct.
It does if my definition includes the definition used by the rest of society. It does. I have no view of myself, I am myself. I have no ego by neither of the definitions, same for Trump.
But it's not. Your definition is not the recognized way to define ego. You say you are a logical person. Webster is one of the major accepted dictionary's used in the United States. If you can show me another recognized dictionary that defines it your way then I will accept it. But someone's book or writings (if that was the book you were talking about before) explains it the way you accept it still doesn't make it correct.
So first we have to find some sort of agreement on the definition of ego before we can say if you do or do not have it.
Ego has always been a how you see yourself definition in my books, as well as everyone around me. Then again we're just silly Canadians.
I wouldn't really say Fenyman and Trump were alike at all, but to each their own.
Quote from: Splicer on April 26, 2016, 06:52:45 PM
I wouldn't really say Fenyman and Trump were alike at all, but to each their own.
Did you read their books?
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 26, 2016, 05:57:45 PM
Ego has always been a how you see yourself definition in my books, as well as everyone around me. Then again we're just silly Canadians.
So by posting negative reviews I'm inflating my opinion about myself, according to you? Silly indeed, but why are you being nationalist about it ;]
Quote from: Piotr on April 27, 2016, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 26, 2016, 05:57:45 PM
Ego has always been a how you see yourself definition in my books, as well as everyone around me. Then again we're just silly Canadians.
So by posting negative reviews I'm inflating my opinion about myself, according to you? Silly indeed, but why are you being nationalist about it ;]
Yes, because you're calling everyone that dislikes the app an idiot. You may be wording it eloquently, but the point remains.
Somebody doesn't like your app, or how you run things. You use your elitist "logic" to paint them as incompetent invalidating any of their complaints in your eyes. Being as you made the app you're obviously emotionally invested in it and take offences to it as personal insults, to some degree. You feel better about it after bashing the people that write them.Nothing not egotistical about it.
These are my observations. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll take some convincing to see things differently.
The Canadian comment was to make the comment more lighthearted. It's this thing called humor.
Quote from: Piotr on April 27, 2016, 11:55:37 AM
Quote from: Splicer on April 26, 2016, 06:52:45 PM
I wouldn't really say Fenyman and Trump were alike at all, but to each their own.
Did you read their books?
I have not, though I have heard Trump speak and seen transcripts of Fenyman's lectures.
I have no ego so I do not care what some people think about me lol. This makes me free from the need to explain that what they think I think is wrong :D
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on April 27, 2016, 02:37:30 PMNothing not egotistical about it.
Remove the superfluous 'not' from your equations and you have valid logic. Otherwise, fail ;]