Gaia question

[The Unintelligible]

Edy didn't own me. We've discussed this countless times. He was wrong. Period.
My information has long been public. I kept a blog under my real name, remember? I posted links to that blog here.

Yes, because the purpose of putting very minimalist information in a self-contained post is an obvious attempt at "exposing" you of some sort. Lol.

I don't recall any mention of learning either of those languages.
Any language with sufficient functionality that works on the JVM is not something you can call "useless." That kind of statement is so uninformed that I'm not even going to bother insulting you.

That's great. Because I honestly doubt you could. Most of what you do know is either very limited and/or plain invalid/intertwined/misconstrued.

Wantrepeneur is a "joke" term. It was never meant to be taken seriously, and your taking it seriously is only further evidence of how horribly I get to you. Do you ever stop thinking about me?

It's funny how this post clearly shows that this is the other way around. And clearly satirically mentioning the idiom "wantreprenuer" means I'm taking it seriously. Your assumptions are still laughably inaccurate.

As for my becoming an entrepreneur, it's on its way. It's taken a long time to get everything in order, but it won't be long now. I'd be surprised you're so naive as to think I would have some vague goal like "hm, someday I'm going to do this" if you weren't so eager to think lowly of me.

Have fun setting yourself up for failure. I'll be there to savor that day. Also, what I think lowly of you (if you will) is all pretty much warranted. Just for clarification.

The sad part is that the majority of our arguments consist of you making a fool of yourself, being unable to counter my arguments, and resulting to attacking me ad hominem.

It's funny because the majority of our arguments usually never have a concrete basis. It's usually over something woefully pointless and stupid that truly has no right or wrong. And when we do have such arguments, I'm pretty sure the case is quite the contrary, Smartt.

I'm ashamed that I ever thought you had any kind of potential. I'm disappointed in you.

In other words, this is your way of crying me a river. It's too bad that I've been disappointed in you from the get-go. So suffice to say, there's no shame in my game

@Edit: We've been over this, purse. You can't call someone clearly smarter than you--someone clearly superior--an idiot in any way, shape or form.

@Edit2: See above. It wouldn't have a valid premise. It would be just as meaningless as the rest of what you say is.

Furthermore, have a nice day.

[Personoid]

Yes, because the purpose of putting very minimalist information in a self-contained post is an obvious attempt at "exposing" you of some sort. Lol.

Yeah, I'm sure you had some other goal in mentioning my full name and posting a picture of me. How stupid of me.

It's funny how this post clearly shows that this is the other way around. And clearly satirically mentioning the idiom "wantreprenuer" means I'm taking it seriously. Your assumptions are still laughably inaccurate.

How so? I don't see anything that could possibly lead you to that conclusion.

Have fun setting yourself up for failure. I'll be there to savor that day. Also, what I think lowly of you if you will is all pretty much warranted. Just for clarification.

It's funny because the majority of our arguments usually never have a concrete basis. It's usually over something woefully pointless and stupid that truly has no right or wrong. And when we do have such arguments, I'm pretty sure the case is quite the contrary, Smartt.

What were some of the recent arguments we've had?
The first two that come to mind are "hg vs git" and "struct vs class in C++" (or "Is it possible to write OO code in C?").
Who "won" those? I recall you being woefully stupid on the topic of hg vs git (you claimed that git's popularity somehow made it a better candidate despite that hg has a plugin for interacting with git repos).
As for class vs struct, http://pastebin.com/9ghMUGAt

In other words, this is your way of crying me a river. It's too bad I've been disappointed in you from the get-go. So suffice to say, there's no shame in my game

@Edit: We've been over this, purse. You can't call someone clearly smarter than you--someone clearly superior--an idiot in any way, shape or form.

@Edit2: See above. It wouldn't have a valid premise. It would be just as meaningless as the rest of what you say is.

Do you even understand our argument?
Edy told me that the fix could not be done in GSI because you cannot trust client data. That is absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of using GSI (in this case) is to avoid trusting client data.
My solution requires a very small change to the friend request method of GSI.
1. When someone attempts to add a user, a GSI request is made. When this request is made, it should be identical to making a friend request on the actual site (i.e. that user gets a pending request, which didn't happen the last time I checked).
2. When someone "accepts" a request, verify that they have a pending request from said user.

That's all. Fixed. No need for changing every game. This fix would be compatible with all games.

Edy's fix would only be compatible with updated games and towns 2.0. I tried to tell him that wasn't necessary, but he wasn't able to understand what I was saying. I'm completely justified in telling someone with several times more experience than me that their solution is fucking stupid and that they should consider a new job if they aren't capable of understanding that it's possible to verify the authenticity of submitted data on the other end.

Edit/Correction: The use of GSI here is not to avoid trusting client data. It's actually to avoid having to alter every game to solve a problem. In other words, it's exactly what Edy should have been doing- well, telling someone else to do. Instead, he avoided the tool that exists for the purpose I'm pointing out, and is going for a much more complicated route.

Benefit of my solution: Friend requests in games get fixed. Now, not later. And a lot less work is required.

[The Unintelligible]

Yeah, I'm sure you had some other goal in mentioning my full name and posting a picture of me. How stupid of me.

You obviously didn't understand my post at all, unsurprisingly.

How so? I don't see anything that could possibly lead you to that conclusion.

Oh, I don't know. Thin air, maybe. lol.

What were some of the recent arguments we've had?
The first two that come to mind are "hg vs git" and "struct vs class in C++" (or "Is it possible to write OO code in C?").
Who "won" those? I recall you being woefully stupid on the topic of hg vs git (you claimed that git's popularity somehow made it a better candidate despite that hg has a plugin for interacting with git repos).
As for class vs struct, http://pastebin.com/9ghMUGAt

Won't address our previous arguments considering we've been over this myriads of times. Moreover, congratulations on googling C/C++ OOP code.

K&R-style braces? You embody the meaning of non-programmer.

Spoiler:

Do you even understand our argument?
Edy told me that the fix could not be done in GSI because you cannot trust client data. That is absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of using GSI (in this case) is to avoid trusting client data.
My solution requires a very small change to the friend request method of GSI.
1. When someone attempts to add a user, a GSI request is made. When this request is made, it should be identical to making a friend request on the actual site (i.e. that user gets a pending request, which didn't happen the last time I checked).
2. When someone "accepts" a request, verify that they have a pending request from said user.

That's all. Fixed. No need for changing every game. This fix would be compatible with all games.

Edy's fix would only be compatible with updated games and towns 2.0. I tried to tell him that wasn't necessary, but he wasn't able to understand what I was saying. I'm completely justified in telling someone with several times more experience than me that their solution is fucking stupid and that they should consider a new job if they aren't capable of understanding that it's possible to verify the authenticity of submitted data on the other end.

Nothing more or less than nonsensical ramble. I've explained to you what you were wrong in regard to. What you're doing is twisting the argument now. None of our past confrontations are up for debate at this point.

In any case, this seems to be going around in circles like most of our arguments usually tend to do. I'm going to concede with the following points:

• You aren't a programmer.
• You're not going to be an entreprenuer.
• You're still an idiot.
• Edy owned you.
• "Classes are structs."
• "I'm going to be an entreprenuer when I grow up!"

Need I say more?

Edit: Oh and, Edy and I still laugh at you to this very day.

[Personoid]

"Nothing more or less than nonsensical ramble."
Of course. Every time.

Final notes: I didn't say classes are structs. I said (paraphrasing, with line breaks shown for where I hit send):
In C++
classes are basically structs.
there is only one difference: in structs, members are public by default.

You completely ignore the rest of what I said and hinge your insult on bad wording (which has never been my strong suit).

I mount my platypus.

[The Unintelligible]

"Nothing more or less than nonsensical ramble."
Of course. Every time.

You should know the routine by now. If it's invalid/senseless, I won't bother directly addressing it; I'll let your diction do that for me. What you did was type up a tl;dr post for an argument that was already concluded and consolidated over the course of a few Towns sessions.

Final notes: I didn't say classes are structs. I said (paraphrasing, with line breaks shown for where I hit send):
In C++
classes are basically structs.
there is only one difference: in structs, members are public by default.

I'm more than pretty sure that isn't what you originally said. Granted, below you said it was probably at fault of bad wording. I don't entirely buy that. But at the same time I can't necessarily refute that either (hence I'm declaring a stalemate).

You completely ignore the rest of what I said and hinge your insult on bad wording (which has never been my strong suit).

See above. For a very solid reason. I think even you realize that we can agree to disagree that this is utterly pointless and repetitive.

I mount my platypus.

You're clever.

Edit: That was obviously sarcasm if you didn't catch it the first time around.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-mount-my-platypus

Very original there, Newton.