lifespawn wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:21pm:




DERP HIM
DERP HIM
DERP HIM
DERP HIM
DERP HIM

Eladiun wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:




Just to clarify your flawed logic and to see why your so stupid if something is favor unlock-able in the future it's ok to advertise that it is favor unlock-able even if it's not currently.

TWDiggs wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:




well what if it was a cock meat sandwich still ok with that? eladin would love to give you one i'm sure he would find a way to make it not gay

lifespawn wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:30pm:


I would cover Crulax with my man butter.

And your so wrong, I would make it totally gay...like hot oil wrestling night at Bear bar or a sleep over party at Lance Bass's house.

Eladiun wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:


Sisster might get mad though.

Eladiun wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:37pm:


Cool it will have to wait untill tomorrow though as I am only gay on Tuesday and Thursday.

lifespawn wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:


Ok, Moron.

We'll go over this one statement.

THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROMISE THAT A FAVOR UNLOCK WOULD BE INSTANT FROM TURBINE...ONLY THAT IT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE UNLOCKED BY FAVOR, PERIOD.

Do you now get it or do I have to call over an English Grammar Tutor?  Perhaps a Logic Tutor as well?  Certainly, you have been missing points the former could teach you, and have been proven ignorant of the latter.

Cor wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:



Actually, no.  You might want to reintroduce yourself to cases.  Sure, they are rarely used in colloquial speech, but if one is to learn to read, and read well, one will come to a much better understanding.

Present Tense Indicative Case also includes the concept of an already determined future event, such as a regularly occurring event or, in this case, the scheduled introduction of the Favor unlock.  The future tense excludes any present conditions and, as such, is clearly not applicable in their statement.  Since there is no doubt, the conditional future tense is also ruled out.

I'd probably give you a D instead of an F in one of my classes for the simple reason that you actually understood that there was a "present tense" and a "future tense" even though you did not grasp the elementary concepts surrounding them.

Hordo wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:




Semantics and grammatical police aside


If you pay for something  like a car(content/classes) that is advertised for sale and you pay the money for it(vip) and they give you the car(content) but not the engine(favor) which will be put in at a later date because they want to make money off the new spark plug(artificers) that gets you the engine now thats not a bait and switch?.


I want to sell you something somewhere that i will give you at some later date and you can take it and proceed to fuck yourself with it.

Lifespawn are you mad bro?

lifespawn wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 4:47pm:



ROFL

I'm laughing too hard to actually address this /fail comparison.

Please, hie thee to an elementary school!

LOL!

Hordo wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 4:22pm:


OK, if we want to get really technical:

The Indicative mood (not tense) can include statements about the future, but not all indicative statements can simply be interpreted to refer to the future.  Future is indicated by auxiliary words, and can be expressed in many moods, including indicative.

For example:

"You can unlock Artificers" is indicative, and clearly refers to the present.  Pretending it somehow refers to the future and not the present is just incorrect.

"We plan to allow you unlock Artificers" is also indicative, and declares that a plan exists, at present.  The specifics of the plan are left unspecified, and could include not planning to allow the unlock until the future.

"You will be able to unlock Artificers" is also indicative.  It is a simple statement of fact.  It also clearly refers to the future.  Note that it says nothing about the excluding the present.  This statement could be true even if Artificers were currently unlockable.

The bottom line being, that in English the future requires extra words to clearly mark it as future.  Those auxiliary words do not appear in conjunction with the benefits described.  Claiming that the benefits somehow refer to "future plans" or something else in the future is, therefore, entirely your own invention.  It has no basis in the actual words on the page.

Quote:


Will you give me at least a C for pointing out that English doesn't technically have a "future tense"?

lifespawn wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 5:02pm:


umadbro?