Wow, fuck you Valve...

[PockieLoli :3]

Remember that Propaganda Poster Contest?
Well they finally posted the runner ups.
(I know, I'm late, I didn't have my MacBook for ~1 week).
Anyways...

They made stupid categories like "Most Terrible Use of MS PAINT".
And what the fuck happened to the propaganda part of this Poster Contest?

Look at these:

"Best Attempt to Make Soldier Look Adorable"


"Best Ironic Resuscitation of a Long-dead Genre"


"Most Convincing Argument for Education"


"Most Convincing Argument for Learning How to Contract by One Pixel in Photoshop"


"Best Poster Evidently Scanned from a 14-year-old's Binder"


"Most Inevitable Incorporation of Urine"


"Poster that Made us the Most Hungry" (gee, thanks Gabe)


"Most Incorrect Statement" (says the fags who implemented crits into the game ._.)


"Best Use of the Most Primitive Computer Art Program Available"


"Most Disturbing Use of the Most Primitive Art Program Available"



And this is mine:


It's not the best, but it was well done and it actually looks like a propaganda poster.
Why couldn't they have made some other retarded categories like,
"Poster With the Most Amount of Crinkled Paper Textures"
"Poster With the Most Amount of Different Propaganda Phrases"


Ugh, yes I'm mad.




/rant

[chrisinajar]

yours is really really well done, for the record.

[Daguava [BBC]]

I went through a picasa gallery of a bunch of them and there were many many many well-done pieces of art that didn't receive the recognition they deserve. A lot of people got shafted >_<

[Virally Yours]

I didn't even enter one and I'm pissed about it. Even if Abbie hadn't submitted I would be. Why? SINCE WHEN DO YOU WIN A CONTEST BY FAILING COMPLETELY?! On top of it, they're giving out REWARDS to these fucking cretins. They made special categories just to recognize and praise these totally TALENTLESS pieces of shit. The work looks like toddlers and retards made them, and virtually none of them had any humor whatsoever.

Fuck you too, Valve.

[Virally Yours]

Oh yeah, the 3D soldier poster at the top of Abbie's post... The person who submitted that actually directly lifted it off of someone else's blog (the picture was made a number of years before the contest, too).

P.S. Suck my double post, faggots.

[FuLLBLeeD]

The crit rockets are awesome one is actually really good and it comes from an SA goon so I have to rep it.

[PockieLoli :3]

No, I know. A few of the ones I posted are good, but it's also the categories that are really stupid.
Though it still doesn't really have a propaganda poster look to it.

[Xx_sasukefan85_xX (jeed)]

Valve are the best trolls.

[Virally Yours]

VALVE IS SINGULAR. FUCK.

[PockieLoli :3]

SHIT.

[froggeh]

ENTIRE THREAD IS BABIES.

[Daguava [BBC]]

ENTIRE FORUM ARE TROLLS

[Wolfenbolt]

POKEMON DOESNT COME OUT TODAY

[Xx_sasukefan85_xX (jeed)]

VALVE IS SINGULAR. FUCK.

"Valve is the best troll" sounds wrong.  It is a collective entity, not a singular entity.  If I were to say (referring to us) "Pros are the best trolls", it would sound right because "Pros" ends with an S, but "Pros" is still a name for a collective entity, and therefore the sentence is more or less the same as "Valve are the best trolls".

Of course, if you can give me an example (experience, i.e. teacher or textbook instruction) contradicting this I will concede partially... but the finer rules of the English language are far from consistent, and are to be taken to lightly.  >_>

[Virally Yours]

The government are corrupt sounds wrong.

The media are an expression of free speech sounds wrong.

That group of dogs are ruining my lawn sounds wrong.

[chrisinajar]

Microsoft are the best trolls
Capcom are the best trolls
Shell are the best trolls
Resara are the best trolls
Valve are the best trolls

I'm siding with Virally, a company name is definitely singular.

[Xx_sasukefan85_xX (jeed)]

Of course, if you can give me an example (experience, i.e. teacher or textbook instruction) contradicting this I will concede partially... but the finer rules of the English language are far from consistent, and are to be taken to lightly.  >_>

However...

The government are corrupt sounds wrong.

The media are an expression of free speech sounds wrong.

That group of dogs are ruining my lawn sounds wrong.

"The government" is not a proper name for a collective entity, nor is "the media".  In "that group of dogs", the actual subject is "that group", which makes it easily incorrect.. but again, it is not a proper name.  As I said, English tends to be rather sketchy on the finer details.  As far as I know, there's no real rule governing this particular situation.  I'm not claiming you're wrong, but I am claiming that you can't tell me I'm wrong without a definitive source... and if you don't have one in memory, please tell me you have better things to do than scour the internet for one.  >_>

And Chris, all of those sound right to me.  :l

[Virally Yours]

Jeed, there's nothing wrong with wanting to be right, but when you have to create some contradictory contingency you would need to be in to be right, you might as well just drop it.

[Wolfenbolt]

[Virally Yours]

Hahahahaha, that's fucking great dude.

[Xx_sasukefan85_xX (jeed)]

Jeed, there's nothing wrong with wanting to be right, but when you have to create some contradictory contingency you would need to be in to be right, you might as well just drop it.

... You mean wanting someone to base their accusations on more than "it sounds wrong"?  No, sorry.  Accusations do not prove themselves just by being made.  :l

In case you misunderstood, the criterion is this:  If you can think of ANY TIME you have seen an actual source address this specific case, I concede.  It's really a very simple, accessible "victory".  If you have any basis to your accusation, it is immediately a won point.  If not, then obviously you have no objective basis and know no more about it than I do.  >_>

[Virally Yours]

But your assertion needs no source other than yourself?

[Xx_sasukefan85_xX (jeed)]

I defended myself on the same grounds that your accusation was made: personal logic - I assume, at least, since you have made absolutely zero argument outside of a few example sentences with no explanation, and instead spent your time trying to invalidate my arguments by other means.  If this argument is to continue further, one of us will need to provide an actual source.  Since this doesn't actually matter to me, I haven't bothered, but rhetorical metagames rile me up pretty easily into a response.. though not because they catch me, more because I hate them.  I suppose the end effect is the same.

I digress.  I actually did address the exact point you bring up, in the sentence "If not, then obviously you have no objective basis and know no more about it than I do."  If you aren't going to prove that you know more than I do, then both of our arguments are made from the same ground, and this goes nowhere.

[Virally Yours]

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~gt3/recent-mss/handout-glow2up.pdf

The document is recent, from an established academic and hosted on an institution's website. I found it in a handful of seconds. So much for your shortcut wall of text.

[Xx_sasukefan85_xX (jeed)]

Was it so hard to stop trying to metagame and just ante up?  I'll take your word on the credentials.  Point conceded.

So much for your shortcut wall of text.

Do you feel cool yet?  Sigh.  This is exactly what I hate about internet rhetoric; everyone trying to outdo the others with snappy one-liners instead of actually sticking to the points in question.  Have at me, then; the last word is yours, whatever it may be.  :l