Those are essentially mutually exclusive...
If someone wants to argue with you, and you want to disengage, you have to accept that you're not going to get the last word in no matter how many times you say "don't argue with me" - cause you can't control what they can say afterwards.
This is especially true, and comes off as childish, when you're the one that baited that argument in the first place with "your piece".
Similar to @Enkers@sh.itjust.works, I suspect I'm lacking some context here, but based purely on what I can see in this post, you came across as rather childish. I'm inclined to say YDI/BPR.
While I do agree that rule should have applied to Cowbee too, that doesn't give you carte-blanche to do the same.
Also, confronting someone you know to be a troll in an intentionally inflammatory manner, then getting annoyed that they chose to argue with you is like waving a red flag in front of a bull and being surprised it charged at you...
You baited that argument, so I don't have much sympathy for you in that regard.
It would be quite like Trump to completely disregard the consent of the people of Greenland in this exchange while giving them platitudes about how he respects their rights
Yeah. With 10 billion people in the world, only 0.0001% of people need to be boat owners for there to be a million boat owners... And I'd be willing to be the actual % is higher than that
Not to downplay the quite frankly astounding achievement of James and his cohort of Anti-D donors, but I'm surprised that nobody has figured out how to make an synthetic anti-D in the 60 years he was donating blood for
Yeah. Was thinking why is Greenland so high until I remembered Greenland doesn't even have 100k people in it, so any amount of homicides was gonna drag that number right up
Yeah... The petition directly goes against the government's manifesto, so I seriously doubt this'll do very much
Looks like the UK government isn't the only one slobbering at thought of being able to invade people's privacy
Couldn't agree more. Trump is so obviously compromised to Russia that he might as well be carrying their flag, so trusting him to continue representing the free-world is against all of our better interests
I see great minds think alike haha
Wait... Hold on a second... Hooters went bankrupt?
Yeah...
A game with actual gambling disguised as a loot system - perfectly fine, PEGI 3+
A game that depicts gambling but has no actual gambling in it - absolutely fucking NOT, PEGI 18+
I can understand why PEGI would be hesitant to give a game depicting gambling a rating of 3+...
But putting it as 18+, on the same level as actual, real money gambling games is ridiculous.
It shows a complete lack of awareness regarding the difference in danger between depiction of gambling vs actual gambling. And perhaps more dangerously means malicious publishers (cough EA cough) are able to get away with slipping disguised real money gambling into their games (and in front of children eyes) unnoticed.