User talk:Auron/Archive 16

This is an archive of my talk page from 31 December 2009 to 9 February 2010. Please don't edit it; leave comments and messages on my talk page.

ym

first --adrin 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No u--/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Something to add...

...to User:Auron/gtagw: traders. Making it so that vendor items could be an economy, while still keeping prices reasonable. Sure, the time or two they accidentally reset, things got silly, but that wasn't a problem with the concept. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

curious

what you thought about my proposal --adrin 11:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

wouldn't fix anything, you'd just have vor covered twice and no way to remove it. it would penalize hex heavy teams, which is good, but it would do so in a completely random and impossible to control way, which is bad.

like i've said before, when veil and remove hex are as powerful as pbond and phantasm, hexes might start becoming balanced. it's not an issue of hex mechanics being bad, it's an issue of "you can apply 5000 hexes and the opposing team either specs heavily against it or drops dead in 1 minute" which is stupid as fuck. -Auron 11:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

eh, on second thought, if anet could code that in, it would be a vast improvement over the current hex system, since my alternative requires them getting good at balance. -Auron 12:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Guild Page

I am addressing this issue to you, for you seem to have the answer back in October of 09 on Wyn's talk page.. Again the guild page for House Of Lefem is blank, indications the source file was edited earlier today. Is there an apparent reason this now has happened twice? Thank you.MystiLefemEle 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

...Guild:House Of Lefem? It's still there. -Auron 15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

She edited it shortly after she left this message, I think she was at the wrong page (possibly a capitalization error?). -- FreedomBound 15:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Check your MSN

Things of vital importance to PvX (lol) are there. Or just an opportunity to piss Wikia off. Either way, check it. Karate Jesus 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ehh

That IP claimed to be a different person. Although I kind of think they deserved a ban also, I would think simply "disruption" or such is better than implying they're a sockpuppet. (unless you CheckUser'd them or something) Vili 点 04:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How dare you second guess Auron. He is all knowing. Drogo Boffin 04:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

^I rofl'd Briar 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jonnieboi and various IPs also claimed to be different people from Lena. Auron is nothing if not consistent. elix Omni 05:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rainith has done some research/digging and confirmed that it was Ariyen. It isn't just me spewing bullshit :p (Ask Rainith if you don't believe me). -Auron 05:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful section

ilu, k? is for Raine, etc. 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

srsly

You are always there to rain on my parades. Why? :( -- Dee Strongfist 19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

also your rants are pretty funny, why am I now just reading them? -- Dee Strongfist 19:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I don't want to see GWW become PvX.

PvX was a convenient way to axe all the builds off GWiki without getting rid of the builds themselves. Nobody expected PvX to live very long; it only needed to live a month or two until people on the original wiki forgot about builds. PvX "flourished," however (if it could be called flourishing...), and it attracted a surprisingly large userbase. Unfortunately, it also attracted the dregs of the Guild Wars society. The HA dropouts. The RA build tinkerers with an attitude problem. However people came to PvX, they stayed and made it progressively worse. In a game long dead, there's only so much build crafting you can do, especially when all of the PvP "crafting" is simply copying obs mode. Before long, it became an unadulterated shitfest with no real point other than calling people autistic niggers then whining when you get banned.

GWW has promise. GWW attracted a large player base, as well, but it was much more evenly spread - an equal amount of dumbasses, intellectuals, carebears, trolls, policy whores, discretion whores, etc. Way back when, ANet handed the wiki to what was essentially the GWiki sysop team and said "have fun." With new blood, however, policy discussion got pretty sidetracked with people's "great ideas" and a bunch of things were fucked up for a long time. It's evened out rather well over the years, and right now it's a pretty solid place to be.

I don't play Guild Wars and I haven't for a long time, but I recognize the Guild Wars "community" to be superior to those of most other games I've played. The WoW community is one of the saddest I've ever seen - I can't have a serious discussion on builds or gearing because people always say "link your armory n00000b" and when they see that my hunter is better geared than their entire guild, they just stop arguing. Everquest 2 is dying rapidly, with servers merging and closing left and right - the community is so bad in that game that they basically have no real source for solid information. The eq2 wiki is horrendously incomplete and the only thing left are generic MMO sites like Thottbot (which stores information for several games, not just eq2).

All the other games worth playing barely have a community at all. DA is a single-player RPG, and while it's a decent game, it really doesn't put any emphasis on the community aspect (however, I will point out that the Bioware CR's have posted more in a single thread about the first DA DLC than Gaile has in her life). FPS/RTS games barely have communities at all - they have good players that win tournaments, and then everyone else who idolizes them.

So basically, GWW is the best thing going in terms of a gaming community - across multiple games and platforms. I don't want to see that hampered via poor trolling attempts by trolls who don't understand what they're fucking with. -Auron 09:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trolling. D: And PvX rules! -- Dee Strongfist 08:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) bad trolling, I know

Awww, you love us, too! is for Raine, etc. 09:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You just say thing so beautiful. =) -- Cyan 09:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel all warm and tingly inside. :) -- Salome 09:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problems with PvX are really quite fundamental. PvX should have been a place to document commonly ran builds, not necessarily a place for theorycrafting new ones. Only too often people are overly hostile about their builds or creations, even when deciding build x is better than y is often an entirely subjective affair. I think PvX was always bound to be a more hostile environment than places like GWW, which are more factual based than opinions. Certainly in the PvE section everyone has their own take on Sabway/Discordway and I'm heavily convinced an absolute best build does not exist. For this reason only a specific type of person tends to stick around - thick-skinned people with the ability to argue or entertain (and the latter is certainly becoming more true the further and further from a skill update we get); I'm not entirely sure why I'm there. However, I wouldn't say PvX is necessarily getting worse directly because of who the user base are, this is more related to the fact that the amount of productive activity correlates with skill updates and we've been 6 months without (cue a large amount of trolling/milking entertaining users and quite possibly the reason for people leaking over to gwwiki). It is also true that PvX currently is void of carebears but from my experience and from reading a number of other players initial archives, it never has had them (possibly due to the reasons above). AthrunFeya 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

...and? -Auron 13:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentally PvX and GWW are different for the reasons mentioned above. Thus GWW will never become like PvX, regardless of whichever user decides to hop over and start contributing here. AthrunFeya 19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, GWW can become like PvX. Take a good, hard look at GWiki. That's what happens when you have a lack of new users, lack of new content, and no desire to do anything on the wiki. GWW can take the same road (and will, unfortunately, when GW2 comes out); but for now, a combination of the sysop team and conscientious users keep trolls in their place instead of letting their threads run rampant. -Auron 11:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow gwiki that often (I guess that says a lot in itself) but it doesn't seem to have succumbed to the same level which PvX is at. Gwiki seems to have lost most activity but that also includes most of the trolls. PvX is rapidly losing productive activity but the amount of trolling is the same, if not increasing. I see GWW eventually following the same pattern as the former, just because of the balance of people the site attracts would be extremely similar to gwiki. AthrunFeya 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? Don't shit on the good site. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This shows you missed my point entirely. AthrunFeya 13:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point was that it's impossible for GWW to become PvX. Auron's counterpoint was that it is indeed possible. My point is who cares, why run the risk? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

PvX became a shithole because the vetting process basically means that the ones who want to argue stay around, and the others get butthurt and leave. This also leads to a highly elitistic system, where you're either good at the game or circlejerking. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"So basically, GWW is the best thing going in terms of a gaming community - across multiple games and platforms."

^ this quote makes me sad. Karate Jesus 21:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget it was a post that is ON GWW----Xtreme 11:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

...And so is your post, Sir Irony. You're free to crawl back to your rebellious nerd community but it will never become as good as this, and that's maybe why you're here? --Auron's Fanclub Leader 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Can you help me with this page? It's al screwd up and I dont know how to fix this. Thanks Reaper of Scythes** 11:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous good copy. If you want to fix the wording or whatever, you can now. -Auron 11:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was all. Reaper of Scythes** 11:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a train!

Uh, what changed? I thought you said it was a very pretty and/or high-quality game, but it just sucked for some reason. Vili 点 05:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I got past the prologue. -Auron 05:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A Question

I have a question and you're the person to ask. Does a req 9 sword do more damage than a req 13 sword? Assume that the warrior is specced to 14 Swordsmanship. 68.51.106.58 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No. is for Raine, etc. 07:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Prove it to me. What's the damage calculation? 68.51.106.58 07:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know this isn't the case, but I just need to be able to prove it 68.51.106.58 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoattack the master of damage with both weapons over a long period of time, and note the difference, duh. Pika Fan 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Damage calculation might be a help here...? --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this calculation [Effective Damage] = [Weapon Damage] × 2^((5 × [Attribute Level] - 60) / 40) does the trick. Nowhere does it mention weapon requirement. However, how is [Weapon Damage] this number determined? At random? Like say, a sword is 15-22. Does [Weapon Damage] have an equal chance of being any number between 15-22? 68.51.106.58 08:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, Auron doesn't play Guild Wars anymore. Now...note the damage on both swords. One says, "15-22 Slashing damage" and the other? I'm sure it says the same. Only a few things come to play. Req. 13 swords and the like can only be used by primary classes (due to the inability to spec past 12 on a non-primary), so if you have a req 12 hammer on an assassin, and you get weakness applied to you, you technically are now attacking with a hammer that you don't meet the requirements for. Same with the swords, if you're running 14 swordsmanship and using both the req. 13 and the req. 9 swords, you shouldn't see a dramatic change in damage. That's assuming the swords both deal physical, slashing damage. In that case, a slashing shield might affect it a bit. You could have the req. 9 sword customized with a shocking mod, and the req. 13 with a zealous mod. The Shocking sword, versus a ranger would do less damage, while the zealous versus a warrior would do less damage. Follow me yet?

Now, insignias and the like also affect damage. Warriors have Sentinels (lolbroken), and monks have disciples (lolbroken as well). The warrior's Sentinel's insignias would make your sword do almost 1/3 less damage than it would have initially done. That's versus 80 armor, possibly a shield, so 96 armor. Assuming the warrior swaps shields, you can possibly be dealing with +10 more armor, which is a little over -1/8 damage (correct me if I'm wrong). Adding the +20 armor from sentinels and you have a warrior with 136 (lol) armor. -10 depending on if the warrior shield swaps. Don't forget warding spears and whatnot. Every class has extra armor, truth be told. So your sword will vary in the amount of damage it deals, depending on the person you're stabbing with it. Warriors can basically outtank anything, armor-wise. Rangers suck up elemental damage, monks gain dumb armor numbers with conditions, and other classes have + armor based on their primary attributes, or a role unique to their class.

tl;dr the swords do the same damage unless weakness is applied with 13 swords on the req. 13, and they don't go against anything with +armor for the damage type. -- Dee Strongfist 08:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Herro

Will you unblock me on msn soon plox? I don't log into gws much anymore so I don't talk to lemming much anymore and with you blocking me on msn there's a distinct deficit of hawiian in my life :( --TahiriVeila 04:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I blocked you because you didn't think before you typed. When I gave you the opportunity to go back and do so, you still didn't. Looking at your posts to and about Briar, nothing has changed.

I don't do idle chatter with randoms. Either the conversation is meaningful or it doesn't happen. Whatever you want to say to me can be said on the wiki or by email. -Auron 04:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Orders flaggers

I only ever remember seeing dervishes flagging with orders for a few months in some heavy physical builds like 1.5-2 years ago. Were you trying to give the impression that they were really common? Because I don't ever remember seeing much of them.--TahiriVeila 04:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They were in the meta for months. Months, not a few days or a few weeks. A point was made that dervishes have never been used as casters outside of RA, and my comment was made to debunk that point. Largely, he was correct - dervishes suck as casters. But builds have existed that use (or exploit) Mysticism and enchant spamming to make a feasible caster, which means that it is technically possible with the way they're designed, but skill selection is just too poor to make it feasible in any real competitive play (now). -Auron 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Protip

i was checking the site for runes of magic and laughed when i saw this and immediately thought of your protip.

We have decided that due the massive feedback on today's patch and because of the server-issues, to take the servers offline. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this. ... lol --adrin 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Choking

You obviously don't know how fun choking is...--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 04:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is fucking true. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 04:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

^ wtf? I was referring to something else...--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's still lulzy. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Very unrelated though :3--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wut. There's choking in there. >.> SO RELATED. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Football

I find it to be an overly-simplistic and overall boring sport. On the up-side, 10 days until pitchers and catchers report for spring training!--TahiriVeila 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Running up and down the feild with a ball in hand is overly simplistic, But whacking a ball with a stick and then running around a different feild, THATS A REAL MANS SPORT!!! --71.193.48.146 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh yes. Football is pretty much the same as every other generic sport which involves simulating war by taking a ball from your end of the field to the enemy's end.A American football/football/basketball/hockey/lacrosse etc are all pretty much minor variations on the same boring game. Baseball at least differs drastically and is interesting to watch. Quit trolling briar--TahiriVeila 05:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I find all sports to be overly simplistic and boring as hell. Watching sweaty black people is never my idea of a good time, which sends basketball to the bottom of the list of good sports. Baseball is simply the most boring sport ever - I went to a live pro game in NYC and literally fell asleep. That sport died 50 years ago, so they've introduced drugs into the game in the hopes that people hitting 5 billion home runs might make the sport less boring. They were wrong - nothing can make baseball less boring. Volleyball was fun to watch for awhile, but that gets old quick, and most people around the country have never heard of it anyway (it's pretty big in hawaii). That leaves like what, tennis? It's impressive watching their reaction times, but that sport is entirely too euro to be fun to watch.

Handegg isn't bad. I prefer watching and discussing quarterbacks, because that position requires brains and brawn (a true rarity in sporting, to be completely honest). Linebackers can be good, wide receivers and kickers and whatever else can be fun to watch, but none can be "great" on the level a great quarterback can. That's what sets people like Elway, Marino, and even Manning and Brees apart from your average jock dipshit that failed high school twice and only got through college on a scholarship. Connecting a bat to a ball really isn't anything compared to all the shit a QB has to think through every single play, and please don't even try to pretend it is. -Auron 05:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And pitching doesn't represent that same type of talent? If anything I'd argue that pitching requires just as much brawn as playing a quarterback does with even more knowledge. An outstanding pitcher has to not only possess a variety of different techniques but has to possess the knowledge to know in what situations a particular pitch is optimum and whiches pitches will be most effective against which players. That seems, to me at least, to require at least as much situational awareness and time spent studying opponents that paying as a quarterback requires.--TahiriVeila 05:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, during my house arrest, I just waited for the commercials before paying attention and shat around on the internet during the actual game. That way I got the interesting parts without the bullshit (for the most part at least). Also got some exercise, as the TV is upstairs and the computer downstairs. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

@Tv, Or a deck of baseball cards. --Briar 05:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making a completely useless and irrelevant comment!--TahiriVeila 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? Baseball cards have what? stats, history and tendancies. They're practically a road map telling you who your opponent is and every move they'll make. To prepare for a game all a pitcher would have to do is practice his knuckleball and compile a deck with every member of the opposing team on it. Hell he could even carry it in his back pocket and look at them in between pitches. Memorize the inside of my ass. All he has to do is toss a ball. --Briar 05:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The exact same (faulty) reasoning would apply to quarterbacking as well as just about any profession one might practice.--TahiriVeila 05:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

actually no, it wouldnt. Because your forgetting one very important thing. The style of the game. In baseball your "team" stands there and waits for a ball to come flying in their direction. In football as soon as the ball starts moving so do the entirety of both teams. You cant predict every single move made by every single player because you cant WATCH every move made by every player. Your also disregarding a very important aspect of football (the most important if your anything but the receiver or the QB), Strength. Your line-men are there for one purpose, and thats to defend the QB. As such they need immense ammount of not just strength but endurance in order to fight off the opposing team. And there is no way to measure how strong someone is when your on the feild and hidden by tons of bulky padding. --Briar 05:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

no. at the very least, you can do just as much research on opposing football players as you can opposing baseball players. the internet exists for a reason. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pitching does require all that you say. Two things, however - 1, great quarterbacks are still better athletes (in fact, baseball players are the least in-shape of all athletes in all sports) and are still more fun to watch than great pitchers, and 2, baseball is still dead as motherfucking hell. It's like you're trying to say GW is a better game than WoW because of some mundane mechanic, but the existence of said mechanic doesn't make the game any less dead or any less boring. I'm sure you could fill a bar or two with die-hard baseball fans, but the entire country is already filled with handegg fans; and when the entire point of following the sport is to interact with its community, picking the sport with a bigger community is pretty much all that matters. I'm not a "football fan." I have a favorite team, but I couldn't tell you anything about their stats - I don't memorize any of that bullshit. I watch football socially, and baseball is simply too boring to watch socially. Even after 10 beers, I find my attention wandering away from the TV if a baseball game is all that's on. A boring game plus a small community is simply a red flag for me. -Auron 05:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"(in fact, baseball players are the least in-shape of all athletes in all sports)" lolgolf? --RIDDLE 05:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I said sports. Anything with a bunch of white-haired niggas in shirts and slacks isn't a sport. -Auron 06:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you about how boring baseball can be but it's an opinion so there's no point in arguing over it. As for baseball being a dead game, a lot of it depends on the area of the country one looks at. Baseball is still a very big deal in the northeast and even on the west coast. I know from experience that there are still plenty of ravening baseball fans in Boston, New York, Baltimor, Philly, and plenty of other big east coast cities--TahiriVeila 05:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there are shitloads of hockey fans there too. Doesn't mean its not a dead game (as far as america goes) --Briar 05:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Boxing! On Ice! --RIDDLE 05:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, I agree with Briar. The country's interest in baseball is long gone. I live in hawaii and rarely travel to the east coast, so a localized fanbase doesn't matter to me at all (see my comment about volleyball above). Most of the places I travel to have a greater interest in handegg than baseball, so that's what I go with. I suppose if I lived in NYC, I would pretend to be an orthodox jew and pretend to like baseball. But since I rather despise big cities and the values they instill, I don't see that happening anytime soon. -Auron 06:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So, any of you guys NASCAR fans?! elix Omni 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Football may be the most physically demanding sport, but that doesn't make baseball players out of shape. Tell that to the mile I had to swim in sweats in college ball. Pitching isn't necessarily easy, but quarterbacks require more quick thinking for the sheer fact that they have a million more things to watch when the play is going down. After the pitch, the pitcher just follows certain guidelines as to where he needs to cover, there's no real quick thinking required. -- Tha Reckoning File:User Tha Reckoning Sig2.jpg 08:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said baseball players are out of shape. Welcome to shades of gray, the area between one extreme and the other. -Auron 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Football may be the most physically demanding sport in terms of strength, i.e. blocking or shaking off a tackle, but endurance-wise, the most demanding is soccer. If you've ever played a real game of both, there's no question.

Even with a strong fan base in certain regions, baseball is pretty boring. Maybe not from a fan's perspective, but from most players' perspectives, yeah. You're either sitting in the dugout waiting for your turn to bat or waiting for the batter to hit the ball in your direction. The only real constant action is the catcher, the pitcher, and the batter. Everyone else is chewing tobacco, chewing gum, spitting seeds, or scratching themselves. At least in football, with every play, all the players on the field are doing something. But, all in all, professional sports is really a bunch of overpaid prima donnas or babies. Some still play when they reach the pros for the love of the game, but most only care about the dollar signs now. Basketball players are the ultimate example of this. It's pretty sad, really, but that's why there's college sports. Give me the Orange Bowl over the Super Bowl any day. — Gares 15:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. I hope you are all having fun with your intellectual dishonesty and pseudo facts. Jake, don't most catchers signal to the pitcher what kind of pitch to throw? Following instructions probably doesn't require a high mental capacity. Auron, saying that baseball players are the most unfit athletes in all sports is going pretty bloody far unless you are very, very narrowly defining sports, which is intellectually dishonest. If you want to go for specific examples of unfit athletes boxing is a good place to look, Butterball or David Tua for example. There are quite a lot of fat players in handegg, rugby, boxing, ice hockey all kinds of things, but the most unfit athletes on the whole and average are probably sumo wrestlers. There are plenty of sports that require finesse or technique rather than strength, endurance or speed. Apparently shooting is even a sport. Feel free to define things in a strange way to make things you have already said not sound retarded though. Strangely, the athlete that tested highest for fitness in the 2004 New Zealand olympic team was a sailor, go figure. Misery 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, shooting shouldn't surprise anyone as a sport. "Hitting the target" games have been played for hundreds of years. It takes a steady hand, an accurate eye, and some intellect. Now dwarf tossing, that should surprise people. I don't know much about New Zealand's navy regimen, but I could see it from an American standpoint. Maybe not an average example of the regular navy (of course I could be mistaken), but definitely from the SEALs. I'd like to see if the fittest professional athlete could even last one week in BUD/s. — Gares 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A sailor sails, I didn't mean a sailor in the navy. His sport was sailing. Specifically in the laser class. Misery 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

/forehead slap Okay, I see where strange comes in to play now. — Gares 16:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cross-continental sailing is bloody extreme, far beyond any 90-minute sport.

Also, the relative average fitness of athletes has pretty much nothing to do with how "enjoyable" a sport is. Sumo, for one thing, is fucking hilarious to watch. Two 200 kilo fat slabs smashing into each other is funny. Apart from that, I'd say that as far as sports go, fast contact ones are the most fun to watch, i.e. kickboxing (esp. if done by women). Thanks! NuVII 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's your dream entertainment then, Nuke. Butterbean, mentioned by Misery, was a kickboxer in addition to being a boxer...and over 400lbs. And he was good. — Gares 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So...what are sports? They seem like boring pastimes compared to cooking omelettes in an omelette fiesta. Pika Fan 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They are that exactly :p--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Poker and chess? Vili 点 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Starcraft.

Hey, it's a sport in Korea! Thanks! NuVII 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

uh misery, we're talking about popular american sports, of which there are only a couple. boxing, rugby, sailing and other bullshit doesn't even come close to counting. this has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty, it has to do with the sports being even less popular than baseball. -Auron 02:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to define things in a strange way to make things you have already said not sound retarded though. ^^ Misery 11:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up to read what all of my posts in this section have been about - popular american sports. I don't have to define anything in a strange way, I just have to stay on topic. You can bring up sailing, boxing, underwater basket weaving, international arm wrestling and competitive starcraft gaming all you want, but as they are all off-topic, they don't matter - they're red herrings. When you're trying to call someone's logic out, be sure your entire argument isn't based on a fallacy itself. You end up looking bad. -Auron 12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That was kind of exactly my point. Misery 12:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Read your posts. Twice you mentioned "All sports". Then when someone pointed out that Golf players are more unfit than baseball players, your counter-argument was that golf wasn't a sport because of the stereotype player; not because of its popularity in America. Now you're claiming that the whole thread has been about "Popular American Sports", but yet people before and after your post have mentioned things like soccer, lacrosse, and volleyball. In fact, no one but you has said or implied that this thread is only about popular american sports except for you and you only did that to save face after someone called you out and your only definition of "popular american sports" so far seems to be "what I, Auron, think is a popular american sport". Mr J 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"hurr sailing"

"durr red herrings"

"derp falacious arguments"

"durp define sports the way you want derp"

Sports sure are serious business. Thanks! NuVII 14:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

whatever

^ Vili 点 00:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)