RedCream found

http://www.romhacking.net/forum/index.php/topic,4478.0.html
Topic: "Next generation could see unified console"
Quote from: JackDark on August 21, 2007, 06:30:16 PM
No way that would ever happen.

And thank God too.

Imagine if there was only ONE next gen console.  That means 100% monopoly.  That means no sales competition... which means prices would skyrocket on everything from the system itself to its peripherals to software.   $1000 for a new console?   Wouldn't doubt it.  $100 per new game?  Yep.  Diversity is a good thing in commerce.  Financial competition brings the desire to out perform a competitor in the eye of the demographic.


Did you read the article? The guy isn't calling for one console, he's calling for one standard that all companies can produce. That means Sony, Sega, Toshiba, Nintendo, Microsoft, Marvel Comics and even Fox would be creating the same console. Sure, maybe some of them will offer extra features (e.g. Blu-Ray support from Sony), but they'll all play the same software.

I like the way this man thinks

What convinces you he's RedCream?

>>2
same ip

>>3
If indeed he is this person, then he is 28, and hence also among the "twenty somethings" that he chastises occasionally.

Theres now way this fag is RedCream

http://www.myspace.com/jackdarkest

no*

>>5
people never are as we imagine it would be

>>4
Ahahaha. Maybe he was projecting, then.

in b4 RedCream belittles everyone in this thread and jack dark

I know Jack Dark. He isn't RedCream. For one, jack dark is a lot smarter than RedCream. Jack dark is a talented VST developer and a great musician - Red Cream is just a fat faggot on the internet.

RedCream is a militant Athiest, but Jack Dark is an agnostic interested in ghost hunting and can tell you everything about any kind of ghost. RedCream isn't superstitious at all.

Small world.

4tran is redcream

>>11
i fucking hope so.

I'm not a gamefag.  Keep looking, chumps!  REDCREAM COULD BE AS OMNIPRESENT AS IS THIS GODTHING YOU KEEPING INSISTING IS REAL!

>>13 >"I'm not a gamefag."

Nope just a regular fag.

>>14
Still, at least I'm not a gamefag.  Pay attention!

>>15
He did pay attention!  If he didn't, he couldn't have made that remark.

>>16
No, the point was that faggotry was not in question.  GAMEfaggotry was the issue.  Pay attention, 4tran!

>>17
>>16
talking to yourself again?

>>17
>"faggotry was not in question"

Yes it was: You're a faggot.

>>18
I'm not 4tran, Mr Anonymous Gayfailer.

>>19
Refer to prior posting where I'm not a GAMEfag.  As long as I'm not that, the rest is irrelevant.  You can throw your legs up over your head and spurt into your own mouth all you want, figuratively speaking.  My point is made regardless.

>>20 I know you're not a gamefag. The fact that the subject was whether or not you were gamefag doesn't make the notion that you are in fact a faggot any less true, you blatant, blatant faggot.

>>21
As long as you admit I'm not a gamefag per my original assertion, then my point is made and once again, I'm right.  You can lay on additional conditions or qualifications all you want; it's just mental masturbation at that point and useless to the issue at hand.

Well half of teh funnay is how you're pedantic enough to always respond the way you do. Because no one likes a faggot who likes ro be right so much (you faggot).

>>22
you blatant, blatant faggot.

>>23
What, should I like to (or try to) be wrong?  Are you saying that you'd rather be popular than right?  What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>23

Are you a jock?

>>25

When an argument becomes about *who* is right instead of *what* is right, it becomes a dick measuring contest instead of an argument. This is why people hate arguing with you so much on here. Because you're a dick-head.

It's also why you never accept when you're wrong.

>>27
Once someone actually proves that I'm wrong, instead of insisting I'm wrong because of some common fantasy, then I'll concede the point under contention.  You turds have to stop believing that truth is some sort of a popularity contest.  For example, the Judeo-Christians and Muslims outnumber people like me, but they're still fucking wrong and I can prove it.  In high contrast, they have ZERO evidence for what they believe; they only have the backing of millions more retards like themselves.  Again, that's just a popularity contest, and no bridge stayed up from the force of belief.

Shit, and people dare to call ME arrogant, whereas fucks like yourself apparently think that your moron topics shouldn't ever be contended, much less rebutted by someone like myself.

>>28 case in point. The thing is, you've never been proved wrong because you don't allow yourself to be proved wrong. The easiest way to not be wrong is to not take anything other people say for consideration: kind of like the fundamentalist religious fanatics you pigeonhole anyone you disagrees with you with.

>>28

You can prove the absence of a God? I should like to see your evidence.

>>25
>>28
you blatant, blatant faggot

>>29
>>30
Firstly, there's the absence of any evidence whatsoever.  Old stories by dead Jews can be summarily discounted, since we have plenty of fictional stories in Human life.

Secondly, the "God" much described in the so-called literature is omnipresent.  This means that "he" is everywhere.  Well, that sure sounds like a detectable entity or object or force to me.  To date --- which means THOUSANDS OF YEARS -- no evidence of this omnipresent entity/object/force has been found.

Thirdly, this "God" has allegedly shown a great proclivity towards making absurd or inexplicable demonstrations to Humankind.  Once the cameras show up, however, no such demonstrations occur.  That means that what allegedly happened before was a load of fucking bullshit ... and Humans are great liars.

IN CONCLUSION, with no evidence from something that should be producing a lot of it, the only rational conclusion is that this giant alien space monster doesn't exist.  After all, an invisible and incorporeal pink dragon is also not tiptoeing right now through your vegetable garden, for the same reasons.

The religitards don't accept this since ... well, they're religitards.  They need a divine daddy to tuck them in at night since Humans are also sacred little monkeys who howl in fear at the darkness outside.

Now, please come back with evidence, fuckos.  Nothing you say will be taken seriously -- like if you start to play logic games -- if you first don't produce EVIDENCE.  Evidence is a burning bush ... a 900ft-tall Jesus ... a parting of the sea ... and other such events that have NO PRECEDENT in the well-documented natural world.  In short:

EVIDENCE, MOTHERFUCKERS, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

>>32
NARUTO WILL DO THE SEXY NO JUTSU AND THEN LUFFY´S DICK WILL STRECTCH TO ETERNITY AND THEY WILL MAKE LOVE TO EACH OTHER AND LUFFY WILL LOOSE BECAUZ HE WILL BE SO EXAUSTED FROM FUCKING NARUTO IN SEXY NO JUTSU THAT HE COULD BARELY MOVE AND THEN NARUTO WOULD TRY TO KILL LUFFY BUT HE WOULD BE IN LOVE WITH HIM
SO THEY WILL MARRIED AND LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER

>>32
GTFO YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT YOU MOTEHRFUCKIGN PEICE OF SHIT HIS THI SHIT HSIHT SHYST HYTH YTS HYSHTYHYT

Just because he is omnipresent what makes you think people should be able to detect him. Stupid assumption exposed.

Reason number two is false as well, it is up to God who he decides to reveal himself too. How arrogant of you to think he must continually keep proving his existance to us.

IN CONCLUSION: Nothing! Your post was a bunch of hot air. None of that was evidence at all. Nice try, though.

>>32 You seem to never realize that no one is arguing proof of any god's existence, as there is none.

What people are repeatedly telling you is that it is illogical to see the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. You consistently fail to fill the gap between "no evidence of god" and "evidence of no god," yet you claim to. You're too thick to tell the difference.

Atheism is the exact same belief system as theism, rotated 180 degrees.

Furthermore what's also annoying is your use of dismissal. Anyone who disagrees with you, you assume is a bible-beating fundamentalist. It seems the only concept of god you are willing to contemplate is the fundamentalist KJV one that is easy to prove wrong, which doesn't make you clever - anyone can see it's bullshit.

Also, you're fat. GTFO.

I say this as a (healthy) agnostic, mind you.

>>36
Don't mind RedCream, he has trouble arguing against the facts when an argument isn't going his way. He is fond of strawman arguments and will try to lead you astray with his eccentric rhetoric.

Although he has probably read a lot of books, he lacks the intelligence to apply what he has learned to form any kind of balanced and consistent argument.

>>37
>"Although he has probably read a lot of books, he lacks the intelligence to apply what he has learned to form any kind of balanced and consistent argument."

Yea I definitely get that vibe. He is obviously educated, but probably not very smart.

Sage.  This is boring.

Looks like we have a popularity contest here... and RedCream's losing.

>>1
It's been done before. For instance main train track rails are made by 100s of different companies, but they are all the same type.

Red Cream is also deluded and gullible.

and fat.

also a cunt