Jump to content

Dresden Ceriano

Advisor
  • Content Count

    5,189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dresden Ceriano

  1. Caitlin Tobias wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: PS Dres, check your mail. I did and have been thoroughly insulted by the lack of dick shots. ...Dres They are all on my wall. You sent him the pics I made of your...err, your portrait? Honestly, I think I've seen enough Derek dick shots to last me a lifetime. ...Dres (My sister might not be so accommodating.)
  2. Derek Torvalar wrote: PS Dres, check your mail. I did and have been thoroughly insulted by the lack of dick shots. ...Dres
  3. CleoSertorii wrote: It seems to me, from past experience, that accusations of trolling are your go-to thing. ...Dres they only are when it seems to me that is what is happening...and since you are the only other person in the entire forum that i have ever accused of being a troll, then i think you are sort of overgeneralizing a bit. Perhaps that's because Derek and I are two of the very few here who enjoy questioning people's perceptions and pushing them to question their opinions. I apologized to you before for being overly harsh, when I thought you were as crazy as those other anti-Progeny idiots and I meant it. But, mainly, I tried expanding your thinking on the matter. It didn't work and I still don't like what your actions were as far as that's concerned. I'll probably never agree with you, but I understand that what you believe is quite sincere... what I believe is as well. When you denounce someone as a troll, what you're essentially saying is that they don't honestly believe that the opinion of which they're arguing is valid. As such, the difference between you and I is that I'd rather support my position with sound argument, than try to invalidate my opposition wherein I discount their argument by dubbing them a troll. ...Dres
  4. CleoSertorii wrote: seriosuly, dres? It was a question, not an accusation, and i DID try to refute what he said more than once by pointing out that the photo doesnt violate any of SL's rules. I don't believe it does in the way that Derek suggested, but I still believe it very well may violate the ToS... because of copyright. But, honestly, I'd rather not get into that. The point of my post to you was to suggest that I believe it would behoove you to state your actual argument rather than start calling people trolls. ...Dres
  5. Madelaine McMasters wrote: Cleo, I suspect Derek believes his satire is obvious to everyone. I'm sure Derek knows very well that no one without the ability to rub two brain cells together will necessarily understand what he has to say. ...Dres
  6. LlazarusLlong wrote: CleoSertorii wrote: lastly, your pic is sooo of topic, im not sure why you bothered to post it...but whatever. As an aside, I don't think that it is possible to be off topic in General Discussion. Are you stupid? She said "of topic" not off. ...Dres
  7. CleoSertorii wrote: Firstly Cleo, I do not take orders from you, regardless of how you word them. I will post as I see fit. Secondly, the concerns I raise are relevant to the thread. And you need to understand that my original post to you was a little joke. I don't care personally, who you post pictures of in here. You have, as I noted, completely missed the point and remain oblivious to it. Which is ok, most will probably not understand it unless they are aware of what I am referring to, which I can't divulge because to do so would be a violation of policy here and result in my being banned. Thirdly, you have no idea if the people in the picture are residents here or not, do you. And the fact that you have 'disclosed' their RL occupations in and of itself may qualify as a violation of the aforementioned policies here. So try and relax and let it play. Follow along and you may indeed learn something. Or don't. I care not either way. Here is a pic for you. ok, firstly...your original comment to me could easily be (and was) interpeted as YOU telling me what to do, so please try to not be too much of a hypocrite. Secondly, how in the hell am i supposed to know it was meant to be a joke? I have no idea who you are and without some sort of context, the humor just isnt there for me to see. You are correct that i have missed the point because your point isnt clear at all...it just seems as though you are either trolling or getting on me for posting a random RL photo of three unidentified girls. You also verify that it is reasonable for me to not understand your point becasue you cant tell anyone what it is Thirdly, it doesnt matter if they are SL residents or not, as there is NO WAY to link their tv show characters or even RL names to any SL account simply based on a photo. In order for it to be a violation, someone would have to demonstrate that they are residents, which once again, isnt going to happen because you cant ID the actresses. lastly, your pic is sooo of topic, im not sure why you bothered to post it...but whatever. It seems to me, from past experience, that accusations of trolling are your go-to thing. ...Dres
  8. CleoSertorii wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: No thank you. You are in over your head Cleo, and a long way from shore. Derek, did you come in here just to troll, or do you actually have some point to make? Nothing in the photo qualifies as "disclosing personal information" of any resident, or anyone else for that matter. As i already said (and you seem to have overlooked) is that the people in the photo are three actresses portraying fictional characters from a tv show that is the RP basis for my avatar. The photo was posted online by the studio who produced the show. They are not SL residents, and unless you actually know who these actresses are, you'd have no chance in hell of ever identifying them just off of the photo. If you have such a big problem with me posting it, then report it and let the thread go back to its original subject. Derek did make a point. I don't necessarily agree with his point, but I absolutely support his right to make it. I also support your right to insinuate that he's a troll, even though it exposes you as someone who would rather try to discredit an individual than just simply refute what they've got to say. ...Dres
  9. Amethyst Jetaime wrote: GU has powdered sugar all over his mouth too. Oh, so, it's casual, confectionery conspiracy. ...Dres
  10. Is that second picture an illustration of Carol Burnett? ...Dres *senses a trademark dispute coming on*
  11. http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English/bd-p/English_KB ...Dres
  12. I'm... oh wait, I'm actually not a new person, but an old one. Never mind. ...Dres
  13. Dresden Ceriano

    Peter

    Is it true? Have you really been lost here for all these years? ...Dres (aka Tinkerbell, aka the fairy, aka **insert inappropriate content**.)
  14. Pamela Galli wrote: Obviously it is Casual Friday. It's a casual conspiracy. ...Dres
  15. KarenMichelle Lane wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: They look a happy bunch. Probably because it's Friday! What are you suggesting? You think maybe they hand out donuts on Friday? ...Dres Number 45 has donut crumbs on his sweater..... It's a conspiracy. ...Dres
  16. Derek Torvalar wrote: Well my attempt to alleviate the boredom here was stymied as my thread entitled 'Office Politics Make Strange Bedfellows' was deleted without notification or explanation. You idiot! I'm perhaps the strangest bedfellow you could ever run across and that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, office or otherwise. ...Dres ETA: You do realize that idiot was meant as a term of endearment, right?
  17. Pamela Galli wrote: They look a happy bunch. Probably because it's Friday! What are you suggesting? You think maybe they hand out donuts on Friday? ...Dres
  18. Marianne Little wrote: My alts are not manly enough for you?!:womanmad: I didn't say that, but since you asked... they are certainly manly enough for a man, but they were made for a woman. ...Dres (Don't ask, because I'm not even sure what that means myself.)
  19. Getting drunk and shooting things? Sounds like that would go along perfectly well with my trailer trash upbringing. ...Dres *never actually lived in a trailer, but dated guys that did* (...if you can call that dating.)
  20. Burciaq wrote: Hey People! It's been a long time. Good to see most of you is still here ! It's good to see you back, Bucky. Very nice shot. ...Dres (It's about time we got a bit more manflesh in here... lol.)
  21. Derek Torvalar wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Wow, thats what I'm talkin bout -- not just talk, but action. It's been years since I've seen any action. ...Dres (Okay... I'll stop.) LOL Salacious Lover of Ubiquitous Tittilation! (bleep that mofo) ...Dres
  22. Pamela Galli wrote: Wow, thats what I'm talkin bout -- not just talk, but action. It's been years since I've seen any action. ...Dres (Okay... I'll stop.)
  23. Cathy Foil wrote: Like I have said before I don't want to restrict the ability to create in the new virtual world I just want to restrict the ability to sell to those who are premium members. But, this isn't the only thing you're suggesting. You're suggesting a fundamental shift to the way in which the market works. I mean, let's me see if I've got this straight... A creator decides to sell a full perm item to another creator, who would then be unable to sell anything they create with that item for less than what they paid for the original, because the original price would go to the original creator, instead of them... right? So, the only way they could make a profit, is by charging more than the original price. And not only that, but if they wanted to combine more than one thing which they bought full perm, in order to create an item, they'd have to charge more than the price they paid for each full perm item which they used while creating their single item... right? How long will it take until the price of their item becomes economically unfeasible? What you're suggesting would basically cut the knees out from under those creators who rely upon full perm items in order to make their creative visions come to fruition. Perhaps, that's precisely what you think should happen. But I happen to believe that the free market system which we've got now, with competition leading to lower prices, is beneficial to everyone involved. You act as if full perm creators are currently going broke or something... I contend that a good creator is still able to make a decent, not necessarily exorbitant, profit. It's only right that older products not sell as well as they once did before they'd saturated the market. The solution is simple... make newer, quality content which can start out selling well at higher prices, then, once their worth has gone down, make something new... rinse and repeat. It actually encourages creativity and goes a long way toward ensuring a steady stream of new content for us all to enjoy. Cathy Foil wrote: Creating content and selling content are two totally separate things. You go ask any successful creator/merchant if they'd be creating as much quality content as they do now, without the incentive of being able to make a bit of money for their effort, then tell me how unrelated are the two. ...Dres
  24. Madelaine McMasters wrote: Missapplication of manpower is as old as the application of manpower. It's been years since I've had a manpower application that wasn't rejected. ...Dres
×
×
  • Create New...