Call of Duty: Black Ops II's most nonsensical, knee-jerk, rage-filled user reviews

Look, hes back! Your still not understanding this simple concept. Take what you just said with the quotes "I think we need to break up." Now, thats it! No context! You dont get to know that his girlfriend left slamming the door shut! "Slamming" indicates anger! All you get from me is the quote "I think we need to break up." Because THAT is how Im typing to you. Im not providing you any context. The only time you dont need adjectives is if your providing a situation such as "slamming a door" or "glaring." Those are descriptors. Now, sifting through all of your insults, this boils down to yet again, this going WAY over your head! Just stop! Give it up! You lost this a long time ago. Let it die.

You apparently aren't able to keep up with your own argument. You claim that one needs adjectives to determine emotion. I disagreed. I provided an example situation where no adjectives are included, to demonstrate that you (yes, even you) should be capable if deducing emotion without adjectives from text. Also, you skirted my question. I asked you how the girlfriend feels, and you failed to give me an answer. I believe you failed to do this because you are afraid of admitting you're wrong. Just admit that you have a problem, that's the first step in defeating it. I mean, you are wrong in your arguments here. That's the word, yes, as crazy as it sounds to you, you are wrong. You are not right, you are wrong, and both I and another have now tried and failed to get you to understand why. You are making yourself look like just another average adult who can't prove they took much of anything away from a higher education with every effort you make to dig yourself into denial. If you want proof you can't "logically" refuse, show this entire argument, starting at the comment where I agreed with the gentleman who's post I supported, to 3 English professors willing to give you a few minutes of their time. If you are willing to do that (it can probably be done online so don't worry about your time), I hope you are prepared to be told you are in need of some remedial tutoring.

Read what i saif. I said adjectives without context. I gave you no context. You didnt get to know if i was slamming a door or glaring because i never told you. Im not wrong. Im right for the simple fact you STILL cannot tell me how you defer anger from my post with no adjectives, no descriptors and no context. THAT is what i said. Try again little boy. You should of let this die when u had the chance.

The context is the situation, context can be one of those(believe it or not). The situation is that you are replying to my comments which disagree with your ideas. In this situation, I believe you to be disgruntled (with 100% certainty that I'm correct) because that is the most reasonable response from you in this situation based on the way you voice your opinions, the way you attack others, the way you can't seem to stand being wrong combined with your complete faith in your belief, and the way you have spoken down to others countless times in the past in other posts. This observation of your usual behavior leads me to conclude things about your natural tendencies, and those conclusions help me see the context of this situation. There were no adjectives, there do not need to be adjectives, I do not always need adjectives (and neither will you if you accept that you need help and pursue it), and I do not need to have every detail of an instance in time to come to a logical,reasonable conclusion about said instance. You are not someone who has ever needed to provide me with adjectives or the minutiae of your actions for me to tell if you are upset or not. That's the reality of this situation, I hope you realize that it's not my fault you can't accept it.

"His post could be condensed down into a giant "meh, idc, do what you want." If thats all it takes to impress you, you need to raise your standards." That is what I said to you. Right after that, you ask if Im upset. Where is the context? Where is the situation? Your going to guess how Im feeling based upon things I write to people weeks or even months in the past? How do you know I was even pissed off when I wrote those? What makes you think what someone says on the internet even remotly upsets me, let alone pisses me off. Because I insult them? Is a comedian pissed off when he insults someone in the crowd? Because I debate and prove my case? I can debate and say my side WITHOUT being angry. No, yet again, what you are doing is called ASSUMING. You ASSUME Im mad or upset but you cannot TELL without me giving you a CONTEXT or an adjective to describe it. You even admit you "conclude" things about my natural tendencies based on what I say to other people in the PAST, without even fuckin KNOWING me. You DONT know me. Im going to give you a hint that will MAYBE shut you the fuck up. I may cuss at you. I may insult you. I may have a 20 page long thread stating my side. I may use caps and exclamation marks. But I NEVER get upset about what someone who I DONT even know says to me on the internet. NEVER. Im not upset now. And I wasnt when I wrote that comment to you. And I wasnt when I was CASUALLY having an ONLINE WRITTEN discussion with person BEFORE you. The reason you never needed adjectives to determin if someone was upset in the past was because you are IMAGINING or ASSUMING what they are acting like as they are typing. You can never tell what someone feels with the writted word unless they themselves want you to know. It is physically impossible. All you can do is assume, conclude or infer. But you will not KNOW. Now, we can stop this ANY time you want. Or you can keep digging yourself a hole. If you respond to me again with the same tired bullshit im just going to paste this comment for you to reread and hopefully educate yourself with next time you want to get into it with the big boys, k lil buddy? Have a nice day. :)

You are completely deluded, but you won't see that because you're deluded. And if you're smart enough to see the circular reasoning in that, it doesn't really matter because that's how delusions work. I give up trying to teach you though. You're just asking the same question over and over even though I answered it, and you fail to answer my own questions. Also, if you think this was ever a competition, then you should know that you lost less than 5 comments in. Thanks for the good wishes though, I've been having a pretty good day so far and I'm feeling pretty good.

What question did you ask? If the girl in your little example was upset? Yeah, I would say so based on the fact you fucking said she "slammed the door." No one happily slams a door. But thats not what I gave you. All I gave you was the quote that you used. Thats it. Now how do you get anger from that? You cant. So, I'll take this insult post as you conceding to me. You really dont know what the fuck your talking about. You didnt answer my question because you CANT answer my question and I explained that to you three fuckin times already. I didnt "lose", kid. If you think I lost because Im "deluded" because I keep explaining the same simple concept to you and you refuse to aknowledge it, thats not my problem. You can believe you "won" all day. Its pretty fuckin apparent to everyone else who was right and who was a complete and utter ass who just fell on his face.

So slamming the door indicates anger? I do believe you're assuming right there, which is kind of strange when in an earlier post you say that assuming is something you're supposed to never do on the Internet. Also, you initially assumed that I thought you were upset. Yes I did, but how did you come to that conclusion? You assumed, didn't you? There were no adjectives, or "context" (your kind at least), and nothing whatsoever that you could use to deduce that I thought you were upset. That's only 2 of the times you've contradicted yourself. But you were right about me making an assumption, and you assumed. "Preposterous," you might say, but indeed it's true. You assumed and you were correct, just as I have (with 100% certainty that I'm correct for reasons you cant seem to fathom).As for using your "logic hammer", you might want to work on that thing quite a bit before you start swinging it around, because otherwise everyone's just going to ridicule it. Another thing: I'm assuming you're lying about you being an English side major due to your grammar and lack of understanding my lesson to you. Also, please don't bring up how long you've been prowling comment boards and this site or your family as a defense of some kind of credibility you think those things give you. That just makes you even harder to take seriously. Your time here(also, I've been using this site since it was cheat planet as well, still type that in instead of games radar in fact) does nothing for your argument, and neither does the fact that you successfully reproduced. Oh, and your notion of how English works here is still wrong, in case you need me to address that again. Don't ask for details though, I've already given you the tools, it's up to you to use them.

I'm assuming (once again, oh the power) that you've run out of arguments (using that term lightly) for me to burn down due to the lack of "substance" in that. But I'm done with you now, it's been way too serious for my tastes. I mean it this time, for realsies. Oh, and you have a good day too. See you on another page!

How do I, specifically, get that you're upset or how do other people? I don't care how you felt as person - I care how you felt as a writer (i.e. what emotion you're trying to convey in your writing, not how you actually feel). May not make sense to you, but I totally separate the person from the writer if I don't need to know their biography. Okay, know how I said the context of the setting can be taken as a setting? He basically said he admired how someone worded their post, and you told him his standard were lacking if "meh, idc, do what you want" impressed him. He never said that's what specifically got his attention. Also his reply was to the other guy, not to you, so you responding at all, plus the message in the response, does look like an attack (and I say this objectively). The way I read, I basically take everything apart and put it back together. Why was this allusion used, why was that word chosen and not this similar word, what's the point of putting this after that, etc. and what does it mean as whole? So when I read comments, old or not, I do that. I don't care how you actually felt (I'm talking about me, not speaking for someone else), but what you wrote and how you wrote it does give an indication of some kind of emotion, whether it's one you felt or not, or something you did intentionally or not. (Just so you know, I disagreed when you said "'English class taught me' is not a fucking answer." I may not be 100% supportive of winner2's trolling, but I did think he brought up a good point with that - probably because I do language and composition for a living though.) By posting at all, you're giving me and everyone else the freedom to do that to what you have written. Online or not, writing is writing. Sarcasm may be harder to gauge on posts since people do type like they speak, but I don't think it's VERY hard. I mean, have you honestly, never, not even once, used it? And even if you haven't, have you never typed anything that can be seen (and that you know can be seen) that way? So what if it is an assumption? You're the writer. You're setting up your writing so that he will make that assumption. You're not fault free in that, because you know what you're doing. And even if you don't, you can still have the foresight to see how you can lead people to that conclusion. When you guys bring me up, please accept that I am the neutral chaotic Switzerland who only stands up for language and literature. I think you both brought up good points, and I think you both brought up bad ones or wrote things that were non-sequiter , and I don't necessarily think anyone's a "dumbass".

What? No, I didnt "assume" that someone slamming a door means their angry. Someone slamming a door MEANS their angry. No one happily slams a door or does it when their bored or sad. Plus the CONTEXT that they just broke up also proves it. Something I did NOT give you. I didnt assume you thought I was upset. You ASKED me if I was upset. It was right there. Yet again, you fall FLAT on your face. As for the rest of your post, its all straw men and insults. The fact that I "successfully reproduced" as you put it means I have children of my own. I raise them. Im a dad. I dont pop out kids and then run away like a fuckin gazelle. I wasnt trying to use it for my argument. It was for a conversation I was having with another person. As for my typos, Im typing this one handed. And on a phone. Excuse me if its not perfect and somethings are shorthand. So, yet again, this still flies over your head. Seems my logic hammer struck another blow!

Yeah, because this wasnt added as an afterthough. Nor was it posted right after my previous post, which was pretty long. Burn down? What did you burn down? The fact that you conceded? The fact that your "done with me" attests that YOU have nothing left, not me. Im the one who explained to you in great detail why you are wrong. And you reply calling me delusional and saying your done. Your done when I say your done, motherfucker. Now reply to this like a good little bitch.

You must be new to the internet. This isnt a book. Im not "writing" to set up anything. Im responding to a post. And he DID respond to me because it shows up in my inbox. Which is why I saw when you necrod it and you thought I wouldnt respond. That "are you upset" comment was directed at me. Otherwise, he would have said it along time ago that he didnt mean it for me. The fact is, this isnt book club. When you post, you post as if you are talking. The only DOWNSIDE to that is obviously you cant tell how someone is feeling, you can only guess or infer. You might be right. You might be wrong. That is my point. Which he did not get. You cant tell how Im feeling when I write to you with no descriptors, no adjectives and no context. Period. Regardless who knows about english, regardless of who was here longer, THAT is the absolute truth. You can only GUESS how Im feeling. And infer from that and do what you will with it.

I used the internet when I was a kid to play those weird little dress up games...I think it was something from Disney. So I wouldn't say "new". Maybe rusty, since I don't get on as much, but "new" wouldn't be fit too describe me. :) I never said it was book club (Academic ones are different, but most just pick a book and then the people gush over what they did/didn't like - not my cup of tea). I said that's the way I read. I do it to everything - I read road signs like that when I'm bored and driving somewhere I've never been. There's no need to tell me it "isn't a book" because I'm aware. My inbox doesn't light up or whatever when I get a response, I just happen to look because I'm curious. That's why I thought you wouldn't respond. Plus, I was addressing a point you made that was wrong, because I do teach the different ways one can get tone/mood from text - adjectives, etc. are important but not the end all, be all. I wasn't actively trying to start anything, I just noticed something that didn't sit with the material I teach and corrected - teacher mode. I'm also aware the "upset" comment was directed at you. I stated that his first one wasn't. You did reply to that one, therefore contacting him first, am I wrong? I know you type as though you speak. But people think before they speak (or at least they should), don't they? Plus it takes longer to type something than it does to say it. You can reread, change, and adjust what you'll write, so even if you do post like you speak, you definitely have more time to think about it and change how you'll present it, as opposed to convos going in real time. And since a post is written, not spoken, I can analyze it like I would anything else written. If winner2 reads like me, than it's viable he does the same. I think you may be assuming (geez, this word is everywhere) he doesn't see your point. You don't know for sure he didn't get your point. He may or may not just be ignoring it because you won't acknowledge his (like I said, you're both right, especially on your main points, but neither of you will concede). It looks both ways to me. Yes, we can only GUESS how you're feeling...but you're the one with the power to control WHAT it is we'll guess. Like I said, you have time to think about what you'll "say". That is my point. Comment boards are a context. It's a setting: Video game comment section. I don't know if you read a lot or not, but some authors have used a chatroom/comment board as a setting. Some readers (me) just take it that way. Also, it did kind of make me uncomfortable that you brought up your kids. I get the point you were trying to make and I'm sure they're awesome (probably really little and cute and driving you insane with it), but how am I suppose to reply to that? You have to know some people would take that as an opportunity to rip on your family and THAT is something that probably would be upsetting. Don't pass out loaded guns and what not. Also, the book club comment can come off as condescending. :)

"Yes, we can only GUESS how you're feeling...but you're the one with the power to control WHAT it is we'll guess." That is the entire concept I was trying to get across to him. He kept going because to him, he didnt want to look wrong. Its a thing on these message boards. I dont talk about shit I dont know about. Like cars or football. But if you bring up politics or english or anything surgical, I KNOW what Im talking about since Ive lived those lives. Military as well. When I bring my family into things, I dont mean to, its just their such a huge part of my life and what defines me its hard not to. And yeah, these little immature shits love to rip on my family when given the chance because they have nothing else to attack me with, I dont let it bother me. Like I said, half the people on this site are virgins and cant even walk into a bar yet. Their not going to understand what Im trying to convey.

That's sweet. I don't have kids, so I can't really relate, but that is sweet. You know, the funny thing about that comment I made, is that I was defending the points of both arguments. *shrugs* It just seems ironic. Anyway this post can die again or whatever. I took today off, but I have class for the rest of the week, so my next chunk of free time will (probably not even) be the weekend. 'Til next time, adios, sayonara, bien nuit and what not.

I just made this damn account to say, this game is awesome. multiplayer is dope. zombies is dope. havn't even got to campaign, and i hear its the best part. can't wait.

I have to agree with some of these and that's coming from someone who has purchased every Call of Duty since Modern Warfare, I am just wondering how long they can keep these annual releases of essentially the same game going, sure they alternate time periods every other year but the basis is the same. The only thing original is the campaign which treyarch seems to do a better job of.

Was there an article just like this but for Halo 4? I thought I saw it but now I can't find it...