I don't see mine in it though.

Hi DeathInc of 2020,
By now you would have realized I was a useless d-bag. You probably are still a d-bag.
Nah, I'm kidding. You probably are annoyed by this, but by 2020 I would have probably retired or have been banned from Stickpage.

-Deathinc of 2015

The message has been sent. Say your farewells before this thing enters the warp zone! See you all in 2020!!!

Future Devour: Sorry, but your past was impetuous and an outright cheater.

Future ErrorBlender: You're sig's still gonna be about robots. Probably. But now that you're older, you'll probably learn a few lessons in deconstruction so you'll start getting into Cyberpunk, Transhumanism, and Retro-Future genres. I would recommend Eclipse Phase, CthulhuTech, and Blade Runner as references. Oh and Neuromancer; but meh Gibson's books are a tad hard to understand. He's like a sci-fi Tolkein in that sense.

Quote from Hewitt

He's like a sci-fi Tolkein in that sense.

Tolkien had convoluted plots and back stories but he was anything but hard to understand, really. Unless you count when he wrote poetry in his constructed languages but, that's a different story.

So you've read a Gibson novel already. Can you tell me if it was hard for you or if there is another comparison?

Quote from Hewitt

So you've read a Gibson novel already. Can you tell me if it was hard for you or if there is another comparison?

Um, this is directed towards future ErrorBlender, right?

You responded to my quote implying that Tolkein is easy to understand where I likened him to Gibson's technical jargon. I'm asking you if you find Gibson easy to understand.

I haven't read Gibson so, I don't know. I was just talking about Tolkien.

Then how can you say Tolkein is easy if you don't even know the thing I'm comparing it to. Maybe he's easy on a certain level but that level I don't believe it to be Error's interest

Well fuck. You seemed to be using Tolkien as a kind of poster child for hard-to-understand stories and that's what I responded to. Then you post this.

Quote from Hewitt

So you've read a Gibson novel already. Can you tell me if it was hard for you or if there is another comparison?

Which is relevant to your convo with Error but, quite irrelevant to my point.

Look I'm just saying that maybe. To you. Gibson is easy. I was legit asking earlier if you can provide a better example. But if you don't even know what a Gibson novel feels like, then why bother making a comment about it?

Quote from Hewitt

Look I'm just saying that maybe. To you. Gibson is easy. I was legit asking earlier if you can provide a better example. But if you don't even know what a Gibson novel feels like, then why bother making a comment about it?

Because I was commenting on what Tolkien feels like?

Then I'm asking you, what would be a better comparison? That's all I meant.


Future Naimad: Read more books pls.

Quote from Hewitt

Then I'm asking you, what would be a better comparison? That's all I meant.

I don't know what would, unless I read Gibson. I was speaking on what you seemed to think Tolkien's writing style was like.

Quote from generalZ

Hewitt is right in this argument. Let it be and for God's sake stay on the freaking topic please. This is a nice project and you are kind of ruining it with your constant unrelated posts.

And of course, my post is irrelevant. This is a great on-topic post that totally isn't backseat moderating or the final push to get the thread off its rails or anything. Bringing back the dead "argument" is a great way to solve the problem.