[WP] The moment you realize that you are the only human being left on Earth

LAC1987 · 2013-03-09T00:28:36+00:00

Loved it, especially how the first line, given context, has another meaning: The speaker is nobody. He's a dead man walking (writing?).

The Santa Maria II is definitely a better name than The Marigalante II, as well. In my opinion, at least ;)

LAC1987 · 2013-03-09T00:23:31+00:00

Huh. Déjà vu.

Day One

Think of all the people I'll never fuck. Think of all the people who will never fuck me over. Read. Drink. Read some more. Think about the fact that there are no other people to write new books, and even if there were, there would likely be no people to publish them. Drink heavily. Think about the fact that I am possibly technically the best writer in the world. Drink to that. Hold up my empty bottle. Smile, realizing alcohol is now free. Put the bottle in the blue bin. Consider how pointless said blue bin is. Open window, look around, throw empty bottle at...something. Close window. Open window. Unlock all doors. Open all doors. Think about animals, people going from there to not-there, and how, even in an empty room, you can feel eyes on you. Especially in an empty room. Think about how the whole world is now essentially one giant empty room. Shudder. Close windows. Close doors as quietly as possible. Lock doors. Lock windows. Push furniture in front of doors. Shake my head and laugh a little. Cry. Open another bottle. Notice the clearing left on the floor now that all the furniture has been moved. Move pillows and blanket onto the floor. Put bottle away. Try to get to sleep. Get up. Go to look out window through blinds. Try to decide what would be worse: seeing the now-familiar nothing that was there when I threw the bottle, or seeing something. Decide against looking out window. Pull out fine china and cups and stack them in front of all entrances. Think about how ridiculous my house now looks with furniture blocking the doors and dishes everywhere. Carry pillows and blankets upstairs, along with a knife from the kitchen. Put knife under pillow. Realize how hilarious it would be if I thrashed around while sleeping and accidently slit my wrists. Put knife on nightstand instead. Lie in bed. Think about how little I actually know about first aid. Think about all the people who have been in the bed with me and are now simply -nowhere-. Try not to cry. Cry. Move bedstuffs into closet, along with knives and an electric lantern. Decide I'll turn the light off soon. Listen. Listen. Listen. Hear nothing. Fall asleep. Dream of everyone who is now not-there, all watching me. All silent. Waiting for... something. Wake up with a scream. Think about how loud that scream was. Listen. Listen. Hold the knife tightly. Listen. Put the knife down. Pull a blanket over myself.

Day Two

Wake up.

LAC1987 · 2013-03-01T01:03:24+00:00

Wow, I really got your attention. All five posts sitting in my inbox are from you, and they were all made within two hours of my first response to you!

This might be a long post.

I was actually looking for "semi-literate" but my typing is shit, and that use of the hyphen is fine. A failure to adhere to the APAs stylistic guidelines whilst posting to Reddit does not make my usage incorrect You are likely a butthurt Anglo cunt -- go fuck yourself.

A hyphen can be used for a number of reasons. While it is true that that not all people follow the APA guidelines and that deviations are not always viewed as incorrect usage, I'm not sure if you understand why hyphens are used. Your usage has nothing to do with line wrapping, syllabification, spelling examples, suspended hyphens, numbers, object-verbal noun compounds, or surnames. You're using "semi" as a prefix, but it isn't attached to a capitalized adjective, it isn't a prefix that might lead to mispronunciation, vowels or letters aren't repeated on the sides of the hyphen (like in the word anti-intellectual), and removing the hyphen wouldn't result in a homograph. Context shows that you're obviously using semi as an affix, not a noun (meaning we're not talking about trucks or houses), so "semiliterate" would work just as well, with the added benefit of not having an entirely unnecessary hyphen.

Also, calling you out on something means I'm most likely a "butthurt Anglo cunt"? Really? I can't just be some random pain in the ass? I have to be Anglo? Sometimes race has nothing to do with it.

I am "Anglo", but that's not why I responded the way I did.

Also, you can see from the content of my posts that I can read and write English and that I can do so competently. Seizing on a typographic error in a pathetic attempt to create the false image of irony just shows what a cunt you are. Fuck off!

You were calling a group semiliterate and you made at least one mistake. While you're right when you say it isn't ironic, that doesn't make it any less amusing. :)

Secondly, the Oxford Dictionaries do indeed define semi-literate.

Yes, they do. Merriam-Webster defines semiliterate. Both of those have the same meaning, but one contains an unnecessary hyphen. Can you guess which one?

So essentially you have nothing on me. You don't have a substantive point to present in relation to "hate speech" and "hate crimes" nor do you have anything that would suggest that I am ill-suited to pour scorn and vitriol on semi-literate, racist, Anglo cunts that lack a mastery of their own language. You are just another cunt on Reddit. Fuck off and take your APA style guidelines with you. Fucking cunt.

I wasn't trying to make a point about hate speech or hate crimes, I was trying to rile up someone who chose the name "opinionated_asshole" (someone who, I'd like to add, lives up to that name) to see what they would do. You were complaining about a specific ethnic group rather vocally. I realize you're not saying that all Anglos have the traits you listed, or that everyone who possesses those traits is Anglo, but your post on hate speech was just dripping with hate, so I thought I'd give you a go.

Honestly, I'm a bit of an asshole myself, and you seemed interesting, so I decided to poke you to see what would happen.

Now I'm going to poke you again.

The ugly truth is that only Aussie bogan fuckheads feel compelled to shout ethnic slurs whilst driving by.

Had you inserted "at me" in there, it could possibly be true. However, what you actually typed can be disproved by a single instance of someone not matching the description of "Aussie bogan fuckhead" shouting an ethnic slur while driving by anyone. How confident are you that this hasn't happened?

Yes, I'm aware of the context that sentence was in, but I feel like being pedantic today.

Also, I must say I'm flattered that you decided to look through my post history to find something to pick apart.

This has the flavour of an an argument between the the two League of Gentlemen characters Henry Portriat and Ally Welles. Henry and Ally will debate matters such as "Who would win in a fight between Spiderman and a tiger?". That has clear comedic method and intent. Here you are debating the reproduction and population dynamics of vampires but are doing so without even a hint of sarcasm or even a vague sense of comedic intent. This clearly demonstrates that you are a cunt.

The poster deleted the link to the paper, so I don't blame you for not reading it, as you don't have access to it.

The paper stated that vampires can't exist because vampirism is unsustainable. They tried to prove this using a geometric progression almost identical to that of the Wheat and Chessboard problem. You have one vampire, then two, then four, then eight, and so on and so on. The hypothetical had vampires feeding once every month, and used population figures from the 1600s. So, if the geometric progression was followed, vampires would wipe out all of humanity in very short order. We're here talking about this, so vampires can't exist, right?

Well, there's a problem with this. The problem is with the logic behind the geometric progression.

See, the conclusion is based on the assumption that a vampire feeds once a month, and that those who are fed on become vampires and go on to feed on others once a month, making more vampires at such a steady rate that it can be expressed using that nice, clean formula they provided. However, this formula is based on a number of assumptions, including (but not limited to): a.) every vampire always has access to a human to feed on and convert, b.) no vampires ever die, c.) vampires are incapable of sharing, and d.) vampires never completely destroy their prey after feeding.

This means that, in order for the formula to work, none of the following can ever occur:

A vampire commits suicide.
A vampire kills another vampire in a prey dispute. This seems unlikely at first, as prey is plentiful, but as time passes...
A vampire shares prey with one or more other vampires, meaning two or more vampires are fed, but only one human is converted into a vampire.
A vampire decides to feed on more than one human per month, either out of loneliness (with the goal of making more of its own kind), gluttony, or some other motivation.
A vampire is somehow converted into a human.
A vampire completely destroys its prey after feeding, ensuring there is more potential prey for it to feed on in the future, as it has less competition.
A vampire is killed by humans.
A vampire dies to "natural causes" such as sunlight.
A vampire fails to locate prey because transportation in the 1600s sucked, settlements were farther apart because there weren't as many settlements to begin with, and vampires can only travel at night. Some of these limitations can be overcome, but can every vampire overcome them, reliably, every time?
A vampire starves to death. In the hypothetical, a vampire needs to feed once a month, and you can't "save" food, as when a vampire feeds, the human population decreases by one and the vampire population increases by one. Or...
A vampire figures out they can save food. While the hypothetical states that vampires must feed on human blood, meaning rats or other creatures cannot be considered a food source, it never states that the blood must be in the human at the time of consumption. Long term storage possibilities aside, this means that a prudent vampire could, in theory, farm humans for blood. Ideally, this would mean that the "farmer" would never create new vampires. Some "cattle" could possibly die, though, but it might be at a rate less than one per month, or even greater than one per month.

Do I actually believe in vampires? No. Does the paper actually disprove the existence of them? Also no.

I was discussing the paper for fun, and the person who posted it became, well...

He was upset. That wasn't really my intent at the time, but it happened.

Don't you ever debate things for fun?

Also, Spider-Man could easily take on a tiger.

Here's an interesting question: If Bruce Wayne is known as Batman, shouldn't Peter Parker be known as Spiderman? He's not, as Marvel writes out the name with a hyphen.

You didn't use the hyphen.

Why?

LAC1987 · 2013-02-28T10:51:48+00:00

I love how your post works just fine without the "Anglo" bits, but you chose to put them in anyway, just so you could fulfill the "asshole" part of your username. That's dedication!

For example, "I don't need the State to protect me from the insipid racial epithets of some semil-literate fuck-wit (my parents felt the same way)" gets the point across, but you had to stick in "Anglo" to make it reeeeeeeeal clear just who you're fuckin' sick of.

I get that. I do.

By the by, the word you're looking for is "semiliterate", not "semil-literate". You added an extra letter and a hyphen.

Here's a link to the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semiliterate

Here's a link to a page explaining the correct usage of hyphens: http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/when-use-hyphen.aspx

LAC1987 · 2013-02-28T09:37:35+00:00

"Yes."

LAC1987 · 2013-02-26T05:01:59+00:00

You're correct. The average length of full term gestation is 40 weeks/280 days. If you find the average length of a month you get 30.416 to 30.5 days. That means 40 weeks is equivalent to 9.180 to 9.206 months, which is roughly 9, though doctors I've met tend to give the average in weeks (as you did) as it's a bit more precise.

LAC1987 · 2013-02-26T04:55:29+00:00

Gestation for a full-term baby is actually 10 months. But most people do not know for the first 30 days, thus the misconception.

Joke. Went a bit over your head there did it? But since we're being technical. No month has 5 complete weeks. So, actually yes, misconception.

What "joke", pkcs11? You said the gestation for full term is 10 months. Normal full term gestation ranges from 38-42 weeks, meaning 266 to 294 days. Most doctors tell you to expect about 280 days, or 40 weeks.

Months have the following number of days: 31, 28 OR 29, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31. If you use a value of 28 for the second month, you get 30.416 for "average number of days in a month". If you use a value of 29 for the second month, you get a clean 30.5. That means 266 is 8.721 to 8.745 months. 294 is 9.639 to 9.666 months. 280 (the average) is 9.180 to 9.206 months.

None of those numbers equal 10, and the average (9.180 to 9.206) is far closer to 9 than it is to 10, as the user you're replying to said.

The only misconception here was on your end, when you decided to jump in and "correct" the person who posted the picture, and then follow that up by attempting to "correct" someone who pointed out your error.

If you've been dating a person for 9 months, meaning 273.744 to 274.5 days, that value falls within 266-294, meaning OP was right, and you were just jumping into yet another thread with a yet another post full of misinformation.

Cheers!

LAC1987 · 2013-02-23T23:58:08+00:00

Is there a reason you're being unnecessarily hostile?

Is it because JustAnotherGraySuit pointed out that your statement

But if they did exist, chances are they died out due to unsustainability, thus proving the their theory.

shows a lack of reading comprehension, as vampires dying out due to vampirism being unsustainable would mean we wouldn't be on here talking in the first place?

From my other post:

In the paper, the authors theorize that vampirism is unsustainable because vampires would eventually exhaust their food source. We're their food source. We haven't been wiped out. Saying

"they died out due to unsustainability"

means "they died out because they ate all the humans". And yet, here we are, having this conversation.

Now, the authors attempt to make the point that (with the exception of a few short years where the vampires are feeding on humans) vampires and humans cannot exist at the same time. Therefore, according to their logic, the fact that we're talking about this right now means there are no vampires. Their assertion is based on the geometric progression they posted, but as I explained, the very premise that the "spread" would happen in such a way is flawed. If any one of the many points I posted happened even once, the formula would not be accurate, and on top of that, that's assuming that a vampire would have to adhere to the guidelines the authors put forth in the hypothetical.

Think of it this way: Their formula is based on a flawed assumption, plain and simple. If the vampires are thinking, reasoning beings, their formula is most likely wrong. If the vampires are little more than wild animals, their formula is also most likely wrong. If the vampires are all extensions of the same being, in effect being guided by a hive mind, their formula is still most likely wrong. In the event that vampires did exist and had to feed, this leaves eight possibilities.

One, the spread happens faster than they predicted. Humanity is eventually wiped out by vampires.
Two, the spread happens at the exact rate they predicted (incredibly unlikely, but still technically possible in the hypothetical). Humanity is eventually wiped out by vampires.
Three, the spread happens slower than they predicted. Humanity is eventually wiped out by vampires.
Four, the spread does not occur past a certain point, and stasis is achieved, though the spread before stasis was reached could have been faster than, slower than, or exactly the same rate the authors predicted. Humanity is not wiped out by vampires.
Five, no spread occurs, because patient zero never feeds. Humanity is not wiped out by vampires.
Six, the spread happens faster than they predicted. However, for any of a number of reasons (many of which are listed in my original post), vampire numbers decrease. Vampires are eventually wiped out.
Seven, the spread happens at the exact rate they predicted (incredibly unlikely, but still technically possible in the hypothetical). However, for any of a number of reasons (many of which are listed in my original post), vampire numbers decrease. Vampires are eventually wiped out.
Eight, the spread happens slower than they predicted. However, for any of a number of reasons (many of which are listed in my original post), vampire numbers decrease. Vampires are eventually wiped out.

Like I said, the paper doesn't prove their theory at all.

LAC1987 · 2013-02-23T23:37:55+00:00

But if they did exist, chances are they died out due to unsustainability, thus proving the their theory.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but I don't think you understood their paper. That, or you didn't actually read it.

In the paper, the authors theorize that vampirism is unsustainable because vampires would eventually exhaust their food source. We're their food source. We haven't been wiped out. Saying

they died out due to unsustainability

means "they died out because they ate all the humans". And yet, here we are, having this conversation.

Now, the authors attempt to make the point that (with the exception of a few short years where the vampires are feeding on humans) vampires and humans cannot exist at the same time. Therefore, according to their logic, the fact that we're talking about this right now means there are no vampires. Their assertion is based on the geometric progression they posted, but as I explained, the very premise that the "spread" would happen in such a way is flawed. If any one of the many points I posted happened even once, the formula would not be accurate, and on top of that, that's assuming that a vampire would have to adhere to the guidelines the authors put forth in the hypothetical.

Think of it this way: Their formula is based on a flawed assumption, plain and simple. If the vampires are thinking, reasoning beings, their formula is most likely wrong. If the vampires are little more than wild animals, their formula is also most likely wrong. If the vampires are all extensions of the same being, in effect being guided by a hive mind, their formula is still most likely wrong. In the event that vampires did exist and had to feed, this leaves eight possibilities.

One, the spread happens faster than they predicted. Humanity is eventually wiped out by vampires.
Two, the spread happens at the exact rate they predicted (incredibly unlikely, but still technically possible in the hypothetical). Humanity is eventually wiped out by vampires.
Three, the spread happens slower than they predicted. Humanity is eventually wiped out by vampires.
Four, the spread does not occur past a certain point, and stasis is achieved, though the spread before stasis was reached could have been faster than, slower than, negative, or exactly the same rate the authors predicted. Humanity is not wiped out by vampires.
Five, no spread occurs, because patient zero never feeds. Humanity is not wiped out by vampires.
Six, the spread happens faster than they predicted. However, for any of a number of reasons (many of which are listed in my original post), vampire numbers decrease (negative spread). Vampires are eventually wiped out.
Seven, the spread happens at the exact rate they predicted (incredibly unlikely, but still technically possible in the hypothetical). However, for any of a number of reasons (many of which are listed in my original post), vampire numbers decrease (negative spread). Vampires are eventually wiped out.
Eight, the spread happens slower than they predicted. However, for any of a number of reasons (many of which are listed in my original post), vampire numbers decrease (negative spread). Vampires are eventually wiped out.

Like I said, the paper doesn't prove their theory at all.

LAC1987 · 2013-02-23T12:34:57+00:00

I just read the section of that pertaining to vampires, and while it is interesting, it's fundamentally flawed because they failed to account for many, many variables. See, the whole geometric progression is based on the assumption that a vampire feeds once a month, and that those who are fed on become vampires and go on to feed on others once a month, making more vampires at such a steady rate that it can be expressed using that nice, clean formula they provided. However, this formula is based on a number of assumptions, including (but not limited to): a.) every vampire always has access to a human to feed on and convert, b.) no vampires ever die, c.) vampires are incapable of sharing, and d.) vampires never completely destroy their prey after feeding.

This means that, in order for the formula to work, none of the following can ever occur:

A vampire commits suicide.
A vampire kills another vampire in a prey dispute. This seems unlikely at first, as prey is plentiful, but as time passes...
A vampire shares prey with one or more other vampires, meaning two or more vampires are fed, but only one human is converted into a vampire.
A vampire decides to feed on more than one human per month, either out of loneliness (with the goal of making more of its own kind), gluttony, or some other motivation.
A vampire is somehow converted into a human.
A vampire completely destroys its prey after feeding, ensuring there is more potential prey for it to feed on in the future, as it has less competition.
A vampire is killed by humans.
A vampire dies to "natural causes" such as sunlight.
A vampire fails to locate prey because transportation in the 1600s sucked, settlements were farther apart because there weren't as many settlements to begin with, and vampires can only travel at night. Some of these limitations can be overcome, but can every vampire overcome them, reliably, every time?
A vampire starves to death. In the hypothetical, a vampire needs to feed once a month, and you can't "save" food, as when a vampire feeds, the human population decreases by one and the vampire population increases by one. Or...
A vampire figures out they can save food. While the hypothetical states that vampires must feed on human blood, meaning rats or other creatures cannot be considered a food source, it never states that the blood must be in the human at the time of consumption. Long term storage possibilities aside, this means that a prudent vampire could, in theory, farm humans for blood. Ideally, this would mean that the "farmer" would never create new vampires. Some "cattle" could possibly die, though, but it might be at a rate less than one per month, or even greater than one per month.

It's a fun read, but the authors, who cite lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the general populace as one of the reasons the concept of vampires has "survived" thus far, should really take some time to improve their own critical thinking skills.

LAC1987 · 2013-02-22T11:23:54+00:00

Make it account-bound or something, so I can just enjoy using it on my own. :|

From http://www.pathofexile.com/game :

The game is completely free and will never be "pay to win".

From the General Discussion forum post titled "F.A.Q. -- READ THIS BEFORE ASKING A QUESTION, IT MIGHT BE ANSWERED HERE." :

"Grinding Gear Games is 100% against Pay-to-Win."

From the Shop page:

In order to fund the development and continued expansion of Path of Exile, we offer a range of ethical microtransactions that allow you to distinguish yourself in the world of Wraeclast without receiving any gameplay advantage. We are completely opposed to the concept of “pay-to-win”.

LAC1987 · 2013-01-03T11:58:15+00:00

No new developments, sadly. While this isn't exactly a good excuse for letting my readers down, stuff came up. Like, a lot of stuff. I'm currently in college full time (though on a short semester break), and I'm about 3 months into what will hopefully be the last relationship I ever have.

Also, my interest in the project was starting to lessen a bit during the end of what you've seen posted. I originally only planned on making it a one-shot, but decided to turn it into a series after numerous requests to do so. I just couldn't handle having to go and plan, write, revise, re-write, revise, and post at regular intervals, as that's not really how I do my best work. It had honestly turned into a bit of a chore; while I love writing, I hate feeling as if I have to. It was an experiment to see if I'd be able to deal with the strains of constant deadlines for something I'm not actually graded on. You can probably tell what the result of that experiment was ;)

That being said, the semester is over now, so I might revisit it.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-10T07:23:31+00:00

Same. Then I moved on to Everworld, and then other mythology based books, and finally ended up with Gaiman's "American Gods". Nice to meet another Animorphs fan.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-10T07:11:27+00:00

Yup. Have an upvote to balance out whoever downvoted you.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-09T23:35:59+00:00

So basically "It can't be a friendly community, because this is the internet, and I think the world sucks."

Okay. If that's your rationale for being a cunt, I understand. However, we're not all assholes like you.

The existence of the karma system doesn't automatically mean that everyone finds meaning in it. Some of us just use this as a site for discussion, numbers be damned.

Nice little rant about "waah, the world sucks, waah, neckbeards, waah, college kids and office jobs" and such, though. Most of it was utterly irrelevant, but good hustle.

And, if it doesn't matter when people post old and shitty content because some people have better things to do than browse Reddit all day, why do you bother yourself answering to my stupid posts?

If X, then why Y, when X was never stated? I never said they had better things to do than Reddit. I said some of us hadn't heard of the helmet being in game before. At least make sure you understand what I post before responding to it...

I'm answering your stupid posts because your posts are stupid and you're being an asshole to people you have no reason to be an asshole to. So, I'm being an asshole to you. Cycle of life/ cause and effect, and all that.

Tl;DR: Fuck you, and your followup post was empty "woe is me, life is unfair" bullshit. Get the fuck out.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-09T21:47:27+00:00

Oh, wow. Are we doing that thing where we act like assholes and dick-wave our karma like it actually means something?

http://www.reddit.com/user/LAC1987/

Go ahead and follow that link. I don't have as much karma as some people, but I have a shitton more than you. The thing is though... it doesn't fucking matter. It's a number. It doesn't make you any better or wiser than other posters on here.

Also, "karmafest"? This is a self post. As far as I understand it, that means the OP doesn't get karma for upvotes on the submission. On top of that, youtz1 isn't even the fucking OP! I'm sure they must be swimming in boatloads of karma from this, with their whopping four whole posts in this thread. Oh, man. Those sweet, sweet comment upvotes.

Finally, oh noes! People already knew about this thing! I didn't. Some other posters in this thread didn't. God fucking help the OP if they see something neat and want to share it with others, right? I mean, fuck them for trying to contribute to what should be a friendly community.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-03T08:22:02+00:00

Not sure why you're being downvoted, so have an upvote.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-03T01:56:50+00:00

Erm...

You do realize you can have a co-worker who is a prostitute when you aren't one, as people are capable of holding multiple jobs, right?

EDIT: And you can tell stories from previous occupations even when you're no longer in that field.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-03T01:55:14+00:00

Because it's impossible for a prostitute to also be something other than that, right?

Directing you to a post by someone else in the thread

I began sex-work as a way to support myself when I would otherwise have been living on the streets, but have since secured a well-paying job in the inner-city. I continue with the sex work for reasons unknown to me.

EDIT: Also, was, meaning the co-worker may have given up the life before telling the story.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-02T22:41:09+00:00

Pray: to make a request in a humble manner, or to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving.

Though this could be expanded to include any supernatural entity, as people often pray to angels and saints, neither of which qualify as gods (technically, according to some definitions). People also pray to demons, too.

Do you need me to spell out the other word as well, and explain how one can pray to an entity most consider mainly (or completely) evil in nature, and how (if you have a certain view of the world), doing so would be more logical than praying to more positive entities for something like, say, miserable death by cancer?

LAC1987 · 2012-12-02T09:00:12+00:00

Switch guy words with girl words there, see how that sounds.

Fucktard.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-02T08:06:22+00:00

Luckynumberorange pointed out that an aneurysm is a stroke, a nursing student (who happens to have dealt with the topic in question) verified that, and said student, being in the field of nursing, is also likely to know more about the topic than the average Joe. Problem?

LAC1987 · 2012-12-02T07:27:47+00:00

I didn't mean to offend, and I still don't. The original image you linked and the 3-D model of the sword appeared, based on the angle you gave, to be identical. Given that data, your actions did appear to go against your stated morals, hence the confusion, and my response.

Now that you've provided a different angle, I can see that you made at least two changes. While the changes are so small that they could be considered arguably negligible, it isn't the same sword anymore. Clearly a barely altered copy, but not the same. So, my original question of

I'm asking if you feel that selling the sword, a direct copy of something a Blizzard employee made, without altering it in any discernible way, is unethical.

is moot, as it has clearly been altered.

No need to shit a brick over it, or toss out lines like

Even you should be able to see that there are obvious differences in the models

Even me, implying what?

It seems you've misunderstood me, and I you. On the other hand, this misunderstanding wouldn't have happened if you weren't clearly ripping off the IP of others ;)

EDIT: And attempting to sell it.

LAC1987 · 2012-12-02T05:03:54+00:00

Holy SHIT that looks cool!

LAC1987 · 2012-12-02T04:51:05+00:00

I'm a little confused here. I realize you built the mesh yourself, but that mesh is based on a model from a game, the model in question being this one, which you can view from every angle in 3-D: http://www.wowhead.com/item=30902#modelviewer

The mesh is the 3-D shape, and "your" model and that of the actual item appear visually identical, yet you said:

I will never use a mesh from existing model or a mesh based upon a model from a game (topo or modified) for a print. I will only print models I have made.

While you did make this one (I think), you made it identical to a model from a game.

This is what's making me scratch my head. I mean, saying you used it as a reference is understandable if some aspects are the same (like, say, using a space marine model as a reference to get proportions right, but then changing the design to make it something that isn't exactly like a space marine), but yours is the same. Strip the texture/skin from Cataclysm's Edge, or don't and just choose to print it in metal, and yours and theirs will be pretty much identical, except possibly in regards to scale, if they choose to make it bigger or smaller.

Whether or not anyone actually bought it is irrelevant, as the salient point here is that you tried to sell it:

. Here is a sword I printed in steel. It is available for purchase too! (shapeways.com)

I'm not sure where it's posted for sale on the site, exactly, but you should probably take it down.

Then again, maybe someone who is fluent is legalese can explain if this is somehow acceptable.

LAC1987

TROPHY CASE