He wasn't the same [SPOILERS]

[Yogogamer]

 

 

At this point, You seem like the troll.

 

Because you're the one that can't see something right in front of your face?

 

 

 

act like an asshole

 

Maybe you shouldn't have started it

 

 

 

stroke dat ego, homie

 

Still don't see what ego I'm stroking. I mean, this has absolutely nothing to do with self-esteem.

 

 

 

You fail to acknowledge GTAV isn't the best game ever as you chalk it up to be.

 

Well, I mean, I never said that. Ever. And GTA V isn't even my GOTY, so don't you look foolish

 

 

 

calm down and acknowledge what an opinion is.

 

My god, it's like you don't even read

 

Let me repeat it. AGAIN.

 

"Whether you agree with it or not is a different thing. Agreeing/disagreeing with it is an opinion. Failing to acknowledge it is ignorance."

 

I also like how you continue to completely ignore every single point Staten, Dell, and I keep bringing to your attention. Keep it up.

 

I ask, what are you trying to accomplish? You aren't going to convince me one way or the other, nor do i see any point in listening to you. All you do is go "I'm right and your wrong", and to be honest, All you've accomplished (Not just you) is insulting my parents, congrats!

and for the record I didn't start anything, I made a post (Not even insulting btw) and you and cp1apesh*t got angry. Also, I'm not failing to acknowledge anything, Consider this, Your favorite GTA character gets killed for no real rhyme or reason and it's justified by "it' s been a few years".

And what I meant by ego is that instead of bringing up vaild counter arguments, you dissect my post and nitpick at off topic things. You also attack people in like every post, I haven't seen you make a positive comment at all, But that's besides the point.

Oh and yes, because both of those points are moot, it's just the same "It's been five years" written in a different way

"Cheers"

Edited February 27, 2014 by Yogogamer

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

All you do is go "I'm right and your wrong"

 

Quote one post where I did that. I dare you.

 

 

 

and for the record I didn't start anything, I made a post (Not even insulting btw) and you and cp1apesh*t got angry.

 

This was my response to your first post:

 

"I'd love to try and reinforce my point, but I don't feel like it

 

Alright, then anything you say is invalid until you do. Cheers!"

 

I don't see any anger there. But then we get to your next post:

 

"Oh boy, This asshole again :sigh:"

 

Oh, will you look at that? You started it, just like I said!

 

Funny how that works!

 

 

 

Also, I'm not failing to acknowledge anything

 

"It makes no sense"

 

You said this multiple times in multiple ways. That's failing to acknowledge something that it is indeed possible. More than possible, actually. Plausible.

 

 

 

Your favorite GTA character gets killed for no real rhyme or reason and it's justified by "it' s been a few years".

 

Seriously? Seriously? You must be trolling. Either that, or you're just choosing to completely ignore everything we say, and only focus on being off-topic.

 

 

 

instead of bringing up vaild counter arguments, you dissect my post and nitpick at off topic things.

 

I feel like this is a good opportunity to repeat myself:

 

Seriously? Seriously? You must be trolling. Either that, or you're just choosing to completely ignore everything we say.

 

 

 

You also attack people in like every post

 

Well, except I don't...

 

 

 

I haven't seen you make a positive comment at all

 

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

 

 

 

Oh and yes, because both of those points are moot, it's just the same "It's been five years" written in a different way

 

Please, Oh Smart One, why don't you tell us why those points are moot?

 

If events that take place during the TLAD campaign are just "it's been five years" written in a different way, then I don't know what to tell you...

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[Yogogamer]

 

"It makes no sense"

You said this multiple times in multiple ways. That's failing to acknowledge something that it is indeed possible. More than possible, actually. Plausible.

And you've done the same thing, See here

 

It makes perfect sense.

But when you do it, It's fine Lord Focker

 

 

Seriously? Seriously? You must be trolling. Either that, or you're just choosing to completely ignore everything we say, and only focus on being off-topic.

 

No, I just don't believe everything just because you say it, sorry friend

 

 

 

 

I feel like this is a good opportunity to repeat myself:

Seriously? Seriously? You must be trolling. Either that, or you're just choosing to completely ignore everything we say.

 

Again, Disagree=Troll

and no I'm not ignoring your precious points, You've made a few vaild points, but the rest seems like "Five years" garbage

 

 

 

 

This was my response to your first post:

"I'd love to try and reinforce my point, but I don't feel like it

Alright, then anything you say is invalid until you do. Cheers!"

I don't see any anger there. But then we get to your next post:

"Oh boy, This asshole again :sigh:"

Oh, will you look at that? You started it, just like I said!

Funny how that works!

 

I started it when you're the one that replied, Seems backwards, ehh?

I wasn't angry either, I just don't favor you particulary, all you do is argue.

 

 

 

 

Quote one post where I did that. I dare you.

 

Alright,

 

 

But keep proving my point further, why don't you?

You completely ignored my post and continued on your power-trip

Edited February 27, 2014 by Yogogamer

[BrokenLizard]

Aren't the side effects of drugs variable from person to person, and depending on the rate of consummation?

Besides, I think Trevor mainly does speed, or Amphetamine, rather than meth so it can be a factor as well.

Meth is an amphetamine hence "meth"amphetamine.

Chances are Johnny was high at the time, cause he was looking for trouble and Trevor wasn't cause Ashely asked if they wanted to smoke up...Trevor was just drinking a beer.

So your a lot "stronger" and crazy on meth/speed. I think they should have put Johnny in more missions than killing him off so soon.

Edited February 27, 2014 by BrokenLizard

[Geralt of Rivia]

"And you've done the same thing, See here -- But when you do it, It's fine Lord Focker"

 

Except it's not the same thing. I'm acknowledging the argument. You're not (At least not until this post where you acknowledged it). You brushed it away like it was nothing. You spent a good chunk of time acting like we wouldn't understand what you're getting at, then you slowly started talking coherently, and as soon as you were about to have an actual argument, you focused on off-topic nothingness.

 

"No, I just don't believe everything just because you say it, sorry friend"

 

And that's fine! That's what I was getting at when I kept saying:

 

"Whether you agree with it or not is a different thing. Agreeing/disagreeing with it is an opinion. Failing to acknowledge it is ignorance"

 

"Again, Disagree=Troll"

 

That's not it. The problem was that you didn't even acknowledge the other argument. All you said was "It makes no sense!", when it does.

 

"and no I'm not ignoring your precious points, You've made a few vaild points, but the rest seems like "Five years" garbage"

 

There you go!

 

"I started it when you're the one that replied, Seems backwards, ehh?"

 

Not really. I wasn't aggressive with you. I rewrote what you said in my own way, and told you that you have no valid opinion until you put forth an argument. You then called me an asshole. You're the one that escalated to name calling.

 

"I wasn't angry either, I just don't favor you particulary, all you do is argue."

 

Alright? I don't favor redx, does that mean I should just call him names whenever I want for no reason? No.

 

"You completely ignored my post and continued on your power-trip"

 

Oh, you mean this post:

 

 

Here you go again, Anyone who disagrees with you = Troll

 

That post? The post in which you completely ignored my points to be off-topic again? The post where you still refused to acknowledge the other argument?

 

I'm gonna have to repeat myself again:

 

"Whether you agree with it or not is a different thing. Agreeing/disagreeing with it is an opinion. Failing to acknowledge it is ignorance"

 

I consider ignorance trollish behavior.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[Yogogamer]

I'm not sure why you dislike me so heavily, But hey to each his/her own

 

 

then you slowly started talking coherently, and as soon as you were about to have an actual argument, you focused on off-topic nothingness.

Because, as I said, It seems that even if I do explain, You'll retort back to "I'm right and you are wrong and dumb,troll" like you did with everyone else in this thread

 

 

Not really. I wasn't aggressive with you. I rewrote what you said in my own way, and told you that you have no valid opinion until you put forth an argument. You then called me an asshole. You're the one that escalated to name calling.

Telling me my opinion isn't valid isn't aggressive? Hmm.....

 

 

I consider ignorance trollish behavior.

Oh boy, First I was a troll and now I'm ignorant too? *Wipes tears

 

 

 

And that's fine! That's what I was getting at when I kept saying:

"Whether you agree with it or not is a different thing. Agreeing/disagreeing with it is an opinion. Failing to acknowledge it is ignorance"

*sighs so why again is my opinion invalid? Because you tell me that somehow a person who hates drugs strongly, begins to use them again because he shot his former friend in the head?...

So again I ask, What is the point of your argument? To make me feel bad? Convince me that illogicality makes sense? Make me agree?

[Niobium]

What ego, exactly?

 

"can't handle a f*cking opinion?"

 

I can handle an opinion just fine.

 

However, refusing to acknowledge something is just plain ignorance.

 

Let me repeat myself:

 

"Whether you agree with it or not is a different thing."

 

Agreeing/disagreeing with it is an opinion. Failing to acknowledge it is ignorance.

you're stating that johnny being a drug addict is plausible like it's a fact.

 

i think you are the ignorant one man.

[Eutyphro]

but i dunno. like i said 1000000 times, it violated everything fans believed in when playing TLAD.

 

 

'Believed' is the right word. It's some Johnny Klebitz fanboy religion bullsh*t. He was a junky dumbass and got his skull kicked in. Deal with it.

 

Edit: And apart from that. He came across DRUNK. So the "Trevor isn't a weak pussy when he is on meth so why should Johnny be that way?" argument is sh*t. He came across as drunk and he might have been on all kinds of stuff. Nobody knows what he was on. That's speculation.

Edited February 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

What ego, exactly?

 

"can't handle a f*cking opinion?"

 

I can handle an opinion just fine.

 

However, refusing to acknowledge something is just plain ignorance.

 

Let me repeat myself:

 

"Whether you agree with it or not is a different thing."

 

Agreeing/disagreeing with it is an opinion. Failing to acknowledge it is ignorance.

you're stating that johnny being a drug addict is plausible like it's a fact.

 

i think you are the ignorant one man.

 

How? I said it's plausible, because it is!

 

It's fact that it's plausible.

 

Just like it's a fact that it's possible that Johnny became a born-again Christian during those 5 years.

 

 

I'm not sure why you dislike me so heavily, But hey to each his/her own

 

I don't dislike you. You apparently dislike me, though. If you didn't start so aggressive with me, this most likely wouldn't have happened.

 

 

then you slowly started talking coherently, and as soon as you were about to have an actual argument, you focused on off-topic nothingness.

Because, as I said, It seems that even if I do explain, You'll retort back to "I'm right and you are wrong and dumb,troll" like you did with everyone else in this thread

 

Oh my God...

 

You posted 4 times about how we "don't make sense" and how "We wouldn't understand if I posted a counter."

 

Every time you started that, I told you your argument was invalid until you actually had an argument.

 

I don't see how that's "I'm right and you're wrong."

 

 

Not really. I wasn't aggressive with you. I rewrote what you said in my own way, and told you that you have no valid opinion until you put forth an argument. You then called me an asshole. You're the one that escalated to name calling.

Telling me my opinion isn't valid isn't aggressive? Hmm.....

 

When you talk down to us condescendingly, basically acting like we're idiots and you're superior, then refuse to back up your claims, then yes, your opinion is not valid to me.

 

If you just put: "I don't think it makes sense", this would be different. I would ask you why, and you'd put forth an argument. Everything would go along all peaceful-like.

 

However, you went: "I would go into the reasons why it dosen't make a tidbit of sense but in that case i'd be wasting my time."

 

 

I consider ignorance trollish behavior.

Oh boy, First I was a troll and now I'm ignorant too? *Wipes tears

 

You were right until you finally acknowledged the argument.

 

 

And that's fine! That's what I was getting at when I kept saying:

"Whether you agree with it or not is a different thing. Agreeing/disagreeing with it is an opinion. Failing to acknowledge it is ignorance"

*sighs so why again is my opinion invalid? Because you tell me that somehow a person who hates drugs strongly, begins to use them again because he shot his former friend in the head?...

Did you take that negatively? I was happy that you finally acknowledged the argument.

So again I ask, What is the point of your argument? To make me feel bad? Convince me that illogicality makes sense? Make me agree?

 

I just keep continuing because you do. If you stop, I stop.

 

I'd also love to hear how our argument is illogical.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[Yogogamer]

 

When you talk down to us condescendingly, basically acting like we're idiots and you're superior, then refuse to back up your claims, then yes, your opinion is not valid to me.

If you just put: "I don't think it makes sense", this would be different. I would ask you why, and you'd put forth an argument. Everything would go along all peaceful-like.

However, you went: "I would go into the reasons why it dosen't make a tidbit of sense but in that case i'd be wasting my time."

Condescending wasn't my intention, My point was that why bother trying to convince you if you're already in a certain mindset? It's not an insult but more of a hopeless call

 

 

I'd also love to hear how our argument is illogical.

I didn;t say you're argument was Illogical, I was referring to the situation in general. It seems out of place in the story

 

 

Did you take that negatively? I was happy that you finally acknowledged the argument.

Yes, I took it negativity as I figured you were calling me ignorant again, My mistake

 

 

Oh my God...

You posted 4 times about how we "don't make sense" and how "We wouldn't understand if I posted a counter."

Every time you started that, I told you your argument was invalid until you actually had an argument.

I don't see how that's "I'm right and you're wrong."

Fine, I'll list 4 of the many reasons I feel it shouldn't have happened

 

1. Out of all the meth dealers in Los Santos, conveniently he goes to Trevor, There's also a tidbit of dialogue in GTAIV where he mentions how terrible drugs are and how he wouldn't go back to that. Another point, Trevor doesn't seem like the sort of guy Johnny would deal with anyway

 

2.I don't see why Johnny is even in San Andreas, sure they burned down the clubhouse but the ending implies that they either retired or started somewhere else in Liberty City

It also seems odd to choose Sandy Shores for a biker gang,.

 

3. Why the heck was he killed in the first place? Sure, He flipped off at Trevor but he apologized (Granted that doesn't mean sh*t to Trevor) and kind of backs off, Then somehow, Trevor picks him up with one hand and stomps him to death (Unrelated: Johnny is around 300 pounds if I recall, How the hell does Trevor pick him up so easily? Insanity isn't an excuse either)

and proceeds to kill the lost in a temper tantrum (Which seems a bit exaggerated even for Trevor)

 

4. Why would the Lost even be dealing with Trevor? If Online is cannon, It takes place months before GTAV, In which Trevor orders you to slaughter the Lost and even tells you to get a van for him to bang Ashley in, there's the possibility of them not knowing but even that seems like a stretch

 

Okay, Now I'll wait for you to tell me I'm wrong and insult me

Edited February 27, 2014 by Yogogamer

[Niobium]

How? I said it's plausible, because it is!

 

It's fact that it's plausible.

 

Just like it's a fact that it's possible that Johnny became a born-again Christian during those 5 years

 

 

plausible =/= possible

 

plausible means credible or believable. http://m.dictionary.com/definition/plausible

 

possible means capable of happening without contradicting facts, laws, nature, etc.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=possible

 

so, it is a fact that johnny becoming a drug addict is possible. but it is an opinion that johnny becoming a drug addict is plausible (meaning believable), or not plausible

[Niobium]

johnny is 300 lbs? lol no, john is 200 pounds of rapidly approaching middle age

 

EDIT: Do not double post, use the Edit-button if you have something to add.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Andreas

[Captain Arthur]

Fine, I'll list 4 of the many reasons I feel it shouldn't have happened

 

1. Out of all the meth dealers in Los Santos, conveniently he goes to Trevor, There's also a tidbit of dialogue in GTAIV where he mentions how terrible drugs are and how he wouldn't go back to that. Another point, Trevor doesn't seem like the sort of guy Johnny would deal with anyway

Oh great, this again. Sorry if I sound rude, but Nobum asked this a million times, that whenever someone asks the same question, I feel like punching my laptop.

 

YES, Johnny said he wouldn't do drugs. Someone in another thread explained this beautifully.

 

Johnny going back on his word just displays a fact of human nature, we can dedicate ourselves to ideas but how long until we fall back into old habits? Johnny is an example of that exactly. As I said, there's five years between the events of the two games, so much could've happened, Johnny becoming a methhead and loving Ashley, that could have been just a year before the game started, or it could have been a little bit after GTAIV, and Johnny's been a mess ever since then. We really don't know. But what we do know is that it isn't a plothole, characters can go back on what they say often in literature just as actual people do, that's what makes characters strong and dynamic. Take Franklin for instance, when Michael first tells Franklin about Trevor, Franklin just says for them to KILL Trevor, but as the story goes on, and circumstances change, so does Franklin's perception on the whole situation, he starts to see how shady Michael is, and that Trevor, despite his rash nature, isn't just a person he can cap and that'd be that.

We can apply similar logic to Johnny, circumstances changed for him, he starts to feel as if he has nothing now that the brothers are more separate than ever, and his best friend is dead. Ashley says that she'd always be there for Johnny, and that she loves him. Johnny out of desperation just took what he could get out of a bad situation. And really, as I said before, I can see Niko or Franklin doing very similar things depending on the ending and circumstances that leads to.

 

 

2.I don't see why Johnny is even in San Andreas, sure they burned down the clubhouse but the ending implies that they either retired or started somewhere else in Liberty City

It also seems odd to choose Sandy Shores for a biker gang,.

This was already discussed in this thread. It makes you look ignorant, like MasterFocker was saying.

 

 

This has already been brought up in the thread. In Steve Haines TV show he talks about how over the past few years The Lost have slowly been making their way across America from the East Coast. Then there is a Lost biker you can pick up as a hitchhiker and he talks about how The Lost have been wiping out the AoD since they arrive - or something like that. Point is they didn't just magically appear. The game gives a reason as to why they are there.

 

 

3. Why the heck was he killed in the first place? Sure, He flipped off at Trevor but he apologized (Granted that doesn't mean sh*t to Trevor) and kind of backs off, Then somehow, Trevor picks him up with one hand and stomps him to death (Unrelated: Johnny is around 300 pounds if I recall, How the hell does Trevor pick him up so easily? Insanity isn't an excuse either)

and proceeds to kill the lost in a temper tantrum (Which seems a bit exaggerated even for Trevor)

Trevor just realized his best friend was alive. Then suddenly, this biker junkie comes up to him and starts insulting him. I wouldn't blame Trevor. He tried to run off without hurting Johnny, but that idiot kept following and insulting him. He killed the Lost because he knew if he just left Johnny dead, his brothers would find out and kill him.

 

 

4. Why would the Lost even be dealing with Trevor? If Online is cannon, It takes place months before GTAV, In which Trevor orders you to slaughter the Lost and even tells you to get a van for him to bang Ashley in, there's the possibility of them not knowing but even that seems like a stretch

Most likely because of Ashley. She probably kept on going to Trevor, and Johnny followed her like the idiot he was.

 

 

Okay, Now I'll wait for you to tell me I'm wrong and insult me

There you have it. I told you why you're wrong, and didn't insult you. I gotta tell ya, if you keep on insulting people for no reason and calling them 'arseholes', then your member title is correct.

[Yogogamer]

Here we go....

 

that whenever someone asks the same question, I feel like punching my laptop.

 

If it's that bad you need to calm down, If I may suggest heavy medication aswell

 

 

This was already discussed in this thread. It makes you look ignorant, like MasterFocker was saying.

Oh Boy, We're still calling names, hmm? and like I said, Just because Focker says something doesn't make it so. Frankly, Focker seems to be more reasonable than yourself despite being a bit insufferable

 

 

Trevor just realized his best friend was alive. Then suddenly, this biker junkie comes up to him and starts insulting him. I wouldn't blame Trevor. He tried to run off without hurting Johnny, but that idiot kept following and insulting him. He killed the Lost because he knew if he just left Johnny dead, his brothers would find out and kill him.

I'm sorry but that's bullsh*t,

Trevor is a grown man, not a 6 year old. He threw a tantrum and killed everyone and your point about the Lost is silly, apparently the guy who can take on like 30 cops is afraid of a few bikers? Yeah, You can shove that one all the way up it, Pal

 

 

There you have it. I told you why you're wrong, and didn't insult you. I gotta tell ya, if you keep on insulting people for no reason and calling them 'arseholes', then your member title is correct.

Without insulting me? What's this then? (Oh and bringing up my member title isn't a vaild point, Try. Again

 

This was already discussed in this thread. It makes you look ignorant, like MasterFocker was saying.

And again, Just because you shout "your wrong!' dosen't make it so

 

This is exactly why I didn't want to post it in the first place, It's like trying to teach a dog math.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Yogogamer

[Captain Arthur]

Then, I give up. Good luck in trying to understand why R* made that decision.

[PineboxFiller]

Fact=Johnny is dead.

 

Don't get me wrong, I liked him too, but no amount of "whatever doesn't make sense" is going to change that ^.

[Captain Arthur]

I'm gonna leave with a wise quote from gtaxpert

 

 

 

but i dunno. like i said 1000000 times, it violated everything fans believed in when playing TLAD.

 

 

'Believed' is the right word. It's some Johnny Klebitz fanboy religion bullsh*t. He was a junky dumbass and got his skull kicked in. Deal with it.

 

Edit: And apart from that. He came across DRUNK. So the "Trevor isn't a weak pussy when he is on meth so why should Johnny be that way?" argument is sh*t. He came across as drunk and he might have been on all kinds of stuff. Nobody knows what he was on. That's speculation.

[Yogogamer]

Fact=Johnny is dead.

 

Don't get me wrong, I liked him too, but no amount of "whatever doesn't make sense" is going to change that ^.

Great argument! Has anyone told you that you'd make an excellent lawyer?

[Im2akillerfish]

This is probably off-topic, but I would have made this mission a rampage.

 

It would start at Lost camp, Ashley standing around, and Trevor talking dirty to him. A lost member comes and tells trevor to F**k off. Trevor becomes angry, Johnny, Terry and Clay come along and join the argument. Trevor grabs a gun from the unnamed person and starts the killing, with J, T and C take sawn-off shotguns to defend themselves.

 

Although this way the first missions with Trevor would have to be written differently.

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

 

When you talk down to us condescendingly, basically acting like we're idiots and you're superior, then refuse to back up your claims, then yes, your opinion is not valid to me.

If you just put: "I don't think it makes sense", this would be different. I would ask you why, and you'd put forth an argument. Everything would go along all peaceful-like.

However, you went: "I would go into the reasons why it dosen't make a tidbit of sense but in that case i'd be wasting my time."

Condescending wasn't my intention, My point was that why bother trying to convince you if you're already in a certain mindset? It's not an insult but more of a hopeless call

 

 

I'd also love to hear how our argument is illogical.

I didn;t say you're argument was Illogical, I was referring to the situation in general. It seems out of place in the story

 

 

Did you take that negatively? I was happy that you finally acknowledged the argument.

Yes, I took it negativity as I figured you were calling me ignorant again, My mistake

 

 

Oh my God...

You posted 4 times about how we "don't make sense" and how "We wouldn't understand if I posted a counter."

Every time you started that, I told you your argument was invalid until you actually had an argument.

I don't see how that's "I'm right and you're wrong."

Fine, I'll list 4 of the many reasons I feel it shouldn't have happened

 

1. Out of all the meth dealers in Los Santos, conveniently he goes to Trevor, There's also a tidbit of dialogue in GTAIV where he mentions how terrible drugs are and how he wouldn't go back to that. Another point, Trevor doesn't seem like the sort of guy Johnny would deal with anyway

 

2.I don't see why Johnny is even in San Andreas, sure they burned down the clubhouse but the ending implies that they either retired or started somewhere else in Liberty City

It also seems odd to choose Sandy Shores for a biker gang,.

 

3. Why the heck was he killed in the first place? Sure, He flipped off at Trevor but he apologized (Granted that doesn't mean sh*t to Trevor) and kind of backs off, Then somehow, Trevor picks him up with one hand and stomps him to death (Unrelated: Johnny is around 300 pounds if I recall, How the hell does Trevor pick him up so easily? Insanity isn't an excuse either)

and proceeds to kill the lost in a temper tantrum (Which seems a bit exaggerated even for Trevor)

 

4. Why would the Lost even be dealing with Trevor? If Online is cannon, It takes place months before GTAV, In which Trevor orders you to slaughter the Lost and even tells you to get a van for him to bang Ashley in, there's the possibility of them not knowing but even that seems like a stretch

 

Okay, Now I'll wait for you to tell me I'm wrong and insult me

 

Thank you for explaining yourself!

 

Let's just agree to disagree, yeah? It's obvious nothing's gonna change.

 

 

How? I said it's plausible, because it is!

 

It's fact that it's plausible.

 

Just like it's a fact that it's possible that Johnny became a born-again Christian during those 5 years

 

plausible =/= possible

 

plausible means credible or believable. http://m.dictionary.com/definition/plausible

 

possible means capable of happening without contradicting facts, laws, nature, etc.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=possible

 

so, it is a fact that johnny becoming a drug addict is possible. but it is an opinion that johnny becoming a drug addict is plausible (meaning believable), or not plausible

 

I got a different definition of plausible than the one you have lol.

 

This is what I got:

 

(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

 

When humans are troubled, they try to make themselves feel better. This usually includes: Alcohol, Cigarettes, and other various drugs. Sometimes they cut themselves. There's a lot of things people do.

 

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to assume that, after everything Johnny went through and being on the road with his drug-riddled love for 5 years, he could get back into drugs.

 

To each their own, I guess.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[cp1dell]

Yeah obviously it's going nowhere fast. Yoyogamer didn't even bother addressing the other points, the only one he responded to was about "Why did Trevor kill The Lost members?" and he thinks it still makes no sense.

 

Whether you like it or not, Trevor is a psycho. Yohogamer thinks it makes no sense that Trevor would kill them. Well, if you keep in mind that Trevor has hated The Lost long before the events of GTA V, than yeah, it kind of does, tied in with the fact there are Rampage missions available for Trevor. The Lost's Vice President just came and started bothering Trevor, where he is in shock from realizing Michael could, and most likely be alive.

 

Hell, he even f*cking says that "He just saw a ghost" and that "he has some annoying bikers pissing him off." And he has some hatred toward The Lost. So when their doped out Vice President comes and starts pissing off a complete psycho (who the player should know is prone to go off the rails, at least by the end of the game) when he is not in the mood to deal with this gang of people he absolutely despises, I can't see how you can honestly say "I'm sorry that's bullsh*t, Trevor isn't a little kid throwing a tantrum."

 

It seems like yoogamer is just picking apart GTA V Fan's argument because he didn't word it 100% correctly by Yodogamer's standards. There is no way you can honestly say it's bullsh*t and makes no sense for Trevor to do this, when it is widely agreed that Trevor is a psycho and would do something like that. It's his character, and it shouldn't even be necessary to argue about.

Edited February 27, 2014 by cp1dell

[Niobium]

 

 

How? I said it's plausible, because it is!

It's fact that it's plausible.

Just like it's a fact that it's possible that Johnny became a born-again Christian during those 5 years

plausible =/= possible

plausible means credible or believable. http://m.dictionary.com/definition/plausible

possible means capable of happening without contradicting facts, laws, nature, etc.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=possible

so, it is a fact that johnny becoming a drug addict is possible. but it is an opinion that johnny becoming a drug addict is plausible (meaning believable), or not plausible

 

I got a different definition of plausible than the one you have lol.

 

This is what I got:

 

(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

 

When humans are troubled, they try to make themselves feel better. This usually includes: Alcohol, Cigarettes, and other various drugs. Sometimes they cut themselves. There's a lot of things people do.

 

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to assume that, after everything Johnny went through and being on the road with his drug-riddled love for 5 years, he could get back into drugs.

 

To each their own, I guess.

 

 

i did a couple seconds of searching, but it turns out we were both right on the definition of plausible.

 

i don't think it's reasonable that johnny took drugs even after seeing his friends die. he's a f*cking hardened criminal!

 

gta 4 and RDR spoilers:

 

 

 

why didn't jack marston do drugs or cut himself or whatever, after his parents died?

why didn't niko do drugs after kate/roman died?

 

and don't say that "jim and jason are criminal low-lives so they matter less. jack's parents and roman/kate are innocents so they matter more," because although i disagree with this statement, you'll just be supporting my point. you'll be saying johnny experienced something trivial compared to what niko and jack experienced, therefore it is unreasonable he would take drugs because they didn't

 

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by nobum62

[Captain Arthur]

It seems like yoogamer is just picking apart GTA V Fan's argument because he didn't word it 100% correctly by Yodogamer's standards. There is no way you can honestly say it's bullsh*t and makes no sense for Trevor to do this, when it is widely agreed that Trevor is a psycho and would do something like that. It's his character, and it shouldn't even be necessary to argue about.

This is basically what someone who can't prove their points does.

 

And yes, I'm back. Don't worry guise, my 13 hour break from this thread is over.

 

red dead redemption spoilers:

why didn't jack marston do drugs or cut himself or whatever, after his parents died?

 

gta 4 spoilers:

why didn't niko do drugs after kate/roman died?

 

 

gta 4 and RDR spoilers:

 

 

and don't say that "jim and jason are criminal low-lives so they matter less. jack's parents and roman/kate are innocents so they matter more," because although i disagree with this statement, you'll just be proving my point. you'll be saying johnny experienced something trivial compared to what niko and jack experienced, therefore it is unreasonable he would take drugs

 

 

WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS EARLIER IN THIS VERY THREAD.

 

Geez, Nobum, do you forget stuff like this every time?

 

We said that Niko and the other guy don't hang out in a gag full of lowlifes unlike Johnny.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Gta_V_Fan_101

[Niobium]

 

It seems like yoogamer is just picking apart GTA V Fan's argument because he didn't word it 100% correctly by Yodogamer's standards. There is no way you can honestly say it's bullsh*t and makes no sense for Trevor to do this, when it is widely agreed that Trevor is a psycho and would do something like that. It's his character, and it shouldn't even be necessary to argue about.

This is basically what someone who can't prove their points does.

 

And yes, I'm back. Don't worry guise, my 13 hour break from this thread is over.

 

red dead redemption spoilers:

why didn't jack marston do drugs or cut himself or whatever, after his parents died?

 

gta 4 spoilers:

why didn't niko do drugs after kate/roman died?

 

 

gta 4 and RDR spoilers:

 

 

and don't say that "jim and jason are criminal low-lives so they matter less. jack's parents and roman/kate are innocents so they matter more," because although i disagree with this statement, you'll just be proving my point. you'll be saying johnny experienced something trivial compared to what niko and jack experienced, therefore it is unreasonable he would take drugs

 

 

WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS EARLIER IN THIS VERY THREAD.

 

Geez, Nobum, do you forget stuff like this every time?

 

We said that Niko and the other guy don't hang out in a gag full of lowlifes unlike Johnny.

 

so?

 

rockstar made johnny a f*cking idiot to listen to these lowlives (including ashley) when these lowlives tell johnny that meth is awesome, right?

[Geralt of Rivia]

**Spoilers**

 

With Red Dead, Jack was hellbent on revenge.

 

Revenge is a whole other thing.

 

http://www.truenorthpartnering.com/sites/default/files/Revenge%20is%20Sweet%20-%20Or%20is%20It.pdf

 

With revenge, you act based on passion and emotion, not reason. The same with drug users. Most drug users know drugs are bad, but they don't care. They're not thinking straight. Their lives are bad. They need something to help them. For drug users, drugs bring enjoyment. Revenge does the same thing.

 

For them, it's drugs. For Jack, it was revenge.

 

Also, we don't know what Jack did between John Marston's death and the part where we play him. He could've easily done drugs, but we don't know.

 

Johnny, meanwhile, had a past of drug use. The people who have used it before are way more likely to use it again than people who have never done it before. It's not as easy as "I'm not doing it anymore!". Ask any smoker that has tried to quit smoking if it was that easy. It's not.

 

And with GTA 4:

 

When Kate/Roman died, you were still playing Niko, unlike at the end of TLAD, where the game ended. You could not physically do drugs in the game like you can in GTA V.

 

Also, if I remember correctly (I could be very wrong with this), Niko never had an opportunity to do drugs in cutscenes after that. Not like during Elizabeta's cutscenes and the like where they were easily available.

 

Niko also went dark between those 5 years, so it did affect him. He wouldn't be going off the grid if he had anything left in his life.

 

**End Spoilers**

[Captain Arthur]

so?

 

 

rockstar made johnny a f*cking idiot to listen to these lowlives (including ashley) when these lowlives tell johnny that meth is awesome, right?

-Sigh-

 

Here's a quote explaining this:

 

Johnny going back on his word just displays a fact of human nature, we can dedicate ourselves to ideas but how long until we fall back into old habits? Johnny is an example of that exactly. As I said, there's five years between the events of the two games, so much could've happened, Johnny becoming a methhead and loving Ashley, that could have been just a year before the game started, or it could have been a little bit after GTAIV, and Johnny's been a mess ever since then. We really don't know. But what we do know is that it isn't a plothole, characters can go back on what they say often in literature just as actual people do, that's what makes characters strong and dynamic. Take Franklin for instance, when Michael first tells Franklin about Trevor, Franklin just says for them to KILL Trevor, but as the story goes on, and circumstances change, so does Franklin's perception on the whole situation, he starts to see how shady Michael is, and that Trevor, despite his rash nature, isn't just a person he can cap and that'd be that.

We can apply similar logic to Johnny, circumstances changed for him, he starts to feel as if he has nothing now that the brothers are more separate than ever, and his best friend is dead. Ashley says that she'd always be there for Johnny, and that she loves him. Johnny out of desperation just took what he could get out of a bad situation. And really, as I said before, I can see Niko or Franklin doing very similar things depending on the ending and circumstances that leads to.

[cp1dell]

 

 

 

How? I said it's plausible, because it is!

 

It's fact that it's plausible.

 

Just like it's a fact that it's possible that Johnny became a born-again Christian during those 5 years

 

plausible =/= possible

 

plausible means credible or believable. http://m.dictionary.com/definition/plausible

 

possible means capable of happening without contradicting facts, laws, nature, etc.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=possible

 

so, it is a fact that johnny becoming a drug addict is possible. but it is an opinion that johnny becoming a drug addict is plausible (meaning believable), or not plausible

 

I got a different definition of plausible than the one you have lol.

 

This is what I got:

 

(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

 

When humans are troubled, they try to make themselves feel better. This usually includes: Alcohol, Cigarettes, and other various drugs. Sometimes they cut themselves. There's a lot of things people do.

 

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to assume that, after everything Johnny went through and being on the road with his drug-riddled love for 5 years, he could get back into drugs.

 

To each their own, I guess.

 

 

i did a couple seconds of searching, but it turns out we were both right on the definition of plausible.

 

i don't think it's reasonable that johnny took drugs even after seeing his friends die. he's a f*cking hardened criminal!

 

gta 4 and RDR spoilers:

 

 

 

why didn't jack marston do drugs or cut himself or whatever, after his parents died?

why didn't niko do drugs after kate/roman died?

 

and don't say that "jim and jason are criminal low-lives so they matter less. jack's parents and roman/kate are innocents so they matter more," because although i disagree with this statement, you'll just be supporting my point. you'll be saying johnny experienced something trivial compared to what niko and jack experienced, therefore it is unreasonable he would take drugs because they didn't

 

 

 

You know what I'm starting to notice? You guys expect everyone to react to a tragedy the same way. You keep dragging in other characters, with different personalities, different backgrounds, different events in their lives, etc. and keep asking:

 

"Well how come they didn't do meth and get stomped on by some crazy guy?"

 

Come on, you can do better than that. Maybe.

[Yogogamer]

 

Let's just agree to disagree, yeah? It's obvious nothing's gonna change

I can't tell if the ending statement is an insult or not, but I do that you've made so valid arguments as to why, unlike GTAV fan. Then again what can you expect with a name like that?

(Thank you for at least acknowledging my arguments unlike the other two superiors)

 

 

 

This is basically what someone who can't prove their points does.

See, I was done with this thread, but it seems you can't take off your tunnel vision. I've already proved my points, you are the one who just threw them aside and called me ignorant,

I've done what you asked. Not my fault you can't even acknowledge them and just disagreed for the sake of disagreeing.

 

 

Yeah obviously it's going nowhere fast. Yoyogamer didn't even bother addressing the other points, the only one she responded to was about "Why did Trevor kill The Lost members?" and she thinks it still makes no sense.

Did you even read my damn post? I addressed most of the main points, Oh and It's Yogo.

 

 

It seems like yoogamer is just picking apart GTA V Fan's argument because he didn't word it 100% correctly by Yodogamer's standards. There is no way you can honestly say it's bullsh*t and makes no sense for Trevor to do this, when it is widely agreed that Trevor is a psycho and would do something like that. It's his character, and it shouldn't even be necessary to argue about.

Hahahaha...No, Master asked me to explain myself. I did that, In turn GTAV fan picked apart my argument basically. It was done for shock value, If He wasn't in V and was replaced with a random thug, I bet no one would have even thought about Johnny being there.

And It's YOGO!

Edited February 28, 2014 by Yogogamer

[Geralt of Rivia]

It wasn't meant as an insult.

 

My opinion's not gonna sway, because I believe what happened to Johnny is very plausible.

 

Your opinion's not gonna sway, because you don't believe what happened to Johnny is plausible.

 

We're not gonna sway each other, so what's the point of keeping the argument going?

Edited February 28, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[Yogogamer]

It wasn't meant as an insult.

 

My opinion's not gonna sway, because I believe what happened to Johnny is very plausible.

 

Your opinion's not gonna sway, because you don't believe what happened to Johnny is plausible.

 

We're not gonna sway each other, so what's the point of keeping the argument going?

That's not completely true, after reading some of your points, I think they could be somewhat plausible, but it still feels like it was done for shock value and fanservice (Negative at that)

I still stand by my original points though.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Yogogamer