ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

Clearly, people cannot tell the difference between the Assassin Mask and the Assassin's Mask. Therefore, I propose we change the Assassin Mask to the Assassin's Mask and the Assassin's Mask to the Assassin Mask so that people can tell them apart.

O_O

Ok now I am confused.

I think it's clear he meant that to be non constructive...

I'm a constructive non-destructive construction construction.

odj wrote:

ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

Clearly, people cannot tell the difference between the Assassin Mask and the Assassin's Mask. Therefore, I propose we change the Assassin Mask to the Assassin's Mask and the Assassin's Mask to the Assassin Mask so that people can tell them apart.

O_O

Ok now I am confused.

How can you be confused? It's so simple!

The Assassin's Mask is the Assassin's Mask that the Assassin wore as a mask, and the Assassin Mask is the Assassin's Mask any Assassin can mask. My proposal is to make the Assassin's Mask the Assassin Mask so that the Assassin Mask is clearly distinguished as the Assassin's Mask and the Assassin's Mask just as easy to tell to be simply the Assassin's Mask.

ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

I'm a constructive non-destructive construction construction.

Now I'm confused....

I'm constructive in that I am able to post my point. (The point is that it's ridiculous to force an item name change)

I am non-destructive in that I don't attempt to de-rail the thread with off-topic posts.

I build my posts out of laughter.

I am a being.




But for a more serious attempt... Iunno, Halloween Assassin Mask is too long. Why not "Mask of the Assassin" for the uber item and keep the Halloween item's name? I vote for not changing it, but if needs be, Mask of the Assassin '08!

Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?

Vinia wrote:

Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?

No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.

...okay, now I'm off topic.

ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

Vinia wrote:

Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?

No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.

...okay, now I'm off topic. " />

So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess " />

Vinia wrote:

ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

Vinia wrote:

Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?

No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.

...okay, now I'm off topic. ">

So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess ">

No, now I'm a non-constructive destructive construction obstruction.

ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

Vinia wrote:

ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

Vinia wrote:

Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?

No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.

...okay, now I'm off topic. ">

So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess ">

No, now I'm a non-constructive destructive construction obstruction.

Stop. Just, stop.

Ballak wrote:

ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

Vinia wrote:

ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:

Vinia wrote:

Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?

No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.

...okay, now I'm off topic. ">

So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess ">

No, now I'm a non-constructive destructive construction obstruction.

Stop. Just, stop.

No wai..he was about to become a non-constructive ,destructive ,construction ,obstruction , reconstructed

And this pertains to the original poster's intentions.. how?

Oh wait, it doesn't.

Anome Mask =  Anome Disguise.
Assassin Mask = Assassin Disguise.

What Vinia wrote regarding misconceptions due to grammar and whatnot is a valid point, however that does not "justify" what happened with the participants who expected to receive the Assassin's Mask. Perhaps from now on this will encourage people to read more carefully, or even serve as the catalyst for people learning the difference, and not put such blind faith in such a simple circle-jerk.

If this event does encourage a renaming of either item, which may be uneccessary, perhaps it should change the item itself so the Assassin Mask does not become ostracized from the other Halloween masks.

On a side note: Assassin's mask luggable.

EDIT: Forgot the 's on my side note... hehe.

Anome Mask =  Anome Disguise.
Assassin Mask = Assassin Disguise.

On a side note: Assassin's mask luggable.