Not really? Haven't I written that something is almost a sign of something? Doesn't that obviously imply personal experience?

Have you ever like went outside and met an actual human being? Most of them don't even think about things. Thinking about things you read or hear instead of instantly believing them is almost a sign of breaking the instinct.

Because you keep pointing out details and I keep telling you that it is idiotic as we've established the fact that it doesn't matter anyway long ago.

"Kind of people"? Do you, like, not know that the herd instinct exists? Individuals often start to believe what the rest believes, or at least pretend to even though they may disagree because it makes them a part of society. Dismissing this obvious fact, you may as well still believe in creation theory.

That's because I don't know the details to founding Facebook, because they are absolutely irrelevant. I am not debating whether Facebook had the same logo in 2004, because it doesn't even matter. The logo became famous afterwards, and still it would be impossible for the makers of Shrek to use it as the movie came out years before that.
Maybe if you didn't dwell on pointless things I wouldn't have to waste my time here with you. The original point was that Shrek came out before Facebook. I told you I knew and the case would be dismissed if you didn't go around acting like things that anyone can google in five seconds are making you the sage of the era, because that's where I'm telling you that you're wrong.

We were discussing the official foundation date, which is 2004, not "when approximately it became famous".

Not at all. I had already said that what I did was nitpicking, however it was relevant to the topic. Basically I pointed out the bullshit in it, if you call it nitpicking or not is up to you. Later on, you responded directly to the general point of my comment, which is just argumentation. Now you are doing it again, however. You ignored the main point and instead reacted to a minor thing.
I had hoped to turn this into a conversation about how controlling the masses with false feelings of accomplishment is wrong, instead I have to explain the difference between nitpicking and discussing something like to a five year old.

Wow, Al Pacino's face, how interesting and relevant. Not.
Why are you even saying this? We both know that Shrek came out before Facebook anyway so it's totally pointless to discuss the details of its foundation. Besides, I can't believe you still haven't understood that those "coincidence? I think not" jokes are often meant ironically to make fun of two absolutely unrelated situations.

The most part of the population are idiots, and these sayings only serve to control the masses. This particular one is meant to make people feel more daring and consequently more productive. We're basically bullshitting each other into happiness with these. I see it as it is, you see it as an inspirational post with rainbows and unicorns.
You seem to confuse discussing a topic and nitpicking. Let me explain it to you then. Reacting to my comment and its point straightforward is discussion, but what you did before was nitpicking. I am sorry to inform you that your attempt at sarcasm has failed.

So what? Is the design of a logo that would once become a known one influenced by how big the user group is? It was there even in '04, only Facebook itself was not as famous. I don't see how this is relevant at all. Maybe you should stop throwing irrelevant information at me, it helps nothing. If you have something actually relevant to say, say it, but stop commenting just to say something.

We have a similar thing, except that "walking around hot porridge" means to try to sugar coat an unpleasant thing in a conversation. If someone tells you to "stop walking around hot porridge", it means to get to the point.

Yes, with the exception that I said something concerning the topic of the post, and you basically just went "lol your comment reminds me of someone else's". How is that contribution?
Yes, so we're to treat every fictional story as truth and create other "inspirational" things from it? Taking inspiration in fictional stories isn't the problem, the problem is comparing a fictional situation with a real one. The fictional one will always win, creating a false sense of ambition in less educated folks. Should I tell everyone about how Sailor Moon got magical powers so we should all leave school and work and instead go try to discover ours, thinking it will inspire them to "try something new"? Or about how Harry approached Buckbeak and succeeded, so we should all just go pet wild bears, for the sake of "trying something new"?

True dat.

I did. It's obvious that Shrek came out before Facebook if one thinks about it. Trying to sound smart by doubting me on my intended joke will hardly convince anyone. And fyi, it's not 2006, but 2004.

No. Because you like to nitpick instead of contributing to the conversation and its actual topic?

I know. 'Twas a joke.

Guest, how much? Is it about as douchey as people who use these same fake stories as an excuse for hate and violence? Or, by your standards, even more? I'm only saying that we can't treat religious stories with any more credibility than other fictional stories as they're all just written by people. They serve rather as the "moral of the story" kind. If you honestly believe everything in the Bible happened, then I have nothing more to say to you.
Stoner, sure, because his comments are 100% original and don't come from anywhere, possibly from somewhere I have them from as well or anything.

Haha, tell me about it. Czech here; despite the fact that English has a very large vocabulary, it is still a million times easier than my native language.

Yeah, exactly what I wanted to point out, glad someone did it already. A lot of people tend to assume that Japanese is a phonetic language like Chinese or Vietnamese just because it's an asian language, but that is so not true.