What does it matter? You don’t need it. Run the seppie ships with the executrix, and if they’re any good, it’s an easy win, then run Hounds Tooth with the Chimaera, and wait through the cooldown for the insta kill on each ship. Easy.
how good do the seppies need to be?
All I know is that g12 Geos get slaughtered if you roll Negotiator.
yeah g13 and g12+5 do too lol, which is why I asked him
There's more seppie ships than just geos. HB and VD are both really needed for seps to work well. I'd assume someone with Mal would have them built up. I'd assume someone without them is probably out of luck.
What does it matter? You don’t need it. Run the seppie ships with the executrix, and if they’re any good, it’s an easy win, then run Hounds Tooth with the Chimaera, and wait through the cooldown for the insta kill on each ship. Easy.
how good do the seppies need to be?
All I know is that g12 Geos get slaughtered if you roll Negotiator.
yeah g13 and g12+5 do too lol, which is why I asked him
There's more seppie ships than just geos. HB and VD are both really needed for seps to work well. I'd assume someone with Mal would have them built up. I'd assume someone without them is probably out of luck.
You're forced to start with the bugs. And if you roll Mr. Hello There, they likely won't survive until you can reinforce.
this. and also, my question about sep levels still stands
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....
One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.
They claimed it was intended to use your entire roster. They gave bonuses to era specific teams and said they would never be required in platoons when they were required in battle.
Ergo Platoons are for everything BUT the era specific teams
Let's see I see clones and resistance and ewoks. None of which were around Hoth. Thank you for proving me non-contradictory! Thank you very much!
I don't know why you keep pointing out to me that they lied. Doesn't change what I said into a lie.
How do you require a non era character and keep the content somewhat authentic? By including them in scenarios where they don't do anything, like platoons.
See, there you go. If you would have just responded intially with "I quoted outdated info by CG and that platoons do in fact utilize factions required in combat missions like the rebels in Hoth Tb" there would have been no argument.
i was never arguing the intent of platoons, just that you are spreading misinformation about their requirements.
They claimed it was intended to use your entire roster. They gave bonuses to era specific teams and said they would never be required in platoons when they were required in battle.
Ergo Platoons are for everything BUT the era specific teams
Let's see I see clones and resistance and ewoks. None of which were around Hoth. Thank you for proving me non-contradictory! Thank you very much!
I don't know why you keep pointing out to me that they lied. Doesn't change what I said into a lie.
How do you require a non era character and keep the content somewhat authentic? By including them in scenarios where they don't do anything, like platoons.
See, there you go. If you would have just responded intially with "I quoted outdated info by CG and that platoons do in fact utilize factions required in combat missions like the rebels in Hoth Tb" there would have been no argument.
i was never arguing the intent of platoons, just that you are spreading misinformation about their requirements.
I see this is your first interaction with woodmisinformationroward? It's his middle name.
That's right in over 3000 posts I've been wrong a handful of times and always admitted it if it was proven (and a decent number of those times I was the one who proved me wrong, not someone else)...
Well guess what? I've been right a heck of a lot more. Are you sure that ain't your middle name? Cause right now you are 99.87% wrong.
Even in this thread, the guy you were talking to was the one who was spreading misinformation, as the devs did indeed say that.
My posts are, fortunately, much clearer than some other people's and don't take on the misleading semblance of logical fact while containing nothing of the sort.
Though I may seem verbose occasionally, my posts are almost always jam packed with subtle nuances of the english language allowing me to speak far more succinctly than the amount of information I am conveying. I am avoiding wasting time repeating myself or clarifying by doing so to begin with.
This complex succinct brevity often leads people to mistakenly understand my posts as no one likes to actually read whole posts, and you can't understand me if you skim read me.
Due to this this thread is, in the end, just one more example of someone arguing against their own misconceptions of what I said and blaming it on me, rather than an example of me spreading misinformation.
For example, arguing against what they said and saying I'm wrong rather than they are. Illogical misinformation. Confusing statement. Not taking advantage of subtle nuances in the english language such as prefacing a statement with "Blah said". That obviously means the following statement is not my own. It's quite clear.
People's misconceptions are their own, not mine.
"Nuances of the english language" would have been more effective if you hadn't used the phrase twice. It dimishes some of the impact, and makes it look like you just learned a new word and are trying to use it as often as possible.
Otherwise, 35 minutes in between the edit and the original version well spent.
One was said about me saying it, and the other was used 3 paragraphs later where a pronoun would have been inappropriate saying they didn't get it. If the impact was diminished, maybe you fall into the second usage.
Editing and original post time difference makes what difference? None sir. Poking fun is only fun if it has a point to poke.
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....
One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.
Communication is a two way street. Not asking for clarification is a failure of the person with the counterargument not the original statement.
And I am not here to make friends. I have plenty. I am here to make sense.
If getting likes on the internet was a judgment of intellectual worth we'd all be in trouble because the things on the internet that get the most likes are almost always sassy... with no knowledge.
Pages and pages of someone arguing because they can't tell the difference between my argument and my supporting details.
If people wanted to question the details of what was said, then they should probably look up the details of what was said rather than look into if its true in game.
That little illogical assumption right there transcended assumption and jumped right into presumption and lead to pages of people arguing nonsense.
People need to be less confusing... and I'm not talking about me.
To put it another way. What I said wasn't confusing, but the counter arguments were very good misdirections that couldn't possibly be resolved due to being posed in a way that was so inaccurate as to be difficult to understand.
The only thing I could have been wrong about was whether or not they said that or whether or not non era characters should be in platoons. The latter was my assertion so could only be disproved by no non era characters being in platoons. The former was my paraphrasing of what they said and could only be disproved by quotes of the devs saying something different more or less.
So producing platoons as a counter argument could only logically disprove my main argument, not the supporting detail. It was a supporting detail about their mindset was perceived to be at the time platoons were still new things. Not what their mindset eventually ended up being. Present circumstances have nothing to do with Dev's former mindsets.
Sorry, what? I only read the first two paragraphs, couldn't be bothered with the rest... Didn't you say you were using logic, not a source? So what details would you expect people to look up when you claimed it as your own intelligence? Until you told us it wasn't yours at all and it was the devs being wrong after people provided the in-game research that still shows you were wrong initially.
Pages and pages of someone arguing because they can't tell the difference between my argument and my supporting details.
If people wanted to question the details of what was said, then they should probably look up the details of what was said rather than look into if its true in game.
That little illogical assumption right there transcended assumption and jumped right into presumption and lead to pages of people arguing nonsense.
People need to be less confusing... and I'm not talking about me.
To put it another way. What I said wasn't confusing, but the counter arguments were very good misdirections that couldn't possibly be resolved due to being posed in a way that was so inaccurate as to be difficult to understand.
The only thing I could have been wrong about was whether or not they said that or whether or not non era characters should be in platoons. The latter was my assertion so could only be disproved by no non era characters being in platoons. The former was my paraphrasing of what they said and could only be disproved by quotes of the devs saying something different more or less.
So producing platoons as a counter argument could only logically disprove my main argument, not the supporting detail. It was a supporting detail about their mindset was perceived to be at the time platoons were still new things. Not what their mindset eventually ended up being. Present circumstances have nothing to do with Dev's former mindsets.
Sorry, what? I only read the first two paragraphs, couldn't be bothered with the rest... Didn't you say you were using logic, not a source? So what details would you expect people to look up when you claimed it as your own intelligence? Until you told us it wasn't yours at all and it was the devs being wrong after people provided the in-game research that still shows you were wrong initially.
I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.
To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.
What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.
Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!
I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.
To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.
What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.
Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!
Actually, you said sources were useless after I had provided mine, and you agreed of your own accord on the source you then claimed was useless, which logically suggests you believed it until shown you were wrong, then you claimed you didn't say it so knew it was false, which logically suggests you were changing your stance to pretend you were in the right. Don't believe me, prove me wrong by checking the messages. I don't have to provide them as sources are
I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.
To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.
What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.
Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!
Actually, you said sources were useless after I had provided mine, and you agreed of your own accord on the source you then claimed was useless, which logically suggests you believed it until shown you were wrong, then you claimed you didn't say it so knew it was false, which logically suggests you were changing your stance to pretend you were in the right. Don't believe me, prove me wrong by checking the messages. I don't have to provide them as sources are
I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.
To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.
What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.
Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!
Actually, you said sources were useless after I had provided mine, and you agreed of your own accord on the source you then claimed was useless, which logically suggests you believed it until shown you were wrong, then you claimed you didn't say it so knew it was false, which logically suggests you were changing your stance to pretend you were in the right. Don't believe me, prove me wrong by checking the messages. I don't have to provide them as sources are
So if you want to say I'm wrong, check my facts. I guess I'm right until then?
No, I said from the start that only my original argument was without a source, and later confirmed it to be so. I never once claimed that all of my supporting arguments were all also only logic. I flat out said in the very same paragraph the devs had said that.
That would be foolhardy as it would make everything I was saying based on nothing. Much like all the claims I was wrong in this thread.
Asking for a source is lazy. I'm not asking anyone for a source. But if you want to say you've proven me wrong about what a source said then you must produce the source or you're just flat out lying.
What you call me sidestepping is me correcting faux pas committed by you and other dude. I mean I tried to be polite by calling it a subtle nuance of the english language, but really there's nothing subtle about prefacing a statement with 'dev's said'. It's pretty obvious, but like I said, I WAS trying to be polite.
No, I said from the start that only my original argument was without a source, and later confirmed it to be so. I never once claimed that all of my supporting arguments were all also only logic. I flat out said in the very same paragraph the devs had said that.
That would be foolhardy as it would make everything I was saying based on nothing. Much like all the claims I was wrong in this thread.
Asking for a source is lazy. I'm not asking anyone for a source. But if you want to say you've proven me wrong about what a source said then you must produce the source or you're just flat out lying.
What you call me sidestepping is me correcting faux pas committed by you and other dude. I mean I tried to be polite by calling it a subtle nuance of the english language, but really there's nothing subtle about prefacing a statement with 'dev's said'. It's pretty obvious, but like I said, I WAS trying to be polite.
Ony the third paragraph has anything to do with what you quoted, the other three are opposing something that isn't there. With respect to that one, I'm asking you to prove what I said about you is wrong, you have done so without a source and conveniently are, just as you said, flat out lying. That does not mean that every counterargument to what you say without a source is a lie however, which is what you implied with your nuance.
No, I said from the start that only my original argument was without a source, and later confirmed it to be so. I never once claimed that all of my supporting arguments were all also only logic. I flat out said in the very same paragraph the devs had said that.
That would be foolhardy as it would make everything I was saying based on nothing. Much like all the claims I was wrong in this thread.
Asking for a source is lazy. I'm not asking anyone for a source. But if you want to say you've proven me wrong about what a source said then you must produce the source or you're just flat out lying.
What you call me sidestepping is me correcting faux pas committed by you and other dude. I mean I tried to be polite by calling it a subtle nuance of the english language, but really there's nothing subtle about prefacing a statement with 'dev's said'. It's pretty obvious, but like I said, I WAS trying to be polite.
Ony the third paragraph has anything to do with what you quoted, the other three are opposing something that isn't there. With respect to that one, I'm asking you to prove what I said about you is wrong, you have done so without a source and conveniently are, just as you said, flat out lying. That does not mean that every counterargument to what you say without a source is a lie however, which is what you implied with your nuance.
Not at all. You're little shenanigans to realign meanings of words will not hold. I didn't say anything about your sources. You are the one who claimed I was wrong about what sources said without producing the source. Wordplay will not change that.
Produce what the devs said and show it doesn't back up what I said it said or your argument holds no water.
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....
One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.
He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....
One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.
He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.
I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.
I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....
One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.
He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.
I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.
Alright, sure. You probably have more experience with yourself than I do.
They claimed it was intended to use your entire roster. They gave bonuses to era specific teams and said they would never be required in platoons when they were required in battle.
Ergo Platoons are for everything BUT the era specific teams
Let's see I see clones and resistance and ewoks. None of which were around Hoth. Thank you for proving me non-contradictory! Thank you very much!
I don't know why you keep pointing out to me that they lied. Doesn't change what I said into a lie.
How do you require a non era character and keep the content somewhat authentic? By including them in scenarios where they don't do anything, like platoons.
See, there you go. If you would have just responded intially with "I quoted outdated info by CG and that platoons do in fact utilize factions required in combat missions like the rebels in Hoth Tb" there would have been no argument.
i was never arguing the intent of platoons, just that you are spreading misinformation about their requirements.
They claimed it was intended to use your entire roster. They gave bonuses to era specific teams and said they would never be required in platoons when they were required in battle.
Ergo Platoons are for everything BUT the era specific teams
Let's see I see clones and resistance and ewoks. None of which were around Hoth. Thank you for proving me non-contradictory! Thank you very much!
I don't know why you keep pointing out to me that they lied. Doesn't change what I said into a lie.
How do you require a non era character and keep the content somewhat authentic? By including them in scenarios where they don't do anything, like platoons.
See, there you go. If you would have just responded intially with "I quoted outdated info by CG and that platoons do in fact utilize factions required in combat missions like the rebels in Hoth Tb" there would have been no argument.
i was never arguing the intent of platoons, just that you are spreading misinformation about their requirements.
I see this is your first interaction with woodmisinformationroward? It's his middle name.
My posts are, fortunately, much clearer than some other people's and don't take on the misleading semblance of logical fact while containing nothing of the sort.
Though I may seem verbose occasionally, my posts are almost always jam packed with subtle nuances of the english language allowing me to speak far more succinctly than the amount of information I am conveying. I am avoiding wasting time repeating myself or clarifying by doing so to begin with.
This complex succinct brevity often leads people to mistakenly understand my posts as no one likes to actually read whole posts, and you can't understand me if you skim read me.
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....
One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.
He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.
I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.
I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.
But I am right most of the time.
Yeah you're right, you just communicate it too good.
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....
One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.
He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.
I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.
I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.
But I am right most of the time.
Yeah you're right, you just communicate it too good.
Words have many many meanings and it varies not only by context but by where you're from. To argue against someone without bothering to take a few moments of contemplation on what was said is not a failure in the communication skills of the one who made the initial statement.
In this case, I guess I was out of line in thinking that people could understand what 'they said' meant if the failure was to fall on my communication skills.
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....
One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.
He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.
I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.
I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.
But I am right most of the time.
Yeah you're right, you just communicate it too good.
Words have many many meanings and it varies not only by context but by where you're from. To argue against someone without bothering to take a few moments of contemplation on what was said is not a failure in the communication skills of the one who made the initial statement.
In this case, I guess I was out of line in thinking that people could understand what 'they said' meant if the failure was to fall on my communication skills.
Not at all. You're little shenanigans to realign meanings of words will not hold. I didn't say anything about your sources. You are the one who claimed I was wrong about what sources said without producing the source. Wordplay will not change that.
Produce what the devs said and show it doesn't back up what I said it said or your argument holds no water.
I never said you said something you said the devs said that they didn't say, and a few messages ago I quoted something you said about my sources, so I don't know why you'd say you didn't say something you surely know you said, provided you didn't skim read it. With that in mind, I did say you agreed with a source and then claimed it wasn't your words when people pointed out they were false. Just because someone else said it too doesn't mean you weren't wrong. Produce what you said and show it shows you didn't agree with what the devs said when they were wrong.
Not at all. You're little shenanigans to realign meanings of words will not hold. I didn't say anything about your sources. You are the one who claimed I was wrong about what sources said without producing the source. Wordplay will not change that.
Produce what the devs said and show it doesn't back up what I said it said or your argument holds no water.
I never said you said something you said the devs said that they didn't say, and a few messages ago I quoted something you said about my sources, so I don't know why you'd say you didn't say something you surely know you said, provided you didn't skim read it. With that in mind, I did say you agreed with a source and then claimed it wasn't your words when people pointed out they were false. Just because someone else said it too doesn't mean you weren't wrong. Produce what you said and show it shows you didn't agree with what the devs said when they were wrong.
Cutting fanciful little word fragments out of what I said to suit your purposes is not producing sources. You have never produced a source against me, yet you did try to accuse me of contradicting myself by producing sources against what the devs said rather than against any claim that I personally made.
Again. Your shenanigans with wordplay will not hold. Produce the devs quote from when they talked about platoons and being needed in battles at the same time or all you're doing is lying about things I've said. Lying about what I said is actually slander and could get you in trouble.
I thought this thread was entertaining when it was about debating the intent/design/implementation of platoons, but it is so much more entertaining to read a page and a half of someone try and prove their posts are high quality writing while doing exactly what you are not supposed to do in high quality writing.
I thought this thread was entertaining when it was about debating the intent/design/implementation of platoons, but it is so much more entertaining to read a page and a half of someone try and prove their posts are high quality writing while doing exactly what you are not supposed to do in high quality writing.
I thought this thread was entertaining when it was about debating the intent/design/implementation of platoons, but it is so much more entertaining to read a page and a half of someone try and prove their posts are high quality writing while doing exactly what you are not supposed to do in high quality writing.
Are you referring to The Great Communicator?
Are there that many people in this thread posting about their mastery of language?
I thought this thread was entertaining when it was about debating the intent/design/implementation of platoons, but it is so much more entertaining to read a page and a half of someone try and prove their posts are high quality writing while doing exactly what you are not supposed to do in high quality writing.
More like explaining how people's understanding of a thing has nothing to do with the soundness of construction. But glad you're enjoying yourself.
I thought this thread was entertaining when it was about debating the intent/design/implementation of platoons, but it is so much more entertaining to read a page and a half of someone try and prove their posts are high quality writing while doing exactly what you are not supposed to do in high quality writing.
More like explaining how people's understanding of a thing has nothing to do with the soundness of construction. But glad you're enjoying yourself.
Replies
this. and also, my question about sep levels still stands
#bringbackdownvotes
One was said about me saying it, and the other was used 3 paragraphs later where a pronoun would have been inappropriate saying they didn't get it. If the impact was diminished, maybe you fall into the second usage.
Editing and original post time difference makes what difference? None sir. Poking fun is only fun if it has a point to poke.
Communication is a two way street. Not asking for clarification is a failure of the person with the counterargument not the original statement.
And I am not here to make friends. I have plenty. I am here to make sense.
If getting likes on the internet was a judgment of intellectual worth we'd all be in trouble because the things on the internet that get the most likes are almost always sassy... with no knowledge.
Sounds like a dinosaur that walks backwards
Sorry, what? I only read the first two paragraphs, couldn't be bothered with the rest... Didn't you say you were using logic, not a source? So what details would you expect people to look up when you claimed it as your own intelligence? Until you told us it wasn't yours at all and it was the devs being wrong after people provided the in-game research that still shows you were wrong initially.
I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.
To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.
What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.
Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!
Actually, you said sources were useless after I had provided mine, and you agreed of your own accord on the source you then claimed was useless, which logically suggests you believed it until shown you were wrong, then you claimed you didn't say it so knew it was false, which logically suggests you were changing your stance to pretend you were in the right. Don't believe me, prove me wrong by checking the messages. I don't have to provide them as sources are
and if you want me to do it I should tell you to
So if you want to say I'm wrong, check my facts. I guess I'm right until then?
Gotta be a least a sophomore
No, I said from the start that only my original argument was without a source, and later confirmed it to be so. I never once claimed that all of my supporting arguments were all also only logic. I flat out said in the very same paragraph the devs had said that.
That would be foolhardy as it would make everything I was saying based on nothing. Much like all the claims I was wrong in this thread.
Asking for a source is lazy. I'm not asking anyone for a source. But if you want to say you've proven me wrong about what a source said then you must produce the source or you're just flat out lying.
What you call me sidestepping is me correcting faux pas committed by you and other dude. I mean I tried to be polite by calling it a subtle nuance of the english language, but really there's nothing subtle about prefacing a statement with 'dev's said'. It's pretty obvious, but like I said, I WAS trying to be polite.
Ony the third paragraph has anything to do with what you quoted, the other three are opposing something that isn't there. With respect to that one, I'm asking you to prove what I said about you is wrong, you have done so without a source and conveniently are, just as you said, flat out lying. That does not mean that every counterargument to what you say without a source is a lie however, which is what you implied with your nuance.
Not at all. You're little shenanigans to realign meanings of words will not hold. I didn't say anything about your sources. You are the one who claimed I was wrong about what sources said without producing the source. Wordplay will not change that.
Produce what the devs said and show it doesn't back up what I said it said or your argument holds no water.
He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.
I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.
I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.
But I am right most of the time.
Alright, sure. You probably have more experience with yourself than I do.
I remember my first word-of-the-day calendar...
Yeah you're right, you just communicate it too good.
Words have many many meanings and it varies not only by context but by where you're from. To argue against someone without bothering to take a few moments of contemplation on what was said is not a failure in the communication skills of the one who made the initial statement.
In this case, I guess I was out of line in thinking that people could understand what 'they said' meant if the failure was to fall on my communication skills.
Like this is what I feel like when I get into arguments on these forums:
People not grasping what you are saying doesn't mean you aren't communicating well.
Apology accepted
I never said you said something you said the devs said that they didn't say, and a few messages ago I quoted something you said about my sources, so I don't know why you'd say you didn't say something you surely know you said, provided you didn't skim read it. With that in mind, I did say you agreed with a source and then claimed it wasn't your words when people pointed out they were false. Just because someone else said it too doesn't mean you weren't wrong. Produce what you said and show it shows you didn't agree with what the devs said when they were wrong.
Cutting fanciful little word fragments out of what I said to suit your purposes is not producing sources. You have never produced a source against me, yet you did try to accuse me of contradicting myself by producing sources against what the devs said rather than against any claim that I personally made.
Again. Your shenanigans with wordplay will not hold. Produce the devs quote from when they talked about platoons and being needed in battles at the same time or all you're doing is lying about things I've said. Lying about what I said is actually slander and could get you in trouble.
Apology accepted...but 3 strikes and you're out
Are you referring to The Great Communicator?
Are there that many people in this thread posting about their mastery of language?
More like explaining how people's understanding of a thing has nothing to do with the soundness of construction. But glad you're enjoying yourself.
You mean peoples'