Ok, I went out of my way to humour you, only to get scoffed for my efforts. Well, at least I tried. I gave you enough rope. Let's see what you did with it.

nmid wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 02:55

I know I've been rude here, but so have you been. I guess we've been rude just to get our view points across. See you around in another thread.

I couldn't care less about what you say to me or about me. I care about what you've done and tried to do to the rest of our fellow players, and let me assure you, and them, I'll have none of that.

Quote:

It could have changed quite a lot of things actually. The entire paragraph's intent was to be considered as a whole point/idea. However, you continue to argue on a point to point basis, just lumping them together. I'll answer you in the same way, point by point, and not conceptually as it should be done.

You make a lot of points, and are also quite clever in trying to sneak your way around my reasoning, and avoiding the most direct enquiries about your motives and, ultimately, about how in the seven hells do you expect your unworkable proposal to work. Therefore I don't dare leave a single one of your little jabs unanswered.

Unless it turns out your whole "let's change the way threads have always been done" was just another of your little tricks to avoid answering, as is my guess.

Do you want concepts? Here's a couple:

1) Your initial "proposal" that we dumped the old way of doing things in favor of a new way had the initial appeal of novelty, and perhaps of being more in accord with modern times and modern players. But now? Your "new way" has been shown as unjust, confusing, unworkable, unbalancing, and, ultimately, self-serving. You've refused again and again to explain, expand, or refine your "proposal". You keep saying it's the way things should be done. Well, I'll keep saying no. Answer to that or forget the whole thing.

2) You have been shown as a true cheater and a s######s rules-breaker. Which is the worst of the two? You say the one, I say the other. At any rate, either of the two condemns you, and makes you and anything you say suspicious, including any of your "apologies". You lack even the grace to avoid calling others what you yourself are! You defend yourself behind the magical shield of "intent", so I ask you what your intent is, or what do you think we should believe your intent is when you refuse to answer? Answer that one too if you dare!

All the rest is looking more and more like your pathetic attempts at evading the trap you yourself fell into. But even that I won't leave unanswered.

Quote:

When you answer point-by-point, you tend to forget what you've read or what you've written a few points before. Read below.

Even though I seriously doubt you have any justification to say that, I have already asked you to show me where I've misread, misquoted or misinterpreted you. To no avail. Answer that one too, unless it is just another of your many lies, dishonourable scoundrel.

Quote:

In order of priority ---------- It showed me that you don't bother reading posts carefully, or you forget older posts to your convinience. When I have already posted in my earlier posts that "YES, MINE-DAMAGE-DODGE-USING-CHAFF WAS A FEATURE IN GAMES I"VE PLAYED", I don't understand why you ask again if I've "see(n) it described as such somewhere? " It's just getting sadly irritating that no matter how many times I try explaining a simple thing to you, you refuse to understand it.

Can't you read? Or is it just that you can't answer? I ask what games where those. Names, URLs, Hosts, who played in them, where their announcement threads are, their private Forums, EVERYTHING. It's a simple question, you manipulative s######s. Assuming such games do actually exist, of course. I've even left you the open door of telling me where else might have you seen that particular dirty trick described as "standard", when, or at least by who. Answer to that if you can.

[Updated on: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:38] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator