.com.unity Forums - SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4 (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=9726)

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

The presence or lack of direct quotes in a post is irrelevant. It is quite common to post implied opinions after a quote.

BM's post is not a different scenario (at least, not different enough in regard to this issue to be a relevant difference).

=0=

By the way, the "=0=" is a section break, as I thought I made very clear. Different sections were not parts of the same argument, and so should not have been bunched together. Please do not do that in the future. They were deliberately separated for a reason.

=0=

About "points"... I was giving out a free s? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Actually, you seem to have (marginally) addressed my other point(s), so... yeah...

=0=

Is there any point in continuing this? We have bloated down this thread enough already...

[ June 23, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

By the way, the "=0=" is a section break, as I thought I made very clear. Different sections were not parts of the same argument, and so should not have been bunched together. Please do not do that in the future. They were deliberately separated for a reason.

I just have to say this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You in no way indicated that the "=0=" were section breaks. You said the following at the beginning of the sentance that came after the first "=0=
.

Quote:

And now for a mostly disjoint subject.[...]

By no means did you make it "clear" that those were section breaks in the argument. Your simple statement of "And now for a mostly disjoint subject." does not say what the "=0=" were there for. You just indicated that you were moving onto another point.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The presence or lack of direct quotes in a post is irrelevant. It is quite common to post implied opinions after a quote.

Whie I suppose my wording when I said

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
In your case, you were quoting him and directly contradicting, which is a different scenerio from stating your opinion on the subject at hand, as Baron Munchausen was doing.

may have been a bit poor, a direct quote is irrelevant; the relevancy comes from referring to another's post and contradicting that outright.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

BM's post is not a different scenario (at least, not different enough in regard to this issue to be a relevant difference).

Sure it is - he was responding to Atrocities asking specifically for positive opinions (and he gave one), while you were criticising a workaround for a bug someone was complaining about.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

=0=

By the way, the "=0=" is a section break, as I thought I made very clear. Different sections were not parts of the same argument, and so should not have been bunched together. Please do not do that in the future. They were deliberately separated for a reason.

What Ragnarok said, plus the fact that you referred to the first section from the second, so they clearly aren't too terribly separate. Besides, I was actually just running through your post and intserting<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">[/QB][/quote][quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB]</pre><hr /></blockquote>anywhere I wanted to say something. I actually was treating them as seperate sections; you just didn't notice that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

=0=

About "points"... I was giving out a free s? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Actually, you seem to have (marginally) addressed my other point(s), so... yeah...

I do belive this is the first time I have seen you directly admit a mistake - even as weak an admittal as it was.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

=0=

Is there any point in continuing this? We have bloated down this thread enough already...

Sure there is - it's fun; besides, I have said a few more things you might want to respond to. Also, I was editing a post of mine when you posted, and you may want to address it, so I'll repeat it here:

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My main point was that Posts are statements of opinon, not factual reports. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Edit: And come to think of it - I did address that one a bit, I just didn't word it so that it was entierly obvious that I was addressing it: I mentioned that BM's case was a different scenerio and I talked about the format of your post.<hr /></blockquote>Also, you didn't address an earlier question of mine:

Quote:

Besides, you were saying outright that his solution was a bad one, offering no solution of your own, when he was trying to be helpful (to someone else, no less). How is that not picking on him?

[ June 23, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

Quote:

Sure it is - he was responding to Atrocities asking specifically for positive opinions (and he gave one), while you were criticising a workaround for a bug someone was complaining about.

=0=

Besides, you were saying outright that his solution was a bad one, offering no solution of your own, when he was trying to be helpful (to someone else, no less). How is that not picking on him?

*bold portion inserted*

As stated previously, my post was a criticism of MOO3 and QS, not of Eddie or the workaround. It was a criticism of such a workaround being necessary, which is not at all a criticism of Eddie or picking on him, which is what started this whole line of argument.

=0=

Quote:

I do belive this is the first time I have seen you directly admit a mistake - even as weak an admittal as it was.

Obviously you have not read very many of my Posts, as I always admit I have made mistakes when I make them. Differences of opinion on subjective issues do not constitute mistakes (which is supported by things you have said previously in this thread, btw http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

=0=

Quote:

Sure there is - it's fun

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
As stated previously, my post was a criticism of MOO3 and QS, not of Eddie or the workaround. It was a criticism of such a workaround being necessary, which is not at all a criticism of Eddie or picking on him, which is what started this whole line of argument.

Your later statement looked much more like you trying to duck an apparently valid observation that you were picking on Eddie; the original was (in my view, at least; apparently Mephisto's as well) you picking on Eddie. You appear to be trying to duck responsibility when you were called on it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

=0=

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I do belive this is the first time I have seen you directly admit a mistake - even as weak an admittal as it was.

Obviously you have not read very many of my Posts, as I always admit I have made mistakes when I make them.
<hr /></blockquote>Actually, you seem to usually just keep talking, getting into more and more obscure details, until the other person just gets tired and gives up.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Differences of opinion on subjective issues do not constitute mistakes (which is supported by things you have said previously in this thread, btw http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

=0=

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sure there is - it's fun

Ack! So... are you my clone, or am I your clone? Hmm... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I am going to go with the former, as I registered over 1 year before you did. Pulling seniority on ya! Muahahahahah! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif <hr /></blockquote>You seem to have skipped the stuff that came after that....

Besides, there is more than just the one option of one of us being a clone of the other; there's also the possibility that two different people just happen to find some enjoyment from similar things; twins separated before memory can form; and possibly a few others I can't think of at the moment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 23, 2003, 04:54: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

Quote:

Your later statement looked much more like you trying to duck an apparently valid observation that you were picking on Eddie; the original was (in my view, at least; apparently Mephisto's as well) you picking on Eddie. You appear to be trying to duck responsibility when you were called on it.

I was not ducking responsibility, I was clarifying my statement. Am I not allowed to do that? I was not picking on Eddie, I was picking on MOO3 and QS. My statement should probably have stated that explicitly, but I was in a rush, so... sh*t happens.

Boy... I sure am starting to sound like a broken record. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Quote:

Actually, you seem to usually just keep talking, getting into more and more obscure details, until the other person just gets tired and gives up.

That only happens when certain people refuse to accept my clarifications of less than optimally worded statements. When it is a situation in which I was wrong and not that I just worded something poorly, I always admit that I was wrong.

Also, ever heard of the filibuster? Keep on talking til they give up, and you win! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Note: this paragraph is a joke, not a serious response. It is in no way connected to my actual actions or reasons for posting things, just some more humor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Quote:

You seem to have skipped the stuff that came after that....

Nope. I included it in the first quote in that Last post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif A separate response would have been repetitive, so I did not write a second response.

Quote:

Besides, there is more than just the one option of one of us being a clone of the other; there's also the possibility that two different people just happen to find some enjoyment from similar things; twins separated before memory can form; and possibly a few others I can't think of at the moment.

But those options are no fun! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB]
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Actually, you seem to usually just keep talking, getting into more and more obscure details, until the other person just gets tired and gives up.

That only happens when certain people refuse to accept my clarifications of less than optimally worded statements. When it is a situation in which I was wrong and not that I just worded something poorly, I always admit that I was wrong.[/pb]<hr /></blockquote>Just for clarification, how many times has this occured? Can ANYBODY recall an instance when Fyron admitted error? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

EDIT: I reeeeeeeally need to start reading threads in their entirety (sp?) before replying to them... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ June 23, 2003, 05:45: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was not ducking responsibility, I was clarifying my statement. Am I not allowed to do that? I was not picking on Eddie, I was picking on MOO3 and QS. My statement should probably have stated that explicitly, but I was in a rush, so... sh*t happens.

Boy... I sure am starting to sound like a broken record. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So ... are you saying it was actually an attempt at an apology? You may not have meant to, but you were picking on him.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That only happens when certain people refuse to accept my clarifications of less than optimally worded statements. When it is a situation in which I was wrong and not that I just worded something poorly, I always admit that I was wrong.

You rarely say you are clarifying something you said earlier; you just contradict the person, saying you never said that (or similar, especially in instances when referring to a piece of information that was clearly implied (clearly as used in this instance: more than one person sees the implication of the statement)). For instance, in this thread, when Mephisto told you to stop picking on Eddie you just said:

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I wasn't picking on him, just MOO3 and QS. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You don't say you are clairifying a post; you don't say you didn't mean to come off the way you sounded; you just outright contradicted him, as though his observations aren't valid. However, it now appears that you assume everyone knows that you are clairifying an earlier post, when there isn't much in the your post to indicate that.

Sometimes you simply stop responding to portions of things; neither arguing against nor conceeding the point, moving on to other things which were mentioned instead. For example, something I have mentioned that you seem to have dropped:

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The presence or lack of direct quotes in a post is irrelevant. It is quite common to post implied opinions after a quote.

Whie I suppose my wording when I said

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
In your case, you were quoting him and directly contradicting, which is a different scenerio from stating your opinion on the subject at hand, as Baron Munchausen was doing.

may have been a bit poor, a direct quote is irrelevant; the relevancy comes from referring to another's post and contradicting that outright.
<hr /></blockquote>

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Besides, there is more than just the one option of one of us being a clone of the other; there's also the possibility that two different people just happen to find some enjoyment from similar things; twins separated before memory can form; and possibly a few others I can't think of at the moment.

But those options are no fun! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif <hr /></blockquote>Says you! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ June 23, 2003, 05:44: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]