get ready for spankin !!!
No, they go for the knuckles. If it was spanking, I wouldâve turned Catholic ages ago. Free spankings every week? Sign me the hell up. Do you even know how much money that would save me?
1 Like
I think I lost a BPO in a Station.
Then I remembered the Search Bar.
1 Like
Do you know what the definition of a structure is?
Do NPC stations fit that definition?
If your answer is no, to either question, please elaborate. If its yes, then I was right, and your comparison is disingenuous.
1 Like
yes, in the game a structure is an item whose type belong to the category âstructureâ. Same as say, ships, skills, drones, charges, asteroids, etc.
No, stations donât fit that definition. Because stations belong to the category âstationâ.
I ALREADY gave the corresponding links. You are just repeating the same thing that is wrong.
in the game, an item âis aâ X if its type/group/category (or even marketgroup) name is X.
My ship is a maller if its type is the type âmallerâ, is a cruiser if its group is the group âcruiserâ, is a ship if its category is the category âshipâ
Saying stations are structures, is the same as saying ships are skills. Itâs just wrong, and repeating it wonât make it right.
Stations belong to the superordinate category âStructureâ, which breaks down into âNPC Stationsâ and âPlayer Owned Structuresâ (Citadels, Engineering Complexes, etc).
Nope. ^-^ Saying NPC Stations are structures is the same as saying that the Gallente Carrier skillbook and the Amarr Frigate skillbook are skillbooks.
And in real life, i.e. colloquially?
What does a structure mean in real life?
This does not exist.
On the opposite I gave you links listing the categories.
You just ignored it. Ignoring facts wonât make you right. It only makes you stupid.
Yes.
In real life, there is no BPO.
Using terms out of context is a usual mistake.
In the EVE lore, there is no EVE forums.
Discussing here means we are discussing outside of the context of the video game and its lore.
Therefore we are not in the Eve lore.
On the opposite, talking about âbpo halt + low power + abandoned stateâ which is the topic title implies to be discussing in the context of the game.
I get now why you were completely wrong : you did not read the topic title. You thought this was about another game. hmmkay.
Youre wrong. We are not discussing it as if we were in EVE lore.
I said âAnd its loreâ.
Do you know what âAndâ means?
You are wrong . There is a eve forum, therefore we are not in the eve lore, if the eve lore has no eve forum.
Thatâs logical deduction from your affirmation.
You wrote BS.
Looking at the first post (or the title), itâs obvious the OP is actually about the game. Therefore your claim that âwe are discussing outside of the context of the video gameâ is wrong.
You just made a stupid affirmation, and used that stupid affirmation in your argument. Itâs just wrong.
You can add an AND after something false, itâs useless : you assertion is false by definition of AND. Seems like YOU donât know what âANDâ means
The EVE forums is not the only possible avenue of discussion of EVE, even within the lore, as obviously, there must be a method of discussion within the EVE lore as well.
So Yes, i was right.
In EVE lore, there is no EVE forums, but within EVE lore, there is a method of discussion and communication. Therefore, we are not discussing it as if we were in EVE lore.
Wrong.
Lets say you make a comment, âCats can climb treesâ.
Now, I can say to you, âYou did not write about catsâ, and I would be factually wrong.
If I were to say âYou did not write about cats and their ability to hunt miceâ, then yes, I would be right.
You can add an AND after something false and make it true.
It appears you dont know what AND means yourself.
We need to captcha AndersonâŚIâm starting to think it might be a botâŚ
1 Like
By saying that I am wrong, while I am just making a very logical deduction from your assertion, you are wrong.
I donât know/care about what you mean. The Eve lore is off topic.
By the simple fact that we are using the eve forum, and your assertion that in the eve lore there is no eve forum, we can deduce that we are not in the eve lore. Claiming this is false needs to precisely point out where the flaw actually is, if there is one. Until then, you are wrong by the definition of claiming something false.
If we are not discussing as if we were in the Eve lore, it implies we are not in the eve lore.
So you are saying that I am wrong, then show that I am right.
Logic does not seem to be your strong point.
No you canât. What you did was replace a part of your comment by another one, NOT add an AND to your statement. You are not adding to something false, you are just changing the terms. Adding an AND statement would be, âyou did not write about cats NOR their ability to hung miceâ, which would still be wrong.
So yes your first statement was wrong, which by definition of âandâ means you were wrong.
No, im saying the wording of your sentence is wrong.
That sums up your response quite nicely.
I already did. You summed it up by âI dont careâ.
And talking about NPC structures, implies I am talking about NPC stations.
Congratulations, youve played yourself.
So by adding an âAndâ, i was not adding an âAndâ?
Changing the terms of what?
Only if you want to look at the two as two separate statements.
The problem is, they can be a single statement. If you want to talk about cats and their ability to hunt mice, and not their ability to climb trees, then it is a single statement.
Your âNORâ separates them into two different aspects. Which is fine. But if the person who is writing the sentence, specifically wants to talk about cats AND their ability to hunt mice, and not JUST cats in general, then an âANDâ is apt.
Yes, when you are off topic I can just not care.
Youâre just trolling by making completely irrelevant posts.
What is relevant, is that structures are defined in the game by the category.
Which is different than the category station.
Therefore, stations canât be structures.
Your digression about lore and co is just off topic stupidity.
by adding a âandâ to a word, you are not âadding an and to something falseâ. But yes false quoting is easier than logic.
Your quotes are lies.
Nope. itâs the definition : you donât talk about cats AND you donât talk about dogs = you donât talk about cats NOR dogs.
we are out of the beach AND we are out of the sea = we are out of the beach AND the sea.
Thatâs basic logic. If you add an AND to something wrong, which is what you did, the statement remains wrong.
In that case you âŚ
Stations are structures, which is why they are in the Structure Browser, regardless of how gamefiles are categorized for the purposes of programming (note that this is not an authoritative source, the Structure Browser is).
Using a single word colloquially doesnt mean im trolling.
Pointing out that usage and saying âWrongâ, does.
And yet my example disproves your point.
You dont have to replace it completely, and thats the point. Case and point, the above example i made. disproving your point entirely.
Strawman.
talking about the lore is completely irrelevant to the topic.
Asking questions about the lore is thus off topic. Insisting on this specific point, while it was stupid to start with, is just trolling.
No.
Your example is irrelevant : it is of no relevance to the point I made. You are misquoting me to make a strawman, but you are still irrelevant to the point I made.
You are still replacing it, and thatâs the point.
Case and point, your point is irrelevant to the point I made - you are making a false quote. So no, you are not disproving anything but a strawman.
If you add an âand Xâ to something false, it remains false. Thatâs the definition of âandâ. You claiming otherwise is a proof you are ignorant of the basics of logic. Your point was then that changing the original false thing by including an âandâ inside is the same as adding âand Xâ to it, is wrong. I explained with the ânorâ.
Which makes even more stupid your personal attack of