Not surprised at all. That is why I keep calling it out for it.
Hey, man! Sorry you lost your stuff. I know it sucks when changes in the game bite you in the ass. I know it sucks that you have to stay on top of things in EVE like a job if you don’t want to get blindsided.
That’s the nature of the game, though.
You have to understand that you will never find purpose in pixels. I know, man. I tried for a long time. Started my first EVE toon in '04. Trashed him. Came back and tried again starting in '08. Recently realized that the best move you can make is to pry yourself away and go live your life.
Fake wealth is fake, my friend (unless you give it all to PLEX for GOOD). Losing the fake wealth isn’t what hurts. Realizing you put so much of your time and energy into acquiring it is what hurts.
STOP DOING THAT! Stop grinding away for things that aren’t real. Invest your time and energy into something that is.
4 Likes
Real wealth is fake, too. Most of it is just pixels, like isk. Wait until the banks change the rules IRL. 
2 Likes
Nah, if you get enough IRL wealth you get to set the rules.
False.
You still have that achievement.
You said yourself you didn’t use the items.
So what have you lost?
I made an observation on your posting, one that is easily verified by anybody that cares to look. The fact of the matter is that you DO constantly argue semantics.
Nor did you prove any point that I may have made to be wrong, not outside of your own head anyway.
You have nothing to answer =>personal attack. How lame.
Physician, heal thyself.
4 Likes
@Jonah Gravenstein
I’m pretty sure you are the one with the most personal insults written on the whole topic. I might just make a list for the fun of it.
Uuuuh I am looking forward to the personal insults that this comment will net me (:
And that IS a personal attack.
personal - attack . Noun. (plural personal attacks ) Making of an abusive remark on or relating to one’s person instead of providing evidence when examining another person’s claims or comments.
Please learn English, instead of arguing semantic. You are making personal attacks, THAT is a fact.
Yes I did. The point where you say it is HIS problem, when he did not claim the opposite. As I wrote “Indeed, so …?” meaning your point was just useless blabbering, unrelated to the topic - unless it had a specific meaning, several possible of which I proposed thereafter.
You call that “arguing semantic”. Hello ? You are the one making personal aggression, then arguing semantic …
Look at the mirror before you talk.
Have at it.
Hell I’ll even help you out; I have a total of 13 posts in the topic
2 refer in one way or another to Ohms Law.
1 refers to Hello Kitty Online and a couple of other games of that ilk.
1 refers to the concept of schadenfreude.
1 that likens the thread to a car crash and also references the ridiculous “I could sue if it wasn’t for the EULA” .
1 that quotes CCP Solomon.
1 that points out that being a carebear is nothing to do with whether you PvP or PvE.
1 that comments on a poster’s adversarial posting style.
1 commenting that you did nothing for 5 days after receiving an evemail saying that your assets at risk (you yourself said that you received that mail on a date that preceded the destruction of your stuff)
1 that points out that there are 3rd party API tools that allow you to keep an eye on your structures without logging in.
2 replying to the poster mentioned above.
And finally…
this one.
2 Likes
Objection!
2 Likes
Is it though? I can’t help it if the truth hurts.
Yes I did
In your mind yes, in everybody else’s doubtful.
Look at the mirror before you talk.
I know what physician, heal thyself means.
I’m not the person arguing semantics, nor do I have a history of doing so; unlike yourself.
@Destriouth_Hollow make that 14 posts.
It is trap my friend:
2 Likes
Again, another personal attack.
And then you complain about me arguing semantic ?
Yes you are.
If you consider it to be a personal attack please feel free to flag it for moderation, it’s no skin off my nose.
And then you complain about me arguing semantic ?
That’s not semantics, that’s informing you that I consider your claim to have proven my point to be invalid as questionable.
Yes you are.
No, I’m not.
Semantics is the meaning of a word or phrase, I’m not arguing that and rarely do because I understand that language is fluid.
You on the other hand use semantics as a tool to nitpick the posts of others, and you do it regularly.
1 Like
Oh I know, but it’s a trap that’s made of the same stuff as the chocolate spanners that you find masquerading as tools in discount stores, not a terminator’s butt flesh.
4 Likes
that is arguing semantic.
It seems to be an important issue for you that you need again to make completely unrelated messages.
Next time your post will be “no, because water is wet”. Talk about nonsense…
Water itself isn’t wet, it can however make other stuff wet.
As for semantics I suggest that you look up the definition of the word, as you like arguing about the definition of words so much
4 Likes
Here you are arguing semantic.
Remind me again why we are still engaging with Anderson Geten and giving it what it wants?