It’s a good job that I didn’t use it in that context, the post that you’re so serious about quibbling with was in reply to your premise that I shouldn’t undock because, as you see it, there is no way to defend it.
Not that aren’t ways of defending a structure, in the context that you can reduce the risk of it exploding. Obviously there’s no guarantees, there is merely a reduction in risk.
Indeed. That was, to show that your rule “don’t anchor what you can’t defend” is double standard and/or absurd.
Indeed. Therefore claiming “don’t anchor what you can’t defend” using that definition makes no sense, since you can always defend it following that definition - eg by undocking corvettes and shooting the guys, we never know ; or by sacrificing lots of T1 frigates with ECM.
So you using that definition for your ship, also makes no sense, as I’m saying you to apply that rule to yourself, which implies keeping the meaning of the rule.
Which’s been my point, and to which you answered “we are ten people who agree to understand what I wrote so this was correct”. It was not, and your sole argument was an appeal to popularity.
Nope, no double standards involved, just common everyday usage of language.
Therefore claiming “don’t defend what you can’t defend”
I’ve never said this. The closest I’ve gotten to that misrepresentation of my post is a quote from Tippia, which merely states that if you don’t want to defend something, you don’t deserve it and you will lose it.
to which you answered “we are ten people who agree to understand what I wrote so this was correct”.
Oh look, an exaggeration and another misrepresentation of what I’ve posted.
I do believe you’ve gone and posted some fallacious stuff all by yourself, namely a strawman.
Congratulations.
Yes it’s bad. Not because of us (in my opinion) but because over the past number of years it’s turning into a content starved activity that was once a lot better than its current state. CCPs constant nerfs has created this situation and if you read my posts from back when all this Wardec stuff was happening with CCP and the CSM you will find me correctly predicting all this ■■■■■■■■.
I can’t say that with certainty but I understand your opinion of it. I guess I may be looking at a wider lense and spreading blame across many areas in Eve Online that can be obvious turnoffs.
You place blame on Wardecs but I never targeted new players when I did my solo war stuff. I never targeted new players when I did small group wars. We never targeted new players in VMG and don’t do it in Pirat. Are they collateral damage often? Of course! Who is to blame for that though? I place the blame on the groups that lose the most to us… Nullsec mega blocs. They mass recruit and leave new players to fend for themselves. Any person that is part of any group that is war eligible has NO right at all to complain about the existence of wars.
mistake, it was “don’t anchor what you can’t defend”.
Maybe. Does not invalidate my point, I just don’t care about the exact number since this is a non argument. I took ten because why not. Could have used 100 would be the same.
Not at all.
I explained you why, and more important, how what you wrote made no sense.
You literally used another meaning of “makes no sense”, that is “people don’t understand this”, instead of “is self contradictory” which was the point I had made. So no, you made a misrepresentation of what I wrote, by claiming that my point was invalid since people understood you - which was incidentally an appeal to popularity.
So you made a strawoman by claiming that people agreeing with you was a relevant argument.
It is the natural response to having your niche or activity nerfed. Nullsec does the same thing… look at Rorquals!
Players have always adapted to CCPs changes. When we fail to adapt all that’s left is to quit.
Jonah, she is just baiting you now.
Its pretty weak.
You are the one baited.
With succccessssssssss.
Uh cool?
What do you win for that not-exactly-difficult task?
What do you win with your lot of stupid posts ? The feeling to belong to a herd ?
Well I feel the opposite : the feeling to be the hunter, and you the little sheep.
The trap is ready…
Uh ok.
This sheep knows what a verb is though and how you use it.
Careful! Ill lamb-shank you!
While you’re entitled to your opinion, I disagree. My post did make sense in the context with which it was made.
You literally used another meaning of “makes no sense”, that is “people don’t understand this”
Makes no sense and people don’t understand this are not mutually exclusive, in fact they’re closely related and have a lot in common; which brings us to that nuance and subtlety that you keep missing.
instead of “is self contradictory” which was the point I had made.
If it was self contradictory it would be an oxymoron; nowhere did I contradict myself.
So no, you made a misrepresentation of what I wrote,
No I did not.
by claiming that my point was invalid since people understood you - which was incidentally an appeal to popularity.
I never said that your point was invalid, I even stated that your use of the word defend in the context that you used it was perfectly valid.
An appeal to popularity would require that I made a premise or proposition and then used “n+1” to promote that as truth. I have no need to do such a thing because I’m not promoting something as truth, I am merely stating that my use of the word defend is as valid as yours in the contexts, and language, with which we both used it.
A real life Elmer Fudd.
The benefit is rewarding the competent and smart players who can overcome the challenges of war and having the incompetent and stupid players get slaughtered and fail. You do realize that PvP and competition are the whole point of EVE, right?
I am not, as it’s a fallacy.
Assuming, “within which”,
I proved you it did not. Just because you don’t want to consider my point, does not make you right.
unrelated BS.
You did, as I proved it, and kept dodging the point.
Which was not my point. Again, polysemy fallacy.
No, it does not require that.
And I proved you it is not. Which you dodged with a polysemy fallacy, and then an appeal to popularity, claiming that if people understand your sentence, then it is not absurd. Which is wrong.
It seems that, for an english speaker, you are having a hard time understanding the meaning of what I wrote. Yeah I know, english is difficult, that’s because it’s a bastardized language taken from successive invasions.
So you aren’t entitled to your opinion, as it’s a fallacy.
OK great. Glad we finally got there. Context is a ■■■■■ sometimes, but this is now finally cleared up.
unrelated.
More like, an out-of-context quote. If you don’t also add the details that I gave afterwards you change the meaning of the sentence.
So BS. Claiming someone is entitled to an opinion, in a discussion, is a fallacy. Not his opinion.
It’s the literal interpretation of what you wrote. Don’t blame me when you use the language in a sloppy way Elmer.
