No it’s not. It’s only if you remove the link I added after that, which is an out-of-context quote : my sentence was meant to be understood in the full context, not out of context.
The sentence you quoted was meant as a quote logical explanation between the post I quoted and the link I gave that provided explanations.
I blame you of claiming BS by quoting out of context.
It’s literally as dishonest as claiming you wrote
And then saying that your post does not make any sense.
Hisec noobs deserve to be slaughtered and quit the game. Got it.
Highsec newbies can stop being perma-victims, organize effectively, and fight back. If they refuse to do so then they don’t belong in EVE.
Wars only apply to corps with structures, newbies are free to opt out of the war system by not deploying the structures they probably can’t afford and have little use for anyway.
You have the absolute choice as to whether or not you want to be exposed to wars and get “slaughtered”. Remain in a war immune corp / alliance and play as you want.
This isn’t restricting players from owning structures either because you can easily have a holding corp keep your structure and access it as normal through ACL. There is literally no down-side to having your structure in an alt corp.
You’re making up issues where there are none.
Hang on, what you meant to be understood as is irrelevant. That is kind of the central theme of this discussion.
What you mean doesn’t matter, only some narrow scope of use is important and you used it the way I exactly quoted it and interpreted it.
Come on Elmer, you can do better than that.
I just quoted what you wrote. Nothing more. Context is irrelevant.
That’s your whole point about Jonah’s use of English earlier. There is no context in which his use was correct.
Same for you here. There is no other context. There is only what you wrote. Your meaning and the context in which you used those words doesn’t matter.
You’ve destroyed your whole argument by going for meaning and context when you are claiming that doesn’t apply to Jonah’s context of use.
Not all newbies know about that or want to play like that. Most structures I see are not owned by 1 man corps.
“My post made sense in the context with which it was made”, “My post made sense within the context it was made” and “My post made sense in the context within which it was made” all mean the same thing; all three are also grammatically and linguistically correct in the English language.
I proved you it did not.
Nope, unless your definition of proof drastically differs from that of the rest of us.
Just because you don’t want to consider my point, does not make you right.
Right back at you.
unrelated BS.
Got nothing?
You did, as I proved it, and kept dodging the point.
Nope, I think you need to look up the meanings of the words prove and contradiction.
Which was not my point. Again, polysemy fallacy.
Ambiguity is part and parcel of any language, especially when you miss the nuances and subtlety present in them. Most of the words in the English dictionary have multiple meanings, I dare say that many words in other languages share that trait.
No, it does not require that.
Umm, yes it does. Appeal to popularity being the use of the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. That’s literally n+1.
Which you dodged with a polysemy fallacy, and then an appeal to popularity,
Neither of these things happened anywhere outside of your head.
claiming that if people understand your sentence, then it is not absurd. Which is wrong.
I never claimed anything about absurdity, I merely stated that my post was contextually correct.
It seems that, for an english speaker, you are having a hard time understanding the meaning of what I wrote.
As an English speaker I am not having a hard time understanding what you’ve written, it’s coherent and understandable, it’s simply missing an understanding of the finer points of the language.
Yeah I know, english is difficult, that’s because it’s a bastardized language taken from successive invasions.
Which is why most non native users of English have trouble with the nuances and subtleties contained therein. Hell, geographically distant native English speakers have problems with words having different meanings, just look at the differences between the US and UK versions of the language, fanny is a word that springs to mind, in one it refers to the posterior, in the other it refers to the female genitalia; thong is another for our antipodean cousins, in the UK it’s minimal underwear, in Australia it’s footwear
It does not change anything to what I wrote : you made a quote out of context, which is the same as claiming complete stupidity.
You’re lying. It was followed by a link from which it is sourced, therefore conserving the sense it has in that link.
You interpreting it out of the quote is literally an out-of context quote, that is BS.
And that is also BS. Context is required for interpretation.
Dafuck ? Irrelevant.
Hu, BS.
BS again. I literally wrote that Jonah’s usage made no sense in the context . Your claim is just pure BS.
I mean, you make an out of context quote, and use it to affirm stupidity. Well you showed stupidity, so what are you so proud of ? That you can add BS to stupidity ?
You dodged that proof. Does not mean it does not exist.
You are just claiming BS, like “your proof does not exist” just because you did not answer to it. Yet my point is valid, logical, and shows that you are wrong.
And switching the meaning in a discussion is a polysemy fallacy, which you are so found of.
It’s just not acceptable in a discussion, even if you like it as a joke.
You should look up what literally means. It can’t be used in that case.
But since I claimed it was contextually absurd, your answer in that context, without an explicit change of meaning, implies you keep using the meaning of the context, therefore you actually claimed about absurdity, because that was the point I brought and to which you answered.
Come on, I had teachers from england, U.S. , and colleagues from Russia, SA and NZ. Also met friend from Jamaica ? not sure anymore. I have an idea of the different accents, meanings, terms (I know, russian don’t speak english - well they do somehow), even expressions (Pakistan colleague complaining that people understand “it was so so” as “it was not very good” while he meant “it was just as expected”)
Then they learn and adjust.
There are a lot of things in game that each of us don’t necessarily want to conform with, but we have to adapt, because the game isn’t just for us. It’s for everyone.
So either they learn and then adapt, or they don’t. That’s part of what makes EVE great. There are tools and ways of playing that can adapt to virtually everything. Same here.
What you wrote, in response to Jonah saying that you are entitled to your opinion, is that you aren’t, because it’s a fallacy.
The context is is wrong in which you used it.
By the way, you are doing a great job here as the hunter. Totally have us (the context of that is sarcasm, which is different to the literal and different to the figurative and perhaps in some places, different again to the colloquial, which probably aligns with the conversational, but definitely not technical context).
Fair enough. That’s a valid argument, tho I see no reason why they shouldn’t have the right to attack targets that are “not worth”: PvP is not supposed to permanently be based on what is financially worth or not, IMO.
Then they learn it. It takes something like 15 seconds to find the info on google if they actually want to know.
In that case, as we say in French, “Ils veulent le beurre et l’argent du beurre”.
You choose between In-Corp structures and War, or Out-Corp structures and no war.
At some point, you have to play the game as designed. I would like to play Football with the opposite team never trying to catch the ball, but that’s not how the game works.
Too bad. EVE is a competitive PvP game where success is earned, not guaranteed. If players don’t like that then they shouldn’t be playing EVE.
And then I added a link. Which you ignored, therefore making an out-of-context quote, by definition. Which is, BS.
Whatever. You seem to have no idea what self-derision is, so your opinion is not of any relevant (this last word is also self derision, FYI).
You can’t use it like that, because it’s wrong. There is no context in which your use of those words is different to the literal interpretation I’ve applied.
Hopefully you can understand how stupid that line of thought it. It’s exactly the approach you have been taking and it’s ridiculous. You can’t claim to have one context for your use of language while saying the same doesn’t apply to Jonah’s use of the language.
If you are going to apply that level of stupid thinking, then suck it up buttercup. Same standard applies.
But keep going Elmer. You’ve find a duck eventually.
Are they incapable of learning? Eve Online as a whole has historically been a game about minimizing risk while still reaping the reward.
This game mechanic is just a small part of that. We don’t all play the game as a new player and instantly know everything. Most things are learned either by our mistakes or the mistakes of others.
It is best this way.
Most structures in the game are empty, unused, and are just there to waste CCPs resources. This is part of the problem with structures:
They are too cheap, making losing one a fairly trivial thing for the average player. This is backed up by the lack of any attempts to defend them, much less contacting for diplo.
I personally hate structure timers and DPS caps.
Look at most of the structure kills on our killboard and you’ll see that you don’t make very much ISK clearing most of these out… not for the time and effort involved anyways.
Tethering should only occur on fueled citadels (the entire mechanic needs to go imo though).
There’s no limit or end to the structure spam. Create a hard limit on the amount and type of structures in various systems and have them be something worth fighting over.
It’s the literal definition.
My post contained a sentence, that was actually a quote, for which I gave you the source.
You removed the link, therefore you made an out-of-context quote - In both the meanings of you removing the context from my quote, and the fallacy.
Yes, the original one.
You are, yes I do.
I have friends that teach English all over the world, one thing that they all say is that English as a foreign language misses out the cultural immersion that comes with being a native speaker and living in a country where it is the predominant language.
In all likelihood this holds true for other languages too. I certainly wouldn’t be arguing about the use of French, Spanish or German words and grammar with a native speaker despite using the latter every day for several years and speaking the former two somewhat passably.
That cultural immersion is where we have our differences, I have the best part of 50 years of it, you do not.
BTW England is a country, as such it has a capital letter at the beginning; you extended that courtesy to the United States, Russia, South Africa and New Zealand.
Why not extend it to England, are you French or something?
BS.
People assume there is nothing to do to save a structure. Why ? because attackers did not make any diplomatic move to start with.
Maybe you do. And maybe people are not connected. But just because people don’t suicide trying to defend it, can also mean that your activity is imbalanced.
The smallest structures are cheap, and they should be, so large war dec alliances like Pirate are at least limited in how much they can extort and harm small groups who are wise enough to stick to small structures only, if any at all.
Limiting the number of structures only helps larger corps and alliances dominate an area. That doesn’t help anything.
You seem to be asking for changes which help your mega merc alliance dominate even more. Funny that.