EPTOn October 12 2011 10:53 Soulfire wrote:
Could at least pretend to act mature in the process, though.
< not a part of Templars
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2011 10:40 GigaFlop wrote:
We like having stuff. You guys have stuff, so we want it. Simple as that.
On October 12 2011 10:26 Soulfire wrote:
Good to know who the intelligent faction is, although zerging people is pretty hard I heard.
On October 12 2011 09:19 Sprungjeezy wrote:
tl;dr. We annihilated the shit out of Templar.
On October 12 2011 08:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Your bold sentence really makes me believe that you didn't understand my post at all. I'll try to explain this as best I can and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are capable of understanding if I can explain this clearly enough. So, where to begin?
Protentus' post is essentially representing two things, a brag of personal achievement in PVP and at the same time a mockery the defeated party's ability to recuperate from said defeat. He does this based on two claims, one that his faction "annihilated" ours and another that it's amusing that ever since said annihilation, we have been reduced to stone weaponry. It appears you have no problem with my refutation of the second claim (which was probably more of a jokeful, though bm, jab than a serious argument), so I will address your concerns with my refutation of the first.
Now, in the beginning of the bold, you are correct that I am defending myself because I have argued that these assumptions are not true.
Where you go incorrect, however, is the claim that I do this by saying "your point is irrelevant because in my opinion you are misusing a term", which is actually a failed representation of my argument. In no way am I denying the essence of his argument that we were defeated, a fact I actually emphasize in my post when I concede that you defeated us in battle (which you clearly misread or failed to comprehend the significance of when making your post).
What I do deny is the nature of our defeat being an annihilation, assuming the definition of annihilation being one such that an entity that is annihilated ceases to exist after annihilation. It's obvious that under this definition, you did not annihilate us and I believe I adequately explained why this would be the case in my previous post. However, you insist that both loot and the actual faction are irrelevant to the use of the word annihilate, only the members within the faction are relevant. I grant you, if we use this definition of "annihilate", it is true, you annihilated us in battle, but under this same definition it is also true that before you annihilated us in battle, we annihilated you in the battle of Andorhal, in addition to claiming the field. So, I can grant you the fact that you annihilated us after we annihilated you (which sounds absurd if you use the proper definition of annihilate), though I doubt you will accept such conclusion even though it is true that we killed and routed your entire army from Andorhal, which is completely compatible with the definition you gave.
As for our intentions, I cannot speak for each individual member's intentions, but I personally have no intent of raiding the Loner base without a drastically significant numerical advantage. If you actually care, I am willing to provide you with the reasons why I have no intent of besieging your castle without said advantage, but if you give it a small amount of thought I'm sure you could come up with the reasons yourself as they are not necessarily difficult to discover.
What sounds much funner to me is battle in the wilderness, and I'm sure you would agree that it isn't a poor substitute for your suggestion.
On October 12 2011 07:59 Sprungjeezy wrote:
You're adorable, annihilate = destroy completely, utterly, did we or did we not kill all of your members and take the majority of all you had (the loot is irrelevant to the use of annihilate as we did not destroy the templars and their loot, but destroyed the templars, also not to be mistaken for Templar the faction, but the members of Templar, the templars). I find it cute when someone has to defend themselves by saying stuff like "your point is irrelevant because in my opinion you are misusing a term, thus your point is nullified."
Also curious, do Templars intend to raid us? I would gladly lead you guys to our base, its a lot easier to loot corpses the closer they are to our spawn, so if you want I can show you where it is and save both of us some trouble.
On October 12 2011 07:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You are misusing the word annihilate, you beat us in one battle (after we had just beaten you in one) and stole all our diamond/iron, but by no means is that annihilating us, and I only use stone swords in town because I don't want an admin to slay me in the city with a diamond sword since they tend to like going after Templar who break neutrality more than they do loners who break neutrality. If you had annihilated us, we would no longer exist as a faction, but the reality is that we're even stronger now than before you attacked us (and also have a lot more iron/diamond than before)
You should know better that we have plenty of diamond swords though because I personally killed you with one last night =)
It's just a matter of common sense, if you want an expendable scout to poke around with, you send a zergling (iron sword), not an ultralisk (diamond sword). I suppose some people lack certain resource management skills though, and a little amusing if you think about the above example.
On October 12 2011 07:13 protentus wrote:
I find it amusing that Loners annihilated templar on the first day and that they are still using stone swords
I find it amusing that Loners annihilated templar on the first day and that they are still using stone swords
You are misusing the word annihilate, you beat us in one battle (after we had just beaten you in one) and stole all our diamond/iron, but by no means is that annihilating us, and I only use stone swords in town because I don't want an admin to slay me in the city with a diamond sword since they tend to like going after Templar who break neutrality more than they do loners who break neutrality. If you had annihilated us, we would no longer exist as a faction, but the reality is that we're even stronger now than before you attacked us (and also have a lot more iron/diamond than before)
You should know better that we have plenty of diamond swords though because I personally killed you with one last night =)
It's just a matter of common sense, if you want an expendable scout to poke around with, you send a zergling (iron sword), not an ultralisk (diamond sword). I suppose some people lack certain resource management skills though, and a little amusing if you think about the above example.
You're adorable, annihilate = destroy completely, utterly, did we or did we not kill all of your members and take the majority of all you had (the loot is irrelevant to the use of annihilate as we did not destroy the templars and their loot, but destroyed the templars, also not to be mistaken for Templar the faction, but the members of Templar, the templars). I find it cute when someone has to defend themselves by saying stuff like "your point is irrelevant because in my opinion you are misusing a term, thus your point is nullified."
Also curious, do Templars intend to raid us? I would gladly lead you guys to our base, its a lot easier to loot corpses the closer they are to our spawn, so if you want I can show you where it is and save both of us some trouble.
Your bold sentence really makes me believe that you didn't understand my post at all. I'll try to explain this as best I can and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are capable of understanding if I can explain this clearly enough. So, where to begin?
Protentus' post is essentially representing two things, a brag of personal achievement in PVP and at the same time a mockery the defeated party's ability to recuperate from said defeat. He does this based on two claims, one that his faction "annihilated" ours and another that it's amusing that ever since said annihilation, we have been reduced to stone weaponry. It appears you have no problem with my refutation of the second claim (which was probably more of a jokeful, though bm, jab than a serious argument), so I will address your concerns with my refutation of the first.
Now, in the beginning of the bold, you are correct that I am defending myself because I have argued that these assumptions are not true.
Where you go incorrect, however, is the claim that I do this by saying "your point is irrelevant because in my opinion you are misusing a term", which is actually a failed representation of my argument. In no way am I denying the essence of his argument that we were defeated, a fact I actually emphasize in my post when I concede that you defeated us in battle (which you clearly misread or failed to comprehend the significance of when making your post).
What I do deny is the nature of our defeat being an annihilation, assuming the definition of annihilation being one such that an entity that is annihilated ceases to exist after annihilation. It's obvious that under this definition, you did not annihilate us and I believe I adequately explained why this would be the case in my previous post. However, you insist that both loot and the actual faction are irrelevant to the use of the word annihilate, only the members within the faction are relevant. I grant you, if we use this definition of "annihilate", it is true, you annihilated us in battle, but under this same definition it is also true that before you annihilated us in battle, we annihilated you in the battle of Andorhal, in addition to claiming the field. So, I can grant you the fact that you annihilated us after we annihilated you (which sounds absurd if you use the proper definition of annihilate), though I doubt you will accept such conclusion even though it is true that we killed and routed your entire army from Andorhal, which is completely compatible with the definition you gave.
As for our intentions, I cannot speak for each individual member's intentions, but I personally have no intent of raiding the Loner base without a drastically significant numerical advantage. If you actually care, I am willing to provide you with the reasons why I have no intent of besieging your castle without said advantage, but if you give it a small amount of thought I'm sure you could come up with the reasons yourself as they are not necessarily difficult to discover.
What sounds much funner to me is battle in the wilderness, and I'm sure you would agree that it isn't a poor substitute for your suggestion.
tl;dr. We annihilated the shit out of Templar.
Good to know who the intelligent faction is, although zerging people is pretty hard I heard.
We like having stuff. You guys have stuff, so we want it. Simple as that.
Could at least pretend to act mature in the process, though.
< not a part of Templars
Some people are more vocal about their opinions, and everyone interprets them differently. Your interpretation is different from mine, and Loners as a faction shouldn't be considered immature, in my eyes.
Shit happens, people get mad about it. Whatchya gonna do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
![[image loading]](http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5462/mooninitecraft.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mRseO.png)
![[image loading]](http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n99/chuiu/2011-10-11_225409.jpg)
