Heft Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yes, revealing a major opposition bloc and NPO's outright hostility towards it is certainly nothing of note. Very astute observations. Reading the "revelations" in this thread and then saying this is like watching a dog urinate and claiming it's going to flood the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 I think my remark is pretty clear. You're military and your role and thought proces is geared toward that end. Why you were responded to is clearly spelled out above. Wrong again (I think you're falling into a pattern here). My role and thought process is for the betterment of Pacifica, her members, our allies, and all of Planet Bob. Lucky for me that Pacifica and our allies goals and actions are also for the betterment of Planet Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joracy Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Handsome ones? It would explain why you're always following us everywhere.Vox Populi does not spy. We just accept information from voluntary informants inside alliances which may or may not have been placed there by us. Ooh, look, a class struggle! (Did I get that right? Damnit, where's Vladimir when I need him!) Hmm I see. That is slightly contradictory to what was said earlier, by many vox nations(Including yourself I believe) but no problem. It doesn't quite answer the question I asked though. Do you "accept information from voluntary informants inside alliances which may or may not have been placed there by you" from people inside alliances that do not spy(Or "accept information from voluntary informants inside alliances which may or may not have been placed there by them"). Also I may have messed up the grammar in there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 It's funny that you don't know who actually said the thing that you're trying to tear to pieces. Too bad we couldn't look into a parallel universe where he did know who said that and compare the two responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Wrong again (I think you're falling into a pattern here).My role and thought process is for the betterment of Pacifica, her members, our allies, and all of Planet Bob. Lucky for me that Pacifica and our allies goals and actions are also for the betterment of Planet Bob. What makes your goals and actions the right ones for the betterment of Planet Bob? I've seen no elections or appointments by the members of Planet Bob to make your goals the same as everyone else. Only thing NPO looks out for is itself, anything other than that is just a late night scary dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Jesse, me and you are on two different planes; have a good afternoon. Reading the "revelations" in this thread and then saying this is like watching a dog urinate and claiming it's going to flood the street. I have made no claim as to how exciting, revealing, or mind-blowing this issue of TWiP would be before I published it. I did say in private it would be ground-breaking to issue an alliance announcement from other than that alliance's government. In response to "wow, boring" comments I have pointed out that if this is boring, then it's 24 pages of boring--and that's something. Reading the nay-sayers's remarks and then saying this is like--your grammar and analogy went to crap here so I'm going to stop and say "lol then why are you still here buddy?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Reading the nay-sayers's remarks and then saying this is like--your grammar and analogy went to crap here so I'm going to stop and say "lol then why are you still here buddy?" It stayed together well enough to communicate the point effectively, so no. Also I'm pretty sure this was my first post in here, which makes your second point kind of, well, crappy. But don't let that stop you from continuing your little shtick of trying to come across as somehow intectually superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Heft's grammar was fine. You're just reading it with the emphasis in the wrong place so it looks weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Heft's grammar was fine. You're just reading it with the emphasis in the wrong place so it looks weird. Admittedly it was a slightly awkward sentence, but it would have required more time than I was willing to give to a single post to try and reword it into a less awkward form that was still concise and not rambling, like this one is verging on being. edit - "verging" may be slightly understating it Edited February 11, 2009 by Heft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 It stayed together well enough to communicate the point effectively, so no. Also I'm pretty sure this was my first post in here, which makes your second point kind of, well, crappy. But don't let that stop you from continuing your little shtick of trying to come across as somehow intectually superior. Goddamnit! Why does everyone on this planet lack any understanding of even the most basic linguisitic constructs?! Seriously, why? That I'm responding to you does not mean that I'm only talking about you. Sweet lord! Can you see the plural? DO YOU SEE IT? "nay-sayers's"? Now that I've pointed it out and you've read it once already do you see the plural? Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? Can you smell my intellectual superiority? It's like a rare and fine cheese and you are pre-formed, factory-made, individually wrapped cheese-like spread in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Furthermore! How dare you speak to my intellect while you're sitting there applying a blanket statement to a singular person and thinking in your shifty little head "Hah! Got him!" What the piss! Were you trying to be ironic? Edited February 11, 2009 by Schattenmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? Can you smell my intellectual superiority? It's like a rare and fine cheese And goes well with whine. (couldn't resist) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Goddamnit! Why does everyone on this planet lack any understanding of even the most basic linguisitic constructs?!Seriously, why? That I'm responding to you does not mean that I'm only talking about you. Sweet lord! Can you see the plural? DO YOU SEE IT? "nay-sayers's"? Now that I've pointed it out and you've read it once already do you see the plural? That's not where you say the grammar issue was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverCaffeinated Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Perhaps you've heard something I haven't then? Who said we were on alert? I guess you were one of the few that didn't get the memo. Everyone else in Gramlins was buying military like mad men yesterday and today. You folks really need to work on your communication skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) That's not where you say the grammar issue was. Thank you, Contender 2; however, I'm not talking about the grammar of "nay-sayers's"--that's from my post, not Heft's. I'm talking about rhetoric and language. Heft responded to my plural statement about detractors in general, and said "nyah nyah lol I've only said one thing!" GOOD WORK! Thanks for showing that you don't understand what I was saying, or how your language works, or how its used. It's like if I said "IRON can't fight" and Heft said "I can fight." See? Edited February 11, 2009 by Schattenmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Thank you, Contender 2; however, I'm not talking about the grammar of "nay-sayers's"--that's from my post, not Heft's.I'm talking about rhetoric and language. Heft responded to my plural statement about detractors in general, and said "nyah nyah lol I've only said one thing!" GOOD WORK! Thanks for showing that you don't understand what I was saying, or how your language works, or how its used. It's like if I said "IRON can't fight" and Heft said "I can fight." See? He was probably thrown off when you said nay-sayers's instead of nay-sayers'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) This crap plagues, plagues, this medium. I'm talking to thousands of people right now, not just one. Doe severyone get that? IS that within everyone's grasp? No! There's always someone that pipes up with something like this--because they don't get it--and I can't see why. It's infuriating. Even now someone is looking at the third-person pronoun "they" and can't wrap their head around it. He was probably thrown off when you said nay-sayers's instead of nay-sayers'. Sweet Admin give me relief. They are both technically correct and both convey the same thing--so, no, Wizkid, had I written "nay-sayers'" it would have meant the same thing, and Heft would have still been blind to what I was conveying. Edited February 11, 2009 by Schattenmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 This crap plagues, plagues, this medium. I'm talking to thousands of people right now, not just one. Doe severyone get that? IS that within everyone's grasp?No! There's always someone that pipes up with something like this--because they don't get it--and I can't see why. It's infuriating. Even now someone is looking at the third-person pronoun "they" and can't wrap their head around it. So small mistakes in grammar don't matter as long as we understand your meaning? I love it when arguments come full circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Sweet Admin give me relief. They are both technically correct and both convey the same thing--so, no, Wizkid, had I written "nay-sayers'" it would have meant the same thing, and Heft would have still been blind to what I was conveying. Which has nothing to do with the post you called him out on for his grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 This is the second and last time I am stepping into this threadn next time warnings and maybe a lock will happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 So small mistakes in grammar don't matter as long as we understand your meaning?I love it when arguments come full circle. There are mistakes in capitalization and spelling in the response you've quoted, neither of which affect the meaning, so I love it when people throw haymakers and miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 So Vox achieves a lengthy discussion on Tech deals and Grammer. C'mon people, give them more worth, show some respect, dont go down to Vox's level, you know they'll beat you by experience! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 I was kind of hoping for more. Thought you might be able to tell me more about my old alliance while I was in it as things are kept under tight lock and key there. Unfortunately this was just regular forum stuff as far as NPO goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) Goddamnit! Why does everyone on this planet lack any understanding of even the most basic linguisitic constructs?!Seriously, why? That I'm responding to you does not mean that I'm only talking about you. Sweet lord! Can you see the plural? DO YOU SEE IT? "nay-sayers's"? Now that I've pointed it out and you've read it once already do you see the plural? Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? Can you smell my intellectual superiority? It's like a rare and fine cheese and you are pre-formed, factory-made, individually wrapped cheese-like spread in comparison. Obviously nay-sayers is plural, which I took as being directed at me (since you did quote me and then addressed me directly within the same sentence, which was deliberately modeled after my post) responding to nay-sayers (as opposed to whoever I had responded to specifically), rather than you responding to nay-sayers. Obviously a clearer consensus on "nay-sayer" may have alleviated this breakdown in communication. As for the rest, I've no idea what you're trying to say, and I get the impression most of the other people don't fully grasp it either. Which leads to the conclusion that, since everyone here is (surprisingly enough) at least functionally literate, the error in communication is primarily on your end and not ours. Anyway I don't really remember what we were actually talking about so I'll just address the actual thread topic real quick. Not being in the NPO, I really don't care what happens inside of it, unless it's something that would directly endanger my alliance (which this obviously doesn't). Being already aware of the "mega-bloc" revealed here (since it was brought up to continuum leadership before I left, which kind of puts a hole in the opposition bloc theory) and aware of its original intentions and having seen the candidate alliances, I'm also aware that the OP is very much over-inflating things. Edited February 12, 2009 by Heft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 So Vox achieves a lengthy discussion on Tech deals and Grammer. C'mon people, give them more worth, show some respect, dont go down to Vox's level, you know they'll beat you by experience! Ironic, considering that by posting this, you're now like 15 levels below Vox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts