Kalabac Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Two options, pick the one you more closely agree with. Edited December 30, 2009 by Kalabac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Yes, because it's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Razzia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 No, absolutely not, but that's not the issue anymore because they decided to attack anyway. Thanks for keepin' it simple. I like that. Quick and efficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) And this is a perfectly unbiased poll. Edited December 30, 2009 by Fantastico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalabac Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 And this is a perfectly unbiased poll. You are correct. I put "perfectly" so the two groups of voters would be people supporting this war fully, thinking the casus belli is just, and People with some misgivings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Most people I've been arguing with have already agreed it was valid, just that there should have been some diplomacy before-hand in order to allow them to build up and hit peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 You are correct. I put "perfectly" so the two groups of voters would bepeople supporting this war fully, thinking the casus belli is just, and People with some misgivings Sounds like you are missing a third option in your poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalabac Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Sounds like you are missing a third option in your poll. Nope. Fence sitters = people who see at least something wrong with the casus belli. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Most people I've been arguing with have already agreed it was valid, just that there should have been some diplomacy before-hand in order to allow them to build up and hit peace mode. You're missing the point. Diplomacy probably would have yielded better results than war. However, don't reply to this post in this thread. I'll post this argument in the other thread. Edited December 30, 2009 by kulomascovia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Razzia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Nope. Fence sitters = people who see at least something wrong with the casus belli. I am Lord Razzia and I approve of this message. You're missing the point. Diplomacy probably would have yielded better results than *an attempted curbstomp*. fixed. Edited December 30, 2009 by Lord Razzia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Nope. Fence sitters = people who see at least something wrong with the casus belli. I doubt most who vote "no" are fence sitters, just as I doubt that most who vote "yes" think this is a perfect war. In other words, this is a terribly phrased poll, and will not tell you what you claim you want it to tell you. Unless you are counting in these comments. Edited December 30, 2009 by Fantastico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 By the way, I think this poll simplifies a complex issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 By the way, I think this poll simplifies a complex issue. I think that was the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalabac Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) I doubt most who vote "no" are fence sitters, just as I doubt that most who vote "yes" think this is a perfect war. In other words, this is a terribly phrased poll, and will not tell you what you claim you want it to tell you. Unless you are counting in these comments. If there are some misgivings about it it means they think something is wrong, ergo not a just war. I am asking because I want to gauge how TPF's allies can opt out of their mandatory pacts even when the attacker's CB is generally considered dubious. Edited December 30, 2009 by Kalabac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Philip Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Nope. Fence sitters = people who see at least something wrong with the casus belli. Doublespeak developing there. Fence sitter suggests a neutral (or null) or undecided vote, and you're redfining a vote for neither(fence sitting) as a "No", and then redifining a well known term as a negative, when it's not. A third option for those who haven't made their mind up, or perhaps those who don't care is the only way you can try to define those voters. Dichotomies are too simplistic, unless your aim is to remove all meaning from communication. cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I agree with Señor Fantastico. I do not believe we will know complete details from either side, as they will want to keep some things secret. I will say that had TPF avoided the appearance of wrongdoing in the first place, this war would not have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I think that was the idea. Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Oversimplifying an issue can lead to misunderstandings. So, this poll was not a very good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 If there are some misgivings about it it means they think something is wrong, ergo not a just war. I don't see how you can draw that conclusion with this language. As worded, especially with your stated intentions, this is a push poll, which can mean anything any of us wants it to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Razzia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Doublespeak developing there. Fence sitter suggests a neutral (or null) or undecided vote, and you're redfining a vote for neither(fence sitting) as a "No", and then redifining a well known term as a negative, when it's not. A third option for those who haven't made their mind up, or perhaps those who don't care is the only way you can try to define those voters. Dichotomies are too simplistic, unless your aim is to remove all meaning from communication. cheers, I'm sure the fence sitters know that they still have their own opinion and can decide "yes", "no" or "null". It doesn't matter how you define them. In other words, I have yet to see something wrong with this poll. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalabac Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Doublespeak developing there. Fence sitter suggests a neutral (or null) or undecided vote, and you're redfining a vote for neither(fence sitting) as a "No", and then redifining a well known term as a negative, when it's not. A third option for those who haven't made their mind up, or perhaps those who don't care is the only way you can try to define those voters. Dichotomies are too simplistic, unless your aim is to remove all meaning from communication. cheers, there is a null vote option, it's called not voting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoe Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Funny how a topic goes from a simple poll of yes or no about a issue into an debate about if the topic was needed, wanted, done right, or wrong, if there was enough questions and blah blah blah blah... Oh and I voted yes, TPF done wrong... End of story... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I am Lord Razzia and I approve of this message. fixed. it would not be a curbstomp if TPF's allies entered already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Razzia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Thank you kalabac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Razzia Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) it would not be a curbstomp if TPF's allies entered already. You left out 1 really important word, "attempted" This means I took the pressure off of TPF's allies and put it on mainly Athens. Edited December 30, 2009 by Lord Razzia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 You left out 1 really important word, "attempted"This means I took the pressure off of TPF's allies and put it on mainly Athens. where would "attempted" fit into what i said? did you quote the right post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.