Malevolence STILL useless?! Really?!?

is there such a thing as a reverse-thesaurus? thread could use one

"Gifafi;c-2057423" wrote:
is there such a thing as a reverse-thesaurus? thread could use one

Sounds like a dinosaur that walks backwards

"Woodroward;c-2057261" wrote:
Pages and pages of someone arguing because they can't tell the difference between my argument and my supporting details.

If people wanted to question the details of what was said, then they should probably look up the details of what was said rather than look into if its true in game.

That little illogical assumption right there transcended assumption and jumped right into presumption and lead to pages of people arguing nonsense.

People need to be less confusing... and I'm not talking about me.

To put it another way. What I said wasn't confusing, but the counter arguments were very good misdirections that couldn't possibly be resolved due to being posed in a way that was so inaccurate as to be difficult to understand.

The only thing I could have been wrong about was whether or not they said that or whether or not non era characters should be in platoons. The latter was my assertion so could only be disproved by no non era characters being in platoons. The former was my paraphrasing of what they said and could only be disproved by quotes of the devs saying something different more or less.

So producing platoons as a counter argument could only logically disprove my main argument, not the supporting detail. It was a supporting detail about their mindset was perceived to be at the time platoons were still new things. Not what their mindset eventually ended up being. Present circumstances have nothing to do with Dev's former mindsets.

Sorry, what? I only read the first two paragraphs, couldn't be bothered with the rest... Didn't you say you were using logic, not a source? So what details would you expect people to look up when you claimed it as your own intelligence? Until you told us it wasn't yours at all and it was the devs being wrong after people provided the in-game research that still shows you were wrong initially.

Bit I got lazy after the 1st page

"thecarterologist958;c-2057475" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2057261" wrote:
Pages and pages of someone arguing because they can't tell the difference between my argument and my supporting details.

If people wanted to question the details of what was said, then they should probably look up the details of what was said rather than look into if its true in game.

That little illogical assumption right there transcended assumption and jumped right into presumption and lead to pages of people arguing nonsense.

People need to be less confusing... and I'm not talking about me.

To put it another way. What I said wasn't confusing, but the counter arguments were very good misdirections that couldn't possibly be resolved due to being posed in a way that was so inaccurate as to be difficult to understand.

The only thing I could have been wrong about was whether or not they said that or whether or not non era characters should be in platoons. The latter was my assertion so could only be disproved by no non era characters being in platoons. The former was my paraphrasing of what they said and could only be disproved by quotes of the devs saying something different more or less.

So producing platoons as a counter argument could only logically disprove my main argument, not the supporting detail. It was a supporting detail about their mindset was perceived to be at the time platoons were still new things. Not what their mindset eventually ended up being. Present circumstances have nothing to do with Dev's former mindsets.

Sorry, what? I only read the first two paragraphs, couldn't be bothered with the rest... Didn't you say you were using logic, not a source? So what details would you expect people to look up when you claimed it as your own intelligence? Until you told us it wasn't yours at all and it was the devs being wrong after people provided the in-game research that still shows you were wrong initially.

I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.

To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.

What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.

Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!

"Woodroward;c-2057484" wrote:


I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.

To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.

What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.

Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!

Actually, you said sources were useless after I had provided mine, and you agreed of your own accord on the source you then claimed was useless, which logically suggests you believed it until shown you were wrong, then you claimed you didn't say it so knew it was false, which logically suggests you were changing your stance to pretend you were in the right. Don't believe me, prove me wrong by checking the messages. I don't have to provide them as sources are

"Woodroward;c-2056626" wrote:

immaterial.

and if you want me to do it I should tell you to

"Woodroward;c-2056626" wrote:


shove sources somewhere dark

So if you want to say I'm wrong, check my facts. I guess I'm right until then?

"thecarterologist958;c-2057499" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2057484" wrote:


I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.

To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.

What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.

Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!

Actually, you said sources were useless after I had provided mine, and you agreed of your own accord on the source you then claimed was useless, which logically suggests you believed it until shown you were wrong, then you claimed you didn't say it so knew it was false, which logically suggests you were changing your stance to pretend you were in the right. Don't believe me, prove me wrong by checking the messages. I don't have to provide them as sources are

"Woodroward;c-2056626" wrote:

immaterial.

and if you want me to do it I should tell you to

"Woodroward;c-2056626" wrote:


shove sources somewhere dark

So if you want to say I'm wrong, check my facts. I guess I'm right until then?

Gotta be a least a sophomore

"thecarterologist958;c-2057499" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2057484" wrote:


I was using logic for one thing I stated. To back that up I used supporting details including a statement by the devs.

To say I was wrong about the statement by the devs one would need to find the statement by the devs. That's pretty cut and dry. I had initially said that I wasn't going to look up any of my sources for anybody.

What you and dude did was disproved what the devs said. Same as many people before you in many threads on this forum. Good job. Has nothing to do with any of my assertions and was therefore a misconceived rambling sham of a counterargument that really had nothing to do with me and also happened to be spreading misinformation based on said misconception due to it.

Logic must be backed up with facts. Questioning the facts means looking into the facts. Something that no one here did except @EventineElessedil . Good job dude!

Actually, you said sources were useless after I had provided mine, and you agreed of your own accord on the source you then claimed was useless, which logically suggests you believed it until shown you were wrong, then you claimed you didn't say it so knew it was false, which logically suggests you were changing your stance to pretend you were in the right. Don't believe me, prove me wrong by checking the messages. I don't have to provide them as sources are

"Woodroward;c-2056626" wrote:

immaterial.

and if you want me to do it I should tell you to

"Woodroward;c-2056626" wrote:


shove sources somewhere dark

So if you want to say I'm wrong, check my facts. I guess I'm right until then?

No, I said from the start that only my original argument was without a source, and later confirmed it to be so. I never once claimed that all of my supporting arguments were all also only logic. I flat out said in the very same paragraph the devs had said that.

That would be foolhardy as it would make everything I was saying based on nothing. Much like all the claims I was wrong in this thread.

Asking for a source is lazy. I'm not asking anyone for a source. But if you want to say you've proven me wrong about what a source said then you must produce the source or you're just flat out lying.

What you call me sidestepping is me correcting faux pas committed by you and other dude. I mean I tried to be polite by calling it a subtle nuance of the english language, but really there's nothing subtle about prefacing a statement with 'dev's said'. It's pretty obvious, but like I said, I WAS trying to be polite.

"Woodroward;c-2057505" wrote:


No, I said from the start that only my original argument was without a source, and later confirmed it to be so. I never once claimed that all of my supporting arguments were all also only logic. I flat out said in the very same paragraph the devs had said that.

That would be foolhardy as it would make everything I was saying based on nothing. Much like all the claims I was wrong in this thread.

Asking for a source is lazy. I'm not asking anyone for a source. But if you want to say you've proven me wrong about what a source said then you must produce the source or you're just flat out lying.

What you call me sidestepping is me correcting faux pas committed by you and other dude. I mean I tried to be polite by calling it a subtle nuance of the english language, but really there's nothing subtle about prefacing a statement with 'dev's said'. It's pretty obvious, but like I said, I WAS trying to be polite.

Ony the third paragraph has anything to do with what you quoted, the other three are opposing something that isn't there. With respect to that one, I'm asking you to prove what I said about you is wrong, you have done so without a source and conveniently are, just as you said, flat out lying. That does not mean that every counterargument to what you say without a source is a lie however, which is what you implied with your nuance.

"thecarterologist958;c-2057509" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2057505" wrote:


No, I said from the start that only my original argument was without a source, and later confirmed it to be so. I never once claimed that all of my supporting arguments were all also only logic. I flat out said in the very same paragraph the devs had said that.

That would be foolhardy as it would make everything I was saying based on nothing. Much like all the claims I was wrong in this thread.

Asking for a source is lazy. I'm not asking anyone for a source. But if you want to say you've proven me wrong about what a source said then you must produce the source or you're just flat out lying.

What you call me sidestepping is me correcting faux pas committed by you and other dude. I mean I tried to be polite by calling it a subtle nuance of the english language, but really there's nothing subtle about prefacing a statement with 'dev's said'. It's pretty obvious, but like I said, I WAS trying to be polite.

Ony the third paragraph has anything to do with what you quoted, the other three are opposing something that isn't there. With respect to that one, I'm asking you to prove what I said about you is wrong, you have done so without a source and conveniently are, just as you said, flat out lying. That does not mean that every counterargument to what you say without a source is a lie however, which is what you implied with your nuance.

Not at all. You're little shenanigans to realign meanings of words will not hold. I didn't say anything about your sources. You are the one who claimed I was wrong about what sources said without producing the source. Wordplay will not change that.

Produce what the devs said and show it doesn't back up what I said it said or your argument holds no water.