Malevolence STILL useless?! Really?!?

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2057356" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2057347" wrote:
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....

One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.

He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.

"Nihion;c-2057513" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2057356" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2057347" wrote:
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....

One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.

He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.

I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.

I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.

But I am right most of the time.

"Woodroward;c-2057515" wrote:

"Nihion;c-2057513" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2057356" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2057347" wrote:
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....

One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.

He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.

I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.

Alright, sure. You probably have more experience with yourself than I do.

"Woodroward;c-2057277" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2057267" wrote:

"littleMAC77;c-2056664" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2056651" wrote:

"littleMAC77;c-2056641" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2056584" wrote:


logic. To deny the post, produce counter logic.

They claimed it was intended to use your entire roster. They gave bonuses to era specific teams and said they would never be required in platoons when they were required in battle.

Ergo Platoons are for everything BUT the era specific teams

https://tenor.com/view/kletter-gif-4614012.gif

Let's see I see clones and resistance and ewoks. None of which were around Hoth. Thank you for proving me non-contradictory! Thank you very much!

I don't know why you keep pointing out to me that they lied. Doesn't change what I said into a lie.

How do you require a non era character and keep the content somewhat authentic? By including them in scenarios where they don't do anything, like platoons.

See, there you go. If you would have just responded intially with "I quoted outdated info by CG and that platoons do in fact utilize factions required in combat missions like the rebels in Hoth Tb" there would have been no argument.

i was never arguing the intent of platoons, just that you are spreading misinformation about their requirements.

"littleMAC77;c-2056664" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2056651" wrote:

"littleMAC77;c-2056641" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2056584" wrote:


logic. To deny the post, produce counter logic.

They claimed it was intended to use your entire roster. They gave bonuses to era specific teams and said they would never be required in platoons when they were required in battle.

Ergo Platoons are for everything BUT the era specific teams

https://tenor.com/view/kletter-gif-4614012.gif

Let's see I see clones and resistance and ewoks. None of which were around Hoth. Thank you for proving me non-contradictory! Thank you very much!

I don't know why you keep pointing out to me that they lied. Doesn't change what I said into a lie.

How do you require a non era character and keep the content somewhat authentic? By including them in scenarios where they don't do anything, like platoons.

See, there you go. If you would have just responded intially with "I quoted outdated info by CG and that platoons do in fact utilize factions required in combat missions like the rebels in Hoth Tb" there would have been no argument.

i was never arguing the intent of platoons, just that you are spreading misinformation about their requirements.

I see this is your first interaction with woodmisinformationroward? It's his middle name.

My posts are, fortunately, much clearer than some other people's and don't take on the misleading semblance of logical fact while containing nothing of the sort.

Though I may seem verbose occasionally, my posts are almost always jam packed with subtle nuances of the english language allowing me to speak far more succinctly than the amount of information I am conveying. I am avoiding wasting time repeating myself or clarifying by doing so to begin with.

This complex succinct brevity often leads people to mistakenly understand my posts as no one likes to actually read whole posts, and you can't understand me if you skim read me.

I remember my first word-of-the-day calendar...

"Woodroward;c-2057515" wrote:

"Nihion;c-2057513" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2057356" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2057347" wrote:
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....

One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.

He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.

I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.

I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.

But I am right most of the time.

Yeah you're right, you just communicate it too good.

"CCyrilS;c-2057520" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2057515" wrote:

"Nihion;c-2057513" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2057356" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2057347" wrote:
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....

One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.

He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.

I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.

I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.

But I am right most of the time.

Yeah you're right, you just communicate it too good.

Words have many many meanings and it varies not only by context but by where you're from. To argue against someone without bothering to take a few moments of contemplation on what was said is not a failure in the communication skills of the one who made the initial statement.

In this case, I guess I was out of line in thinking that people could understand what 'they said' meant if the failure was to fall on my communication skills.

Like this is what I feel like when I get into arguments on these forums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

People not grasping what you are saying doesn't mean you aren't communicating well.

"Woodroward;c-2057522" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2057520" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2057515" wrote:

"Nihion;c-2057513" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2057356" wrote:

"CCyrilS;c-2057347" wrote:
He communicates so well nobody can understand him....

One thing you'll always notice about any woodromisinformationward post is the complete lack of "likes" underneath them. Dude has 4K posts on this forum and 500 likes. He will argue with a brick wall and the brick wall will win the "like" war by not even posting.

He doesn’t have likes because he’s often wrong... sorry...
And no, likes don’t mean much. But the brick wall is both sides, and most of us have given up on long logical arguments. Short, please go away points sit well with forumers tired of mindless complaints.

I don't have a lot of likes because of my attitude, not because of how often I'm right. I'm fine with that but I know what it is.

I don't have patience for quick slams and people arguing without understanding what they're arguing against. So I get a bit preachy and people get annoyed.

But I am right most of the time.

Yeah you're right, you just communicate it too good.

Words have many many meanings and it varies not only by context but by where you're from. To argue against someone without bothering to take a few moments of contemplation on what was said is not a failure in the communication skills of the one who made the initial statement.

In this case, I guess I was out of line in thinking that people could understand what 'they said' meant if the failure was to fall on my communication skills.

Apology accepted

"Woodroward;c-2057512" wrote:


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.

I never said you said something you said the devs said that they didn't say, and a few messages ago I quoted something you said about my sources, so I don't know why you'd say you didn't say something you surely know you said, provided you didn't skim read it. With that in mind, I did say you agreed with a source and then claimed it wasn't your words when people pointed out they were false. Just because someone else said it too doesn't mean you weren't wrong. Produce what you said and show it shows you didn't agree with what the devs said when they were wrong.

"thecarterologist958;c-2057532" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2057512" wrote:


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.

I never said you said something you said the devs said that they didn't say, and a few messages ago I quoted something you said about my sources, so I don't know why you'd say you didn't say something you surely know you said, provided you didn't skim read it. With that in mind, I did say you agreed with a source and then claimed it wasn't your words when people pointed out they were false. Just because someone else said it too doesn't mean you weren't wrong. Produce what you said and show it shows you didn't agree with what the devs said when they were wrong.

Cutting fanciful little word fragments out of what I said to suit your purposes is not producing sources. You have never produced a source against me, yet you did try to accuse me of contradicting myself by producing sources against what the devs said rather than against any claim that I personally made.

Again. Your shenanigans with wordplay will not hold. Produce the devs quote from when they talked about platoons and being needed in battles at the same time or all you're doing is lying about things I've said. Lying about what I said is actually slander and could get you in trouble.

I was wrong. I will correct myself. It is actually libel to write a lie about someone, slander is to speak it.