"Woodroward;c-1895748" wrote:
You may be the one who originated this thread, but you are the troll here. I didn't respond to you. That post was not directed toward you and I'll thank you to erase this post I quoted and not look at what I post again because i have made it abundantly clear that whatever I am discussing has nothing to do with you.
These are my words you're quoting. Having a different idea of what they mean doesn't mean "you have a differing opinion", it means you're wrong because they're my words and I told you what they mean. Accept the truth or get off my back because you're just plain wrong simply by responding to me at this point.
I have never been proven wrong in this thread because the meaning of my words and my viewpoint have the same origin. To insist upon meanings from other points of views is pointless misdirection, or to put it another way, not just wrong, but INTENTIONALLY wrong.
So go ahead and argue some more thereby cementing your status as an egotist or a troll, but leave me out of it.
Get over yourself.
Once again, I refute his arguments, and he deflects with generalities, possibly because he is unable to respond to the substance of my contentions.
His main points were totally proven wrong, and it's not for lack of understanding his meaning. His main claim is that not having Grievous makes it unlikely that you can succesfully complete the Padme event (7 stars). He claimed that you need perfect (or near-perfect) RNG to do so successfully (million attempts, etc.). I showed that that was patently false in my previous post - a cursory search found at least 8 separate individuals who were able to 7* Padme the last time around without Grievous in relatively short order, which would be ludicrously improbable if the RNG situation were as dire as he claimed.
It doesn't matter who he's addressing it to (though he addressed that point directly to me many times). It doesn't matter if he tries to cloud the issue with semantics about who said first or not understanding his meaning. That was his main point. It is wrong, it was shown to be wrong, yet he continues to insist that everything he said was completely correct.
He made many other points that were shown to be false as well, but I won't make this post overly long by revisiting them; maybe I will if he continues to defend himself.
It's unclear what he means by having a differing opinion about what he wrote. I agree that one cannot have an opinion on a poster's intended meaning and never disputed that. There were one or two things that I misinterpreted him on and I admitted fault. But I didn't misinterpret everything he said, and he acts like those couple of misunderstandings mean that I misterpreted everything he ever wrote. Also, he did the same thing he accused me of and misinterpreted many of the things I wrote - but unlike me, he never owned those errors. If he's referring to my comment about some of his arguments being opinions - he completely misunderstood that. What I was saying that many of the things he said, no matter the position and no matter the interpretation are opinions and not facts, not that I had an opinion on what he said.
It doesn't matter if a post is directed toward someone or not. Posts don't exist in a vacuum. They reflect the poster's meaning, intent, values, etc. no matter who he directs it to and anyone is free to respond to those or use them to support an argument. One doesn't magically morph into a different person everytime one talks to someone else.
This is a thread meant to help me with my specific case. Woodroward is the one who gave some fair advice at first, but after a certain point, gave bad advice and his comments gradually started morphing into trolling in defense of said bad advice. It has been made clear a while ago that some of his advice is bad and undesired yet he continues to post here. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. Projecting much? He needs to take his own advice.
