Where Have The Rost's Gone ?

[Wynand]

No. You simply don't get it, sorry

Maybe its you who doesn't get it and its ok no need to say sorry I let you off

Look, there is some extremely basic logic involved and I'm going to explain it to you very carefully as you seem to need that.

 

Let P be the set of all people going to pubs (or owning rostogols).

Let B be the set of all people drinking beer (or using rostogols).

Obviously the intersection of P and B is not empty (i.e. there are people who own and use rostogols.)

My point in that example was that under that assumption you can't take an arbitrary element "Ted" from P and say Ted is not in B as well.

 

 

maybe there aren't hoarders out there who don't intend to use there rost's but you cannot say that there aren't .

That's why I wanted and still want to know if there are any. Talking about the empty set is rather fruitless (can be funny too though).

 

Lol please dont misunderstand my sarcasm as me not knowing what you are on about, I 100% understood your point from post 1 and it is a valid point.. What I was trying to get across though was:

 

"My point in that example was that under that assumption you can't take an arbitrary element "Ted" from P and say Ted is not in B as well."

 

That is true and I have never denied that.. but any basic logic has to be viewed from both sides and hence you cannot assume that:

 

All because "Ted" is in group P (owns a rost) he is automatically in group B (uses a rost)

 

Which is what you seemed to be implying in your posts:

ie: A stand alone Group P doesnt exist because people havent admitted to only being in Group P

 

Group P & B 100% intersect but basic unflawed logic suggests that being in group P doesnt by default put you into group B and group P can be a stand alone group ( so in that regard I am right as well )

 

 

and yes the only way to be 100% sure that "there is any" is either:

They grow a set and admit to it

or

Ent with his stats posts a list of everyone who owns over 5 rosts and how many they own.. (and since people have nothing to hide no one should mind) <<< thats a joke btw

You obviously can't tell the difference between a question and a statement. This whole thing started off when I asked a question, let me repeat: a question and again ...... ... ... ... .....

 

dude.. just stfu.

 

I can also run around and use weird example's to make my points and thereby confuse people so that they do not really understand what I am saying, and when/if they do understand, pretend like thats not what i said and then make like I meant something else so that they still do not understand what i mean, and then act like i won an arguement.

 

This is a typical example of: 'If you cant beat them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit'

[peino]

 

I agree and in any statement I am only speaking for myself.. what other players sell there serp stones etc for is up to them , and if I do sell to players ( and im guilty of selling to bots for ease of use) then I never sell for more than I could sell to a bot for.. maybe like you say that is dumb but im not ingame to screw anyone over

It's not dumb. Just like anyone else who owns something, you can do anything you like with it. If you wanted to trade a serp for a fruit, you'd be within your rights, and there would be nothing dumb about it. In fact, in RL, there are times when a person wants to give something away or hand over control of something to somebody else, but for some reason just giving it is an issue, so they will literally sell it for 1 dollar. When I used to work for lawyers, I sometimes drew up papers for whole businesses, buildings, etc, to be sold for US$1.00. It could have been $5.00 or $100.00, if the parties agreed to that.

 

It almost never matters to anyone else because the value is not just based on the sale price. Even though someone just got it for $1.00, the company is still worth $30million. There are other things that make it worth $30mil. It's the difference between "value" and "price." The value of rostos probably should fall somewhere between 15-17kgc because of how rare they are versus how much people want them. If the balance between supply and demand changes, then the value will change, but if a few people give them away for free or very little, that is not going to change their value very much or for long.

 

So nobody can say you would be dumb for selling yours for less, if it's the price you want, but also nobody can say it's wrong for them to usually cost something close to what they are worth.

 

It all depends on what your goal is. If you really do not need the gc, or you really feel very strongly that you have a duty to keep these stones moving through the game, then when you get a stone, you may as well give it away -- to a guildie, to a stranger, as a contest prize, whatever. Or sell it for the first price that gets offered. Because when all is said and done, you're not really interested in playing the economy or getting money for yourself.

 

But let's say you do need the money. Then you would be hurting yourself to sell for less than the current market value. If you NEED money, you might get forced by a bad market to sell for less, but a person can't be blamed for holding out for the best price they can get.

 

Or let's say your goal is to be a sucessful trader. Then you should really care what the general market value is, and know when it goes up or down, and if you're ambitious enough, you might even try hoarding to control the price (and risk the wrath of Radu).

 

None of those approaches is wrong in and of itself. The only thing to keep in mind is that the stone in your storage belongs to you, and you can do what you like with it.

 

 

PS: Just thought of something -- Radu has to be the one to say if hoarding is a real problem or just a small annoyance right now, BUT if EL ever gets big enough where hoarders could make a serious difference, maybe it should possible to loot the storages of enemy guilds. Like, if guilds are at Total War, and if one side gets a certain number of kills over the other side, victory is declared, and the loser's storages are transferred to the winner. Maybe, if the losing guild has 20 members, a randomly picked 5 of them will have their storages transferred to the winning guild's GM. That might make hoarders think twice. (EDIT: Or it might turn hoarders into warlords. hehe.)

 

EDIT AGAIN: Nah, forget that. It might up the stakes on war, but it won't address the problem of stones being rare. Put that down as "just kidding."

Edited January 25, 2008 by peino

[conavar]

\o./ missed this post last night

 

 

 

Let's review:

* just because people have rostogols doesn't imply they are or aren't using them

* we don't know if there are hoarders or if there aren't but since

* nobody can tell other people what to do with their storages

* the whole discussion is pointless except for raising prices on bots it seems. Congratulations.

 

We also learned:

* a question is not a statement, thus we'll refrain from assigning boolean values to questions

* when one wants to discuss statement A, just saying statement B is true as well doesn't change anything about statement A.

* a question is not a statement. Questions are easily recognizable by question marks.

* reading properly is important.<< try it sometime

* a question is not a statement.

 

we don't know if there are hoarders or if there aren't

 

Really no shit sherlock!!! I never said there were hoarders. Read my first post... I asked a question ("a question is not a statement. Questions are easily recognizable by question marks" ) .Ent made the statement that there was !!!!

 

nobody can tell other people what to do with their storages

 

That is true . but I still stand by my view that it is better for the whole game if people sell items they dont use

 

the whole discussion is pointless except for raising prices on bots it seems. Congratulations

 

Thankyou .... but wait.. since this thread started the bot Thor is selling rost's cheaper than it was before so thats a wrong statement to make

 

when one wants to discuss statement A, just saying statement B is true as well doesn't change anything about statement A.

 

Unless statement B is the answer to question/statement A ( and I never said statement A was never true just that statement B is also true and has to be taken into account)

 

Question A: (your original question)

"The point of my reply was: do the people that you accuse of hoarding rostos without ever using them exist? Where are they? Why don't they post on this thread?"

( btw wether you like it or not that question does imply if they dont post they dont exist )

 

Statement B (my answer )

 

" Most people will not put there hands up and admit to it, its human nature"

 

(as in: its a bit hard to put yourself in someone elses mind and know why they dont post, so its a unanswerable question "why dont they post" *uses ESP* BUT the bit you havent been able to grasp and maybe next time I will use big letters and coloured crayons is that " all because they dont post doesnt mean they dont exist" which is ,wether you ment to or not is what you implied ( see question above) )

 

and then you lost the plot and started on about ted and beer etc where statement B was also the answer to statement/question A

 

 

 

 

This is a typical example of: 'If you cant beat them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit'

 

lmfao St.. so true . we can all keep moving the goal posts to win an arguement but when the only person you are baffling is yourself its a poor do

Edited January 25, 2008 by conavar

[Ermabwed]

dude.. just stfu.

and you won your last argument like this when?

I can also run around and use weird example's to make my points and thereby confuse people so that they do not really understand what I am saying, and when/if they do understand, pretend like thats not what i said and then make like I meant something else so that they still do not understand what i mean, and then act like i won an arguement.

Sorry if it was over your horizon. I'll explain again:

I had asked the question whether there are players that own rostogols with the intent of not using them.

I had asked that question because that (possible) group of players was being targeted in conavar's posts and wanted to raise awareness for the fact that these players might not exist.

My question was then taken as a statement (i.e. taken as "there are no players that own but never use rostogols").

I think anybody would complain about this.

 

I then used an example to illustrate the fact that you can't use Entropy's quote saying players hoard rostogols to validate the existence of the said group of players.

This example was then used by conavar to generate another statement that is the quote doesn't disprove the existence either. He went on to say we were agreeing on this point and we were going in circles (see reply to conavar's post for that).

Since we weren't agreeing but just posting different statements and we weren't going in circles, I disagreed with us agreeing.

And I pointed out that the question that had led to the discussion hadn't been a statement and that I wasn't agreeing with my question being used as a statement (see above).

I then tried to get the discussion of this point back on track. Again, sorry that this was too much for you.

 

I took the freedom of removing some of the flame crap, I'm sure that's ok with you, conavar.

we don't know if there are hoarders or if there aren't

Ent made the statement that there was !!!!

Yes, taken out of the context this could look like what you'd like it to be, however as we've been working towards whether there are "I use my rostogols hoarders" and "I don't use my rostogols hoarders". Ent's statement is neutral on the existence of the latter group. The only options to see if this group exists are and I think you pointed that out earlier: Ent runs a check on everybody's storage to see if there are a certain number of players (say at least 20?) with say more than 5 rostogols and no single items or sets worth more than 20k or some of those players post here. Both options are unlikely to happen. So the underlined part of the quote is still true in the context of hoarders being the ones that don't use their rostogols.

 

nobody can tell other people what to do with their storages

 

That is true . but I still stand by my view that it is better for the whole game if people sell items they dont use

Well, while selling EFEs one doesn't use or doesn't plan to use would be desirable because we know that the EFE rate has been adjusted in the past to control the total number of EFE in game and thus selling EFEs to somebody who is going to take them out of the game by using them is in the long run going to increase your chance of getting another EFE, I don't think the same is necessarily true for rostogols as we don't know whether a similar approach is taken to control the number of rostogols. However if it's not the case, which is what I believe without Entropy giving more information on this, then if some people are selling or not selling rostogols is basically irrelevant as I think was pointed out above somewhere. Ent said half of the rostogols used per day are found per day, the rest has to be bought from the shop. If some players decide to keep the ones they found then more will have to be bought that day (which is good for the game as well). While we could speculate about some future day when the thus hoarded rostogols are used (and possibly reducing the amount of rostogols bought in shop) Entropy can then temporarily increase the amount of rostogols used by way of invasions or contests or other game mechanisms thus as long as people buy them from the shop keeping the amount of rostogols bought from the shop at a level he desires.

 

Lots of bots have now, but prices are higher after you started posting here.

the whole discussion is pointless except for raising prices on bots it seems. Congratulations

 

Thankyou .... but wait.. since this thread started the bot Thor is selling rost's cheaper than it was before so thats a wrong statement to make

Well, I relied on the quote above, I hardly deal with bots but if the price didn't increase I'd say that's good for you and other players in need of rostogols

 

when one wants to discuss statement A, just saying statement B is true as well doesn't change anything about statement A.

 

Unless statement B is the answer to question/statement A ( and I never said statement A was never true just that statement B is also true and has to be taken into account)

Well, "statement B" wasn't the answer to "statement A", hence my point stands. And just because there are other true statements that can be made in any given context doesn't make it necessary to include the discussion of those other statements in the discussion of the statement at hand. Example "1 is a natural number", does anybody want to discuss all similar statements on 2,3,... or maybe just the ones on odd numbers?

However, in this particular case you could have said "Yes, I can't claim they exist but you can't claim they don't exist either" which would have reduced the problem to you taking my question as a statement.

Question A: (your original question)

"The point of my reply was: do the people that you accuse of hoarding rostos without ever using them exist? Where are they? Why don't they post on this thread?"

( btw wether you like it or not that question does imply if they dont post they dont exist )

No, the question was "do they exist?" We have been discussing their existence and not the means by which we'd get to know of it. The other questions in the rest of the quote are a stylistic device, however if they existed, posting would surely qualify as a proof of their existence. Had I asked "Why don't they run around naked outside of my window?" I doubt anybody would have thought I was implying they would be if they existed.

Statement B

"Most people will not put there hands up and admit to it, its human nature"

" all because they dont post doesnt mean they dont exist" [/b] which is ,wether you ment to or not is what you implied ( see question above)

where statement B was also the answer to statement/question A

No, as pointed out above. And please while you correctly quote my question, the statement I made was a different one:

Question was: do they exist?

Statement was: Just because there are players hoarding rostogols doesn't mean some of those players aren't using rostogols.

And your "statement B" was: If there are players hoarding rostogols we can't assume that they all use them.

Together this makes: we don't know if there are players that hoard rostogols without using them.

 

If you want to say you had been discussing that the possibly imaginary players haven't posted then I wonder on what you agreed with me earlier.

[Vanyel]

You, guys, can't take it easy, can you? What's the sense in arguing about it? Keep playing in a way you have fun and, for gods' (sic!) sake, let others play according to their sense of having fun.

[conavar]

 

I took the freedom of removing some of the flame crap, I'm sure that's ok with you, conavar.

 

Question A: (your original question)

"The point of my reply was: do the people that you accuse of hoarding rostos without ever using them exist? Where are they? Why don't they post on this thread?"

( btw wether you like it or not that question does imply if they dont post they dont exist )

And your "statement B" was: If there are players hoarding rostogols we can't assume that they all use them.

Together this makes: we don't know if there are players that hoard rostogols without using them.

 

If you want to say you had been discussing that the possibly imaginary players haven't posted then I wonder on what you agreed with me earlier.

 

I took the freedom of removing some of the flame crap, I'm sure that's ok with you, conavar

 

Lol I dont flame, to me flaming is making comments such as " omgz f*%& you n00b, you B£%****D " but I dont do that and you will not find any comments like that from me in any posts.I prefer to be me subtle: give a fool enough rope and he will hang himself

 

i]The point of my reply was: do the people that you accuse of hoarding rostos without ever using them exist? Where are they? Why don't they post on this thread"

 

If you read back my post you will find I have agreed that there is no way to prove wether players hoard rost's with no intent to use them, it would be stupid to say " yes they 100% exist" and if you go back to my original post that started this convo ( which you so kindly corrected the spelling) . I said " proberbly" "not they do " and the only thing I disagreed on was that : Wether you Intended to or not the wording of the question Implies : silence = non existence( which is wrong)

And saying after the fact " ooooh I didnt mean that " the rest of the questions are a stylistic device, is a cop out...

 

But I think for the rest of EL's and Kheres sanity (and my forum account) I will leave anything else left unsaid

Edited January 26, 2008 by conavar

[Peach]

dude, i dunno why u all say : omg rostos are rare i only find for 18k

last 2 days , i saw many rostos sold for 16k, myself, i bought couple of rostos for 15k and finally, many bots sell for less then 17.5k Oo' dont spend ur time on forums whining about something that isn't true... just go play EL =)

[popeye]

do the people that you accuse of hoarding rostos without ever using them exist? Where are they? Why don't they post on this thread"

Maybe they don't care? I have 3 in storage and plan on buying more. It's my right, my money and my perogative. This is a GAME. If you can't have fun, GO FIND ANOTHER ONE. All the dang whining is ridiculous.

[neildog]

selling 5 rosts for 80k. I'll be back in game in 24 hours so pm me then

[Ermabwed]

Wether you Intended to or not the wording of the question Implies : silence = non existence( which is wrong)

No. I gave an example of why that is wrong, you chose to either not read it or ignore it. I'll explain:

You say "If they exist, why don't they post?" implies if they existed they would post. Again, this is just another example of you confusing a question with a statement, now for more examples of the same structure and I'll hope you see that in fact neither the question above nor the ones below imply anything.

 

* If Entropy is the creator of Eternal Lands, why don't we all get 40 rostogols in storage?

* If the earth orbits the sun, why don't all birds sing "rule Britannia"?

* If monkeys eat bananas, why don't they built statues from the peels?

* If the questions above don't imply anything, why does mine?

* If my question gets the miracle exception, why don't you donate 1000 USD to Entropy?

[conavar]

Wether you Intended to or not the wording of the question Implies : silence = non existence( which is wrong)

No. I gave an example of why that is wrong, you chose to either not read it or ignore it. I'll explain:

You say "If they exist, why don't they post?" implies if they existed they would post. Again, this is just another example of you confusing a question with a statement, now for more examples of the same structure and I'll hope you see that in fact neither the question above nor the ones below imply anything.

 

* If Entropy is the creator of Eternal Lands, why don't we all get 40 rostogols in storage?

* If the earth orbits the sun, why don't all birds sing "rule Britannia"?

* If monkeys eat bananas, why don't they built statues from the peels?

* If the questions above don't imply anything, why does mine?

* If my question gets the miracle exception, why don't you donate 1000 USD to Entropy?

 

 

See previous post about fools and rope , hope your neck is better soon

 

but you win .. you have bored me into submission (even though I had already said I would stop posting for EL's sanity )

Edited January 28, 2008 by conavar

[Ermabwed]

but you win .. you have bored me into submission

"Really no shit sherlock!!!" After all of your "being anal" about the question implying something you're "not man enough to admit" that you ran out of "flawed" and "weird" logic after you had it pointed out in "big letters and coloured crayons" (which I borrowed from you).

[Khalai]

Don't you want to take this into PM gentlemen? Boring spam with nothing to the topic

Edited January 28, 2008 by Khalai

[conavar]

Wether you Intended to or not the wording of the question Implies : silence = non existence( which is wrong)

No. I gave an example of why that is wrong, you chose to either not read it or ignore it. I'll explain:

You say "If they exist, why don't they post?" implies if they existed they would post. Again, this is just another example of you confusing a question with a statement, now for more examples of the same structure and I'll hope you see that in fact neither the question above nor the ones below imply anything.

 

* (A)If Entropy is the creator of Eternal Lands, ( B ) why don't we all get 40 rostogols in storage?

* (A)If the earth orbits the sun, ( B )why don't all birds sing "rule Britannia"?

* (A)If monkeys eat bananas, ( B )why don't they built statues from the peels?

* If the questions above don't imply anything, why does mine?

* If my question gets the miracle exception, why don't you donate 1000 USD to Entropy?

 

*ok gives him a bit more rope*

 

If the questions above don't imply anything, why does mine ?

 

Erm Because they are differant styles of questions and not the same... In the one's above point (A) is a known fact hence making point ( B ) a mute point and you are right they imply nothing ( apart from " drugs are bad for you")

 

But in your question (which makes it not the same ):

 

(A)do the people that you accuse of hoarding rostos without ever using them exist ?( B ) Where are they? Why don't they post on this thread

 

Point A is an unknown thus making point B an implication:

 

Now let me Reverse your question :

 

If I was to say: " Do the people you say dont hoard rost's even exist ? Where are they ? , Why dont they post ? "

 

Implies that if they dont post then I dont believe they exist (mute question since they have posted but an example)

 

Definition

 

imply verb [T]

1 to communicate an idea or feeling without saying it directly:

 

 

 

 

but you win .. you have bored me into submission

"Really no shit sherlock!!!" After all of your "being anal" about the question implying something you're "not man enough to admit" that you ran out of "flawed" and "weird" logic after you had it pointed out in "big letters and coloured crayons" (which I borrowed from you).

 

lmao Well they do say " Imitation is the best form of flattery " so I fankoo I feel honoured

 

BTW: I didnt really mean you had won *watches his ego deflate* I was being sarcastic and taking the piss ( English slang for making fun of ) which if you were as clever as you like to think you are, you would have realised thats what Ive basically been doing for the last 7+ posts ( see once again fools and rope).

 

But no I havent run out of "weird and flawed " logic, it is honestly getting boring now, so unless someone is kind enough to bring the thread back to the world of the living and intelligence, I will refrain from posting.

 

And I have ran out of rope

Edited January 28, 2008 by conavar

[Vanyel]

T'is getting ridiculous >.<

[conavar]

T'is getting ridiculous >.<

 

Very true

 

and has been ridiculous for a time now and that includes my own posts , Im English so being sarcastic is in my genes and for that and peoples sanity I apologize

 

So unless someone brings the topic back on track plz feel free to lock it, I got the answers I was after , I might not like the answers but at least people were honest and I cant argue with that

[Michic0_oL]

we must convince xanter to come back play so alot of rostos will enter game, but maybe more will disapear

 

 

ftw xanter come back!

 

Nah he like conquer to much, I tried convince him come back for PK server.

 

No luck

 

I saw him online yesterday

 

 

btw, make make smth like : take out 10 rostos and get 1 free (i mean if u make ppl lose rostos, the 10ths rosto lost by ur fault u get one free ? )

[Tempest]

ok, so after 5 pages of NONSENSE arguing and much shit posted we still have the same problem.

 

there are LOTS of rostos ingame, i know many bots selling them and i also know many players selling them. the rostos dont get used cause 95% of the people who complain about dead pk NEVER PK.

 

my personal oppinion: stop crying, shut up, get your ass into kf and dont whine about empty pks/no rostos. there are enough rostos, there actually IS some PK atm.

 

If every person who cries about dead PK would go into PK 1 hour a day PK would be crowded again.

[Ermabwed]

Wether you Intended to or not the wording of the question Implies : silence = non existence( which is wrong)

No. I gave an example of why that is wrong, you chose to either not read it or ignore it. I'll explain:

You say "If they exist, why don't they post?" implies if they existed they would post. Again, this is just another example of you confusing a question with a statement, now for more examples of the same structure and I'll hope you see that in fact neither the question above nor the ones below imply anything.

 

* (A)If Entropy is the creator of Eternal Lands, ( B ) why don't we all get 40 rostogols in storage?

* (A)If the earth orbits the sun, ( B )why don't all birds sing "rule Britannia"?

* (A)If monkeys eat bananas, ( B )why don't they built statues from the peels?

* If the questions above don't imply anything, why does mine?

* If my question gets the miracle exception, why don't you donate 1000 USD to Entropy?

 

*ok gives him a bit more rope*

 

If the questions above don't imply anything, why does mine ?

 

Erm Because they are differant styles of questions and not the same... In the one's above point (A) is a known fact hence making point ( B ) a mute point and you are right they imply nothing ( apart from " drugs are bad for you")

They are not different "styles" of questions, they all follow the same logic structure:

if A why B?

 

Thus they all have to be translated into the same form of logical statement. You can't translate a statement based on the values of the logical atoms involved.

 

You want to translate my question (A="they exist", B="they don't post") into

From B it follows that not A.

 

But the same structure with A="Entropy is the creator of EL", B="he doesn't gives us 40 rostos each" is to be translated into what?

To the correct form? I.e. From not B it follows A? Which is not the same as above because:

 

Implication: B implies A if from B it follows that A.

That means if B is true then A is true as well. An implication is wrong if and only if B is true and A is false.

 

Thus with your wrong translation Entropy would not be the creator of EL if and only if he doesn't fill our storages with rostogols.

 

But in your question (which makes it not the same ):

 

(A)do the people that you accuse of hoarding rostos without ever using them exist ?( B ) Where are they? Why don't they post on this thread

 

Point A is an unknown thus making point B an implication.

The structure is the same thus the underlying logical form has to be the same. I posted examples for your imagined implication but you chose to translate them into a different statement despite the fact that they had the same structure. I'll post another example where A is unknown and B is not an implication of A but "not B" implies A:

If A, why B:

If the (outside) street is wet, why doesn't it rain?

 

Now regardless of what street we're talking about there are a couple of reasons for a street to be wet, including a milk truck crashed or some people used their sprinklers extensively or it rained or it is still raining, one thing is true: if it would rain where ever that street was (i.e. "not B" is true), then the street would be wet. Thus: from not B it follows that A.

 

Your "approach" of looking at what you know of the logical values of the statements involved would yield:

You don't know if the street is wet, thus if it was wet it would rain.

And if you knew the street was wet you'd say that "it doesn't rain" is a moot point.

Both of those statements are wrong in general, see the milk truck.

 

Definition

 

imply verb [T]

1 to communicate an idea or feeling without saying it directly:

You've been making a fool of yourself and now want to get fuzzy to get out of it.

 

Defintion:

1 obsolete : enfold entwine

2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>

3: to contain potentially

4: to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>

 

using 2: they post has their existence as a necessary consequence.

using 3: their existence "contains potentially" that they post, however if they post then they exist is the real implication.

using 4: the fact that they post expresses their existence indirectly (under certain circumstances this could be taken to be rather directly as well),

However 3 and 4 are rather colloquial, imprecise and unfit for logical treatment, in short: fuzzy.

 

BTW: I didnt really mean you had won *watches his ego deflate* I was being sarcastic and taking the piss ( English slang for making fun of ) which if you were as clever as you like to think you are, you would have realised thats what Ive basically been doing for the last 7+ posts ( see once again fools and rope).

I didn't take it as a "victory", I have to disappoint you about the effects on my ego and as I pointed out, you have been making a fool out of yourself on this point of simple logic for "the last 7+" posts now.

But no I havent run out of "weird and flawed " logic, it is honestly getting boring now, so unless someone is kind enough to bring the thread back to the world of the living and intelligence, I will refrain from posting.

I've been trying to, but sadly, all you want is to be "right" regardless of the illogical brain farts you post.

However, here's another chance for you to learn a bit about logic.

 

And I as well apologize for the poor logic of conavar. Sorry, gals and guys

[Desertus]

are you guys ever going to stop this crap?

[Walt-Her]

 

And I as well apologize for the poor logic of conavar. Sorry, gals and guys

 

 

I think this is misplaced.

 

 

It should be in QotW

[conavar]

 

 

Definition

 

imply verb [T]

1 to communicate an idea or feeling without saying it directly:

You've been making a fool of yourself and now want to get fuzzy to get out of it.

 

 

So now quoting the PROPER meaning of a word is getting fuzzy ????

 

Fuzzy

Definition:

 

[adjective] confused and not coherent; not clearly thought out

 

or is quoting the definition of fuzzy getting fuzzy !!! \o/ I want what your smoking.... lol muppet

 

 

are you guys ever going to stop this crap?

 

I know Desertus, I said sorry in my previous post for being sarcastic and making fun of people ( and then they come back with the schoolyard " You say you making me look a fool..well ermm well erm Im doing the same ". then they took there ball and went home ) but they just cant leave it alone .

Its like a baby that has thrown its toys out of its pram and wont stop crying till it gets them back .

 

 

@ Walt_Her

 

Lol post it if you like ( Ive got a big (ok not that big dont want to brag ) set (unlike others) and can take it)

 

@ Molime (below) I tried ( see my answer to Desertus)

 

 

 

edit: reply to walt_her

Edited January 28, 2008 by conavar

[molime]

Ok enough of this now, it's been quite a few pages ago that I could even force myself to try to read it, but from just glancing I can see that it's got nothing to do with the topic anymore. Any more of this and I'll have to start cleaning and being nasty and I don't like that so: stop. Please?

[robotbob]

Ok enough of this now

And hopefully forever, this isn't a debate its Logical Fallacy Ping-Pong.

Lets see...

Argumentum ad logicam

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Straw man

 

Oh and yes, Argumentum ad hominem

 

Now back to the original question, offered during a brief rostogol shortage.

 

"Where Have The Rost's Gone ?"

[conavar]

Ok enough of this now

And hopefully forever, this isn't a debate its Logical Fallacy Ping-Pong.

Lets see...

Argumentum ad logicam

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Straw man

 

Oh and yes, Argumentum ad hominem

 

Now back to the original question, offered during a brief rostogol shortage.

 

"Where Have The Rost's Gone ?"

 

Well the market seems to be working itself out, and plenty of bots have them now and "some" are cheaper than before ( you can all thank me later lol j/k btw)

Be nice to know from a purely nosey point of view if this is because ppl are selling them or more have been bought from the shop .

 

I would say Temps post got me thinking that maybe rost's should only work on pk maps ....... but I dont think Molime would like all the thread croping from teh flames

Edited January 28, 2008 by conavar