Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [33]:: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:14:00 -
[961]
Originally by: NightmareX Talking with your own alts is the the new cool amrite ?
You've never been right, so no. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:14:00 -
[962]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: NightmareX No they aren't.
Of course they are ù they're ways of making money in highsec. One of them being illegal is just a different way of creating risk from how the other activities do it, and which calls for different countermeasures and mitigation tactics.
Quote: No you don't. Anyone in here takes you for not understanding anything when all you do is giving excuses and telling lies.
Good thing that I don't do any of that, then, so people don't have to take me for doing so. And not "anyone" does so ù only you.
Quote: You are not the whole EVE
I didn't say I were, but nice straw man. Regardless, EVE still says it's false, and no amount of faith or fantasy on your end changes this fact.
Quote: No you haven't, because there isn't anything that you have proven me to be wrong at or proven my idea to be bad.
àexcept for this entire thread, where even the OP proved you wrong before you even had a chance to start posting.
At any rate, I don't have to prove that it's a bad idea any more, not just because I already did and you couldn't come up with any kind of counter besides ignoring this proof, but because you have proved that there is no problem, so bad or not, the solution is no longer needed.
1. No they aren't until my reasons and idea is proven to be wrong or bad.
2. Yes you do. Just because you say you are, doesn't mean you are doing, because you replies in this topic says you are.
3. Yes you did. You are one person and made it look like you was talking for the whole EVE.
4. This is not about what the op have said. It's about what i have said. So you still haven't figured out what i'm talking about yet i'll guess ?
So yes, you still have to prove your claims that my idea and reasons are bad or wrong.
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:16:00 -
[963]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/08/2011 02:17:11
Originally by: Darren Corley Shiori is my alt, not Tippia's.
But then you are an alt of an alt to Tippia then .
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: NightmareX Talking with your own alts is the the new cool amrite ?
You've never been right, so no.
So haven't you, because you haven't answered any of my questions yet. So how can you be right then?
|
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:19:00 -
[964]
Edited by: Tippia on 06/08/2011 02:22:00
Originally by: NightmareX No they aren't until my reasons and idea is proven to be wrong or bad.
Your reasons are not a deciding factor in determining that two things that earn you money in highsec are both highsec money-earning activities. The location and the result decides that andà guess what? They're the same.
Quote: Yes you did. You are one person and made it look like you was talking for the whole EVE.
Wow. Get better glasses and/or get off the meds because you're hallucinating now. No. I didn't say anything in the name of EVE ù I stated an indisputable fact of the EVE mechanics.
Quote: This is not about what the op have said.
Then GTFO of his thread. And seeing as how the OP proved you wrong, what he said most certainly matters: your proposed solution doesn't solve anything.
Quote: you haven't answered any of my questions yet. So how can you be right then?
By having answered them, even though your handler hasn't had the time to read them to you. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
|
Darren Corley
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:20:00 -
[965]
Either way, report him and move on. He refuses to argue constructively and has already broken at least one forum rule.
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:22:00 -
[966]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/08/2011 02:24:01
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 06/08/2011 02:22:00
Originally by: NightmareX No they aren't until my reasons and idea is proven to be wrong or bad.
Your reasons are not a deciding factor in determining that two things that earn you money in highsec are both highsec money-earning activities. The location and the result decides that andà guess what? They're the same.
Quote: Yes you did. You are one person and made it look like you was talking for the whole EVE.
Wow. Get better glasses and/or get off the meds because you're hallucinating now. No. I didn't say anything in the name of EVE ù I stated an indisputable fact of the EVE mechanics.
Quote: This is not about what the op have said.
Then GTFO of his thread. And seeing as how the OP proved you wrong, what he said most certainly matters: your proposed solution doesn't solve anything.
Quote: you haven't answered any of my questions yet. So how can you be right then?
By having answered them, even though your handler hasn't had the time to read them to you.
1. Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean they don't have to be. Because, like i said, without reasons or proofs that my idea or reasons are bad, then you don't have any hard facts to tell me that.
2. Wow, get better at reading ktnxbai.
3. Nope, because my idea still is about changing the loot mechanic. The op have even said he totally agree to what i have said. So it's you that can GTFO of this topic for lying and trolling.
4. No, you haven't answered them, so can you please answer on my questions and not come with some lolfunny stupid excuses and lies?
|
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:23:00 -
[967]
Originally by: Darren Corley Either way, report him and move on. He refuses to argue constructively and has already broken at least one forum rule.
Ok, I'll give you one of those as well, then: I already have.
ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:25:00 -
[968]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/08/2011 02:25:51
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Darren Corley Either way, report him and move on. He refuses to argue constructively and has already broken at least one forum rule.
Ok, I'll give you one of those as well, then: I already have.
Yup, when you feel threatened after being proven totally wrong, then the only way to solve the issue is to report someone .
My points in this topic will still stand no matter what happens, so trooololol.
|
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:29:00 -
[969]
Edited by: Tippia on 06/08/2011 02:30:34
Originally by: NightmareX Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean they don't have to be.
No, that is decided by plain old logic: your reasons are not features of in-game activities or locations, so they can't be a determining factor when comparing those features.
Quote: Wow, get better at reading ktnxbai.
What? No witty comeback? Well, nice to see that you're not disputing the facts of EVE then, at leastà
Quote: Nope, because my idea still is about changing the loot mechanic.
àand that is not what I'm referring to. Just like you have this fixed idea of what I am saying, you have this deeply limited (and thoroughly flawed) view of what the OP has said ù it's more than one thing, you know. Specifically, the OP and his many corpies and alliance mates provided plenty of examples of why, say, a timer, does not increase the risk of looting. If you had done what I told you aaaaaaaall those pages ago and went back and read the beginning of the thread, you'd know this. But you didn't, so you didn't and thus you don't.
Quote: can you please answer on my questions
I already have. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:32:00 -
[970]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/08/2011 02:35:27 Edited by: NightmareX on 06/08/2011 02:33:07
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 06/08/2011 02:30:34
Originally by: NightmareX Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean they don't have to be.
No, that is decided by plain old logic: your reasons are not features of in-game activities or locations, so they can't be a determining factor when comparing those features.
Quote: Wow, get better at reading ktnxbai.
What? No witty comeback? Well, nice to see that you're not disputing the facts of EVE then, at leastà
Quote: Nope, because my idea still is about changing the loot mechanic.
àand that is not what I'm referring to. Just like you have this fixed idea of what I am saying, you have this deeply limited (and thoroughly flawed) view of what the OP has said ù it's more than one thing, you know. Specifically, the OP and his many corpies and alliance mates provided plenty of examples of why, say, a timer, does not increase the risk of looting. If you had done what I told you aaaaaaaall those pages ago and went back and read the beginning of the thread, you'd know this. But you didn't, so you didn't and thus you don't.
Quote: can you please answer on my questions
I already have.
1. Like my reasons and idea is plain logic?
And why isn't my idea or reasons any good then?. I want reasons on each of my reasons that i'm still waiting to get.
2. Get better at reading. It will help you alot in the future.
3. It's not what you are referring to because you are taking the answers away from what i'm asking after. That's why it's irrelevant for you so you can have an excuse to not answer on my questions.
4. No you haven't. If you have, where are they?
|
|
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:42:00 -
[971]
Edited by: Tippia on 06/08/2011 02:42:35
Originally by: NightmareX Like my reasons and idea is plain logic?
No, not like that at all because that's yet another of your odd non sequiturs.
Quote: It's not what you are referring to because you are taking the answers away from what i'm asking after.
No, it's not what I'm referring to because (drumroll) it's not what I'm referring to. You think I'm referring to some comments the OP has made about loot, when I'm in fact referring to a comment the OP has made about the in-space threats to looters, or more specifically, how they don't exist ù a comment that is eminently relevant to your questions.
Quote: No you haven't. If you have, where are they?
Go back and start reading at page one (or, if you're fussy, start reading form when you started posting ù I repeated them all there just to be nice to youà not that you ever read them). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:49:00 -
[972]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 06/08/2011 02:42:35
Originally by: NightmareX Like my reasons and idea is plain logic?
No, not like that at all because that's yet another of your odd non sequiturs.
Quote: It's not what you are referring to because you are taking the answers away from what i'm asking after.
No, it's not what I'm referring to because (drumroll) it's not what I'm referring to. You think I'm referring to some comments the OP has made about loot, when I'm in fact referring to a comment the OP has made about the in-space threats to looters, or more specifically, how they don't exist ù a comment that is eminently relevant to your questions.
Quote: No you haven't. If you have, where are they?
Go back and start reading at page one (or, if you're fussy, start reading form when you started posting ù I repeated them all there just to be nice to youà not that you ever read them).
1. Poor excuse
2. Poor excuse again. Care to answer on my questions?, or are you still gonna go on and on with your circlejerk?
3. I asked where the proofs is and not where this topic is.
|
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:54:00 -
[973]
Originally by: NightmareX Poor excuse
Not really no. The logic that dictates the ability to compare two entities does not make your reasoning logic.
Quote: Poor excuse again
It wasn't an excuse ù it was an explanation that highlighted another of your uninformed assumptions.
Quote: I asked where the proofs is and not where this topic is.
àand I answered. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 02:58:00 -
[974]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: NightmareX Poor excuse
Not really no. The logic that dictates the ability to compare two entities does not make your reasoning logic.
Quote: Poor excuse again
It wasn't an excuse ù it was an explanation that highlighted another of your uninformed assumptions.
Quote: I asked where the proofs is and not where this topic is.
àand I answered.
1. Logic in your worls is a funny excuse for us who do empire ward daily or for those who have done it that actually sees the problems we are talking about here.
2. Still an excuse.
3. I can't find them anywhere. Care to link me to where the exact answer is?
|
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 03:00:00 -
[975]
Originally by: NightmareX us who do empire wars daily
àseem strangely inept at it.
Quote: Still an excuse.
Still not the same thing.
Quote: I can't find them anywhere. Care to link me to where the exact answer is?
See above for the perfect solution. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 03:09:00 -
[976]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/08/2011 03:09:40
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: NightmareX us who do empire wars daily
àseem strangely inept at it.
Quote: Still an excuse.
Still not the same thing.
Quote: I can't find them anywhere. Care to link me to where the exact answer is?
See above for the perfect solution.
1. Do you do empire wars or do you even know what that is?
2. Oh, even another excuse lol. That's funny .
3. I see no answers that have reasons. What i see i answers with lies and excuses + trolling.
|
Tippia
Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 03:28:00 -
[977]
Originally by: NightmareX Do you do empire wars or do you even know what that is?
Enough to not have problems competing with thieves.
Quote: even another excuse
Still not the same thing.
Quote: I see no answers that have reasons.
Then punish your handler as described above. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
|
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 12:28:00 -
[978]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: NightmareX Do you do empire wars or do you even know what that is?
Enough to not have problems competing with thieves.
Quote: even another excuse
Still not the same thing.
Quote: I see no answers that have reasons.
Then punish your handler as described above.
1. Doing empire war decs for 2 seconds is not taken as enough.
2. It's still an excuse.
3. Well, even after trying to find answers the whole night now, i still can't find any answers.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 12:32:00 -
[979]
NightmareX, You'll end up with a ban. Like this thread... aaaand this thread. The only difference is, you were using multiple alts with rather embarrassing results.
This is also a good one.
You're heading down the same road with this thread. Time to stop?
Originally by: CCP Zulu Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 13:11:00 -
[980]
Originally by: Mag's NightmareX, You'll end up with a ban. Like this thread... aaaand this thread. The only difference is, you were using multiple alts with rather embarrassing results.
This is also a good one.
You're heading down the same road with this thread. Time to stop?
Oh noes, i have been banned for a little time some years ago. Who ****ing cares about that lol?
And why do you think i will get a ban now then?
Just because you are butthurt that you can't get me to stop replying after the answers no one have answered?
Or because i have written down the real reasons why thieves needs more risks and why the looting mechanics needs to be changed?
Yeah, when someone realize they have lost in a discusstion, then i'll guess the best way to solve that is to report the guy and hope to get him banned amriiiite?
|
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 13:22:00 -
[981]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Mag's NightmareX, You'll end up with a ban. Like this thread... aaaand this thread. The only difference is, you were using multiple alts with rather embarrassing results.
This is also a good one.
You're heading down the same road with this thread. Time to stop?
Oh noes, i have been banned for a little time some years ago. Who ****ing cares about that lol?
And why do you think i will get a ban now then?
Just because you are butthurt that you can't get me to stop replying after the answers no one have answered?
Or because i have written down the real reasons why thieves needs more risks and why the looting mechanics needs to be changed?
Yeah, when someone realize they have lost in a discusstion, then i'll guess the best way to solve that is to report the guy and hope to get him banned amriiiite?
It was a friendly warning. But I see I'm wasting my time. You're so focused on being angry with everyone that disagrees with you in some way, you're not actually reading and understanding the posts given.
I do believe the only reason you are not facing a ban right now, is due to the calm and logical replies by both Shiori Mochizuki and Tippia. Unlike the threads given, where it fell into ridiculous back and forth retorts. They have kept you somewhat in check, with your name calling and ranting nature.
Normally people learn from their mistakes and change. Well at least I tried, good luck.
Originally by: CCP Zulu Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
NightmareX
Nomads Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 13:55:00 -
[982]
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Mag's NightmareX, You'll end up with a ban. Like this thread... aaaand this thread. The only difference is, you were using multiple alts with rather embarrassing results.
This is also a good one.
You're heading down the same road with this thread. Time to stop?
Oh noes, i have been banned for a little time some years ago. Who ****ing cares about that lol?
And why do you think i will get a ban now then?
Just because you are butthurt that you can't get me to stop replying after the answers no one have answered?
Or because i have written down the real reasons why thieves needs more risks and why the looting mechanics needs to be changed?
Yeah, when someone realize they have lost in a discusstion, then i'll guess the best way to solve that is to report the guy and hope to get him banned amriiiite?
It was a friendly warning. But I see I'm wasting my time. You're so focused on being angry with everyone that disagrees with you in some way, you're not actually reading and understanding the posts given.
I do believe the only reason you are not facing a ban right now, is due to the calm and logical replies by both Shiori Mochizuki and Tippia. Unlike the threads given, where it fell into ridiculous back and forth retorts. They have kept you somewhat in check, with your name calling and ranting nature.
Normally people learn from their mistakes and change. Well at least I tried, good luck.
Well, i do not disagrees that Tippia don't agrees with me. What i disagrees on is that Tippia can't get her finger out of his ass to answer me or others in here on WHY my or Martinez idea is bad or why the looting mechanic shouldn't be changed.
All i have seen is that Tippia just says is that it's all fine and shouldn't be changed. And that's the reason why it shouldn't be changed he says.
But again, i have been trying to get him to tell WHY he say that, but without any success.
And i have been pretty calm the last year on the forum here. So it's not just because Tippia and Shiori Mochizuki have been that. So yeah, they aren't the reason for that.
|
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente C C P
|
Posted - 2011.08.06 15:50:00 -
[983]
There is no reason to argue for 34 pages on the same topic so locking it up on page 33.
Zymurgist Community Representative CCP NA, EVE Online Contact Us |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [33]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |