Conquer Club

I just wanted to take a closer look at this, and I know I'm going against my own advice here.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Allow me to explain, for the too-big-of-a-number-th time, what I've been trying to say, but obviously have been misunderstood.

First, you say this:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I think it's dumb that people put other people on their foe list because they're on someone else's foe list.

You follow that with this:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I put someone on foe after they put me on foe, but not because I was on the list, but because of the action of them putting me on.

They mean the same thing.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:They put me on because I "suicided" on my target in a doodle assassin, but it wasn't even a suicide, I had another territ and that was my only chance of winning. I wasn't even eliminated. I find that a stupid reason for foeing someone, so I foed them. That's not so hard to understand, is it?

So, essentially, you did put them on your Foe List because they put you on their Foe List

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I have also stated twice I think in this thread, that I learned that it's a matter of opinion, what qualifies someone for the foe list. I said this, but it was never taken into account by all of you, and the thread continued. I essentially submitted, but all of you kept the thread going, not me. Don't tell me to submit. I already did.

To be fair, you contradicted yourself this entire thread. You never really submitted, as submitting would probably have included you stop posting. If you really wanted to submit, you would have given up trying to explain yourself.

Man this is a dumb thread. My biggest problem is when I PM someone asking to remove them from my foe list, and they don't respond. At least have the decency to explain why I'm on the list, and what I can do to get removed from the list.

Thezzaruz wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Finally, a calm response. Thank you matroshka, that's all I wanted to hear.

Well that is just the same as we all have tried to get you to understand. You can't separate the foeing of someone and him being on your foe list. It is just 2 parts of the same action (as the death example tried to get to).

Ya, and I've been trying to get you to understand what I was saying, and judging by the post after this, it's still not understand.

Sentinel XIV wrote:I just wanted to take a closer look at this, and I know I'm going against my own advice here.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Allow me to explain, for the too-big-of-a-number-th time, what I've been trying to say, but obviously have been misunderstood.

First, you say this:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I think it's dumb that people put other people on their foe list because they're on someone else's foe list.

You follow that with this:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I put someone on foe after they put me on foe, but not because I was on the list, but because of the action of them putting me on.

They mean the same thing.

They do not mean the same damn thing. I clearly explained it with the analogy of making a bad play as the reason for foeing the person. Maybe if you actually read my posts.....

Sentinel XIV wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:They put me on because I "suicided" on my target in a doodle assassin, but it wasn't even a suicide, I had another territ and that was my only chance of winning. I wasn't even eliminated. I find that a stupid reason for foeing someone, so I foed them. That's not so hard to understand, is it?

So, essentially, you did put them on your Foe List because they put you on their Foe List

Yes, but not because I was on the foe list. It's completely different. What you said here is correct.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I have also stated twice I think in this thread, that I learned that it's a matter of opinion, what qualifies someone for the foe list. I said this, but it was never taken into account by all of you, and the thread continued. I essentially submitted, but all of you kept the thread going, not me. Don't tell me to submit. I already did.

Sentinel XIV wrote: To be fair, you contradicted yourself this entire thread. You never really submitted, as submitting would probably have included you stop posting. If you really wanted to submit, you would have given up trying to explain yourself.

I didn't stop posting because people posted after I submitted. It's not my fault the thread continued.

ParadiceCity9 wrote: They do not mean the same damn thing. I clearly explained it with the analogy of making a bad play as the reason for foeing the person. Maybe if you actually read my posts.....

Actually they do as I tried to explain in my last post.

You can however separate the foeing (and being on the foe list) and the reasons for foeing someone and that is what you did (not what you said you did though ). But on that issue I have to say that foeing someone for bad play (as he did with you) is a far more "legal" thing than foeing someone for their reasons for foeing you.

So, in a sense, you're agreeing with me. Yes?

ParadiceCity9 wrote:So, in a sense, you're agreeing with me. Yes?

nobody has agreed with you... and the more you go on about this, the more you contradict yourself and claim what you actually POSTED isn't what you meant to say and/or post... this is so off the rails, it is beyond funny...=-

Paradice, Owen...maybe you two should avoid each other. If you each continue, you both might just send one another on a forum vacation.


--Andy

See like I said andy...he spurs the arguments. He responded to me. I'm not gonna respond to him to avoid any confrontation.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:So, in a sense, you're agreeing with me. Yes?

No,just no...
Not with you foeing him, not why you foed him and certainly not with your arguments in this thread...

ParadiceCity9 wrote:See like I said andy...he spurs the arguments. He responded to me. I'm not gonna respond to him to avoid any confrontation.

You are responding to him now. See, you say you want to let the thread die, but you continue to post. If you really wanted to let it die, and I mean really wanted to, you would stop posting at all in this thread.

Sentinel XIV wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:See like I said andy...he spurs the arguments. He responded to me. I'm not gonna respond to him to avoid any confrontation.

You are responding to him now. See, you say you want to let the thread die, but you continue to post. If you really wanted to let it die, and I mean really wanted to, you would stop posting at all in this thread.

No I didn't respond to him, I responded to him posting, not to his post. And to owen (the PM), I never said your post was a confrontation. I was just pointing out to andy that you were the one who potentially cause a confrontation. I never intend for my posts to become big arguments, but you make them that with your rude and hurtful posts.

May I suggest you to go to flame wars and have at it. You know you want to...

wacicha wrote:May I suggest you to go to flame wars and have at it. You know you want to...

And we would welcome both of them with open arms over there . .

wacicha wrote:May I suggest you to go to flame wars and have at it. You know you want to...

no i don't. he is 15 and interprets someone's not agreeing with him, with a personal attack. this thread is the perfect example. the logic behind the argument just makes NO SENSE and it continually changes. so, how in the hell do you have a SANE argument with a person that argues with you when you respond to his written words, because his written words weren't really what he meant?!! again, my foe list is my foe list, period. i can put whomever i want on the list for whatever reason i choose (nobody is on my foe list), and nobody else can dictate to me how or why i do so. however, it is just non-sensical to place someone on your foe list, preemptively, and then declare his placing you on his foe list in retaliation as "ILLEGAL". and then, when you go through several pages of people stating how absurd an argument is, the person refuses to see how absurd it is, yet then declares that he somehow, somewhere in the thread, he relented his position... it is all just confounding. and, i have no desire to go to flame wars. i'm not the person that called another member an "a** hole" (sp), i'm just the guy that was called "a** hole* (sp). i guess by stating how ridiculous the basis for this thread is, and continues to be, i'm the bad guy in the OP's mind.. oh wait, i posted something that he won't agree with, guess i'll get another PM from him and a friendly warning from another mod for BAITING... trust me, you can't BAIT a fish, when it has already been taken off the hook, placed in your cooler, skinned and de-boned, filleted, fried up on the camp fire and eaten. this thread is so over, and "he who's name shall not be spoken" will just not let it go.-0

owenshooter wrote:

wacicha wrote:May I suggest you to go to flame wars and have at it. You know you want to...

no i don't. he is 15 and interprets someone's not agreeing with him, with a personal attack. this thread is the perfect example. the logic behind the argument just makes NO SENSE and it continually changes. so, how in the hell do you have a SANE argument with a person that argues with you when you respond to his written words, because his written words weren't really what he meant?!! again, my foe list is my foe list, period. i can put whomever i want on the list for whatever reason i choose (nobody is on my foe list), and nobody else can dictate to me how or why i do so. however, it is just non-sensical to place someone on your foe list, preemptively, and then declare his placing you on his foe list in retaliation as "ILLEGAL". and then, when you go through several pages of people stating how absurd an argument is, the person refuses to see how absurd it is, yet then declares that he somehow, somewhere in the thread, he relented his position... it is all just confounding. and, i have no desire to go to flame wars. i'm not the person that called another member an "a** hole" (sp), i'm just the guy that was called "a** hole* (sp). i guess by stating how ridiculous the basis for this thread is, and continues to be, i'm the bad guy in the OP's mind.. oh wait, i posted something that he won't agree with, guess i'll get another PM from him and a friendly warning from another mod for BAITING... trust me, you can't BAIT a fish, when it has already been taken off the hook, placed in your cooler, skinned and de-boned, filleted, fried up on the camp fire and eaten. this thread is so over, and "he who's name shall not be spoken" will just not let it go.-0

Owen in what has my argument changed?? And I only didn't mean one word I said, you know that.
The only thing I've changed throughout this entire thread is when I explained how foeing someone for foeing me is different than foeing someone for being on the foe list, which isn't even a change it's just something I didn't say originally because I didn't think I'd have to since it's not difficult to understand.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I explained how foeing someone for foeing me is different than foeing someone for being on the foe list

It's the same freaking thing!

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Owen in what has my argument changed?? And I only didn't mean one word I said, you know that.
The only thing I've changed throughout this entire thread is when I explained how foeing someone for foeing me is different than foeing someone for being on the foe list, which isn't even a change it's just something I didn't say originally because I didn't think I'd have to since it's not difficult to understand.

Oy vey!

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Owen in what has my argument changed?? And I only didn't mean one word I said, you know that.
The only thing I've changed throughout this entire thread is when I explained how foeing someone for foeing me is different than foeing someone for being on the foe list, which isn't even a change it's just something I didn't say originally because I didn't think I'd have to since it's not difficult to understand.

Even my 8 year old disagrees with you. Just give it up, please for the sake of everyone's sanity. Reminds me of the end of that movie Billy Madison. We are all dumber for having read your posts, and having participated in this ridiculous thread.

Timminz wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I explained how foeing someone for foeing me is different than foeing someone for being on the foe list

It's the same freaking thing!

They not the same freakin thing. Yes, someone foeing me involves being on their foe list, but I foed them for foeing me because of the REASONS that they foed me. Haven't I already said this???

ParadiceCity9 wrote:

Timminz wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I explained how foeing someone for foeing me is different than foeing someone for being on the foe list

It's the same freaking thing!

They not the same freakin thing. Yes, someone foeing me involves being on their foe list, but I foed them for foeing me because of the REASONS that they foed me. Haven't I already said this???

Yes. Many times. It makes just as little sense every single time.

Maybe if you actually thought about it, it would make sense.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Maybe if you actually thought about it, it would make sense.

no, even when you think about it, no matter how much you try to figure out one of the varied arguments you have presented over and over, ad naseum, it still makes no sense. and yet, you continue to play don quixote, waging this farcical battle in this thread. it makes no sense. try as you might, you are not going to convince one, let alone many, that your thoughts on this foe issue are valid. it just makes no sense.-0

p.s.-and now, i fully expect a rebuttal that contains, yet again, a different explaination of what you "meant" in one of the many variations you have presented... oh, and a visit from a mod.

I can't explain it anymore than I already have. It makes sense.