SST LZ(Stream)

Nope, I said you'd flounced of like a twelve year old, which you did, the argument wasn't going the way you were dictating, so off you went, 'I'm not discussing this anymore. That's what 12 year olds do, Simple comparison.
You called me a jerk. I wasn't offended, it just struck me as unimaginitive.
Also, you know how you didn't want to argue anymore and didn't feel that this, or the rules warranted any further discussion. How's that working out for you?
:)

I just don't like the way you tried to dictate rules to people and decided that because you interpretted differently to others, the rules must be broken.
I saw them a different way, most other posters did, as did the person who wrote them.

Maybe it's not the rules mate.
:)

And I'll say it again, it's an open forum, so just because you say how it's going to work, doesn't make it so. I was enjoying a discussion between gamers about a rules interpretation. That's all, if you wanted a final definitive answer, all you needed to do was Email Matt, problem solved.
You don't discuss, you lecture. There's a difference. And everything I've said has been firmly tongue in cheek, if I've offended you then I'm sorry and you need to get out more :) 'cos I wasn't actually trying.

So, stream weapons have a 6" direct fire effect........ should they? I'm still thinking a template is a template, but I don't think it effects the game too much (not many times you'll be willing to give up a damage bonus to get another die).
One thing though.... what about all of those times when an MI player scatters a unit around a tanker to ensure they can't all be flamed? In the film the tanker rolled it's head and spread out a sheet of flame, that's what direct fire stream is representing (wider area with no damage bonus). I think I'm 'on the fence' to be honest. Works either way for me.
 
Jose, why do you keep trying to stir up an argument over this???

I submitted that Matt supported your position on the rule, but that does not seem to be sufficient for you.

So Joe here is a little mental exercise for you.

Josedominguez 0-671-41809-2 10-5,-3,4-20,15

YqidlelteaatSlsytieo o unre ieicbet oohsnn uai aywnrrtl yRnuett
nras hgiiat e na i ge iietcotoIyNgtad l alrrahlniasnelesu
its rerea v daaxirsc noaIebebcteydron at garafynaqh od gAs
digr aiueaRr M nsF tyuoaY nebbeaAaaaii r m goterasb nrrbnx
ya Wauh ioaydtea.a cIebneoinl.oeinp t stslganneu wrnatVi

simple demonstrate your cognitive abilities: this is a simple cryptogram/code with all information present to enable translation into plain English. Specifically designed to be near impossible to machine break the code.

How is my not discussing the rules, especially with you working out? Absolutely fine, especially since you have lowered the tone of this thread to your personal attacks on me.

I give you one week to present me with the plain english 28 word message, that would demonstrate a certain specific level of cognitive capability by you.
The simple truth is, I would be quitee surprised if you could break it in a month. It can be broken by trained cryptographers.

By the way the red in my posts was there simply to specifically emphasize points I was trying to make and I was discussing, you are the one who turned it into an argument and then took that argument to a personal level.

I was looking for an official ruling on the issue at hand and attempting to state my understanding of the rules in a logical manner. You and I disagree about most things, obviously. I stated my position and logic on a rule only to be refuted by opinion, not specifically backed by rules which contravene my stated position.

I then restated my logic with what I felt were different supporting rules sections 3 times. Each time you responded with purely subjective opinions.

When I stated I was tired of what had most obviously become a pointless argument you immediately resorted to name calling and denigration of my character.

When Matthew supported your position I conceeded the point under the "current" rules, with the caveat that the rules set is recognized to have problems and inconsistencies. This is why the playtesters are working on revising the rules for SST:Evo.

You have won nothing here Josedominguez. I have not argued against Matt's rulings, ever. So why don't you just keep attacking me personally, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

I did not flounce off I simply stated that I was tired of arguing.

Your continued carping on this whole thread when Matt has supported your position merely supports my personal and very private opinion of you.

As I stated previously, I may look at SST:Evo when it is released to see if there are less problems in the ruleset, thus leading to fewer arguments. But I am a very fickle player and after trying to support the company against negativity on all the other threads I am quite simply tired of arguing, with you or anyone. This is especially true when these arguments are concerned with a soon to be revised rules set.

If that does not please you that is simply too bad. :twisted: :twisted:
 
Weird isn't it, how you keep coming back to argue that you don't want to argue anymore?

As for imaginitive insults... how about:

OK Cuda, lets just leave this alone, you're obviously quite content with your 3" so I'll leave it at that.





As for your code..... What's that about? Who mentioned being a trained cryptographer?
Anyway, I've tried to get the discussion back to stream weapons a few times now, and although a couple of posts ago I thought I'd try to make you look silly, it seems I'm wasting my time as you're doing a far better job on your own :)
You're taking this far to personally, we had a disagreement over some wargames rules, how does this make me 'wrong as a human being' (if anyone needs a lesson in overaction I'll forward his PM).
So, if you want to leave it, leave it, pretty simple, I'm still finding it fairly amusing so no real plans to stop anytime soon.
So, in summary, I do think this is funny, you're getting yourself all upset. Nobody else cares.
And you've made a fair few personal attacks on me now, I've made none on you, I simply made a comparison about your way of solving a dispute and that of a 12 year old girl. As I've said before, all I have to go on is your dictating style and storming off when you aren't winning. I could say something to make you look foolish, but I've no doubt you'll sort that out in your next post :)
 
I usually don't reply to things like this...yet, here I am, replying.

You both seem to be fairly intelligent people....

So why are you acting like three year olds?
 
JoseDominguez said:
Weird isn't it, how you keep coming back to argue that you don't want to argue anymore?

As for imaginitive insults... how about:

OK Cuda, lets just leave this alone, you're obviously quite content with your 3" so I'll leave it at that.

As for your code..... What's that about? Who mentioned being a trained cryptographer?
Anyway, I've tried to get the discussion back to stream weapons a few times now, and although a couple of posts ago I thought I'd try to make you look silly, it seems I'm wasting my time as you're doing a far better job on your own :)
You're taking this far to personally, we had a disagreement over some wargames rules, how does this make me 'wrong as a human being' (if anyone needs a lesson in overaction I'll forward his PM).
So, if you want to leave it, leave it, pretty simple, I'm still finding it fairly amusing so no real plans to stop anytime soon.
So, in summary, I do think this is funny, you're getting yourself all upset. Nobody else cares.
And you've made a fair few personal attacks on me now, I've made none on you, I simply made a comparison about your way of solving a dispute and that of a 12 year old girl. As I've said before, all I have to go on is your dictating style and storming off when you aren't winning. I could say something to make you look foolish, but I've no doubt you'll sort that out in your next post :)

Actually, Cuda came over as defensive about a rude comment. Now you are coming over as a bit of a pratt tbh.

You should take your time to decipher the code its quite funny :D
 
Nope, don't want to waste any more time on him. And you didn't read the pm he sent me mate, maybe it'd be better to get all of the info :)
Questioning how I got a teaching degree on the strength of two posts on a wargames website? How I'm a 'failure as a person' and remind him of his ex wife? All a bit wierd.

Anyway, I'd have stopped a while back, but I found it fairly amusing that someone will repeatedly post and pm with arguments about how he wants to stop arguing. See what I mean?
Didn't actually think anyone else was bothering reading the thread to be honest, funny thing we'd both stopped and nothing else would have appeared. I'll stop now though, it was OK when the only person I was bothering was the person who's pm was waiting for me every night when I got in from work.
You can't argue on your own. And as far as I was concerned, it's a silly little thing over nothing. Honestly, what's to get upset about? I had a chunk of my right wrist bitten out today at work (I teach profoundly autistic kids and had to help with a lunchtime incident). So anything that doesn't draw blood is pretty funny. Opening a whiney, complaining pm is a breath of fresh air.

I wonder if that's it finished now??????????


Stream weapons have a 6" area when used direct, Our group are undecided about it, I think it represents the 'swinging' of a flamer etc.. quite well, but could be exploited by players trying to flame targets that are too close to friendly models. It's never really come up as a dispute in one of our games, but we are a friendly group, I can see it happening in a tourney. Someone pciking out targets with tanker spit on direct when the template would have creamed his own models. Anyone else had big issues with it?
 
Hey Joe the rules of this Forum specifically forbid the use of information from PMs in threads such as this.

My statement about your arguing was that you argue like my ex-wife, even when you have "won" you are still not satisfied.

My statement about your being an"educator" simply asked if you had ever had any university level courses in debate or logical discourse and further asked how you got your teaching credential without such courses, or if you had such courses why you insisted on violating the rules you would have been taught in those courses.

My statement was that you were wrong as a human being and as a Forum member to launch into personal attacks over a rule question that had already been answered by Matt and that I had formally stated you were correct about.

The only amusing thing about this whole situation Joe is you have and are continuing to try to put my responses to your attacks in a bad light.

The only reason I reply to your insults is because you insist on insulting me.

I stated clearly that I will not argue or discuss rules with you, we clearly disagree on basic principles.

This is simply another response to your continuing series of unprovoked attacks maligning my character.

I have repeatedly asked you to drop this continuing personal attack. I am not repeat not arguing the rule. You were correct. Got it, you won on the rule!!!!!!!!! I misinterpreted the rule, but I did not attack you first, you attacked me and are still continuing to do so.

I never saids you were a cryptographer Joe, I simply challenged you to decipher the encrypted message. Again you try to put words in my mouth. I even clearly stated that I did not think you would be able to figure out the message. I have been developing Substitutiary codes and other code types since 4th or 5th grade. Good mental exercise.

You are wasting everyone's time, mine yours and everyone who reads this threads time with your continuing attacks.

Why not let it die, it is just another symptom of much of the current negativity on the Forum. It is doing no one any good.

By the way Joe I sent you two PM's, anyone who really gives a hoot can PM me and I will PM them with the exact messages I sent to Jose, then you will have the whole story.

Henceforth, just regard whatever JoseDominguez says relating to me as unwarranted attacks and ignore him. This is my last post on this subject, Jose has won his little pissing contest. Good going Joe, feel better now.?
 
Jose, you are just bickering and provoking it more. He wanted to stop, was respectful, and you sunk to name calling. Would you do that in a bar to a guy who was seven foot tall and all muscle? No!
 
FallenDruid said:
I usually don't reply to things like this...yet, here I am, replying.

You both seem to be fairly intelligent people....

So why are you acting like three year olds?

Yeah seriously guys, don't make someone post the "arguing on the internet's like the special olympics" poster
 
Hell, I stopped ages ago :) I got bored with someone saying 'this is my final word on the subject' (seven times now bye the way!).
So, here's how it works..... this is MY final word on the subject: If you don't want to argue, then you simply do this.............

Nothing.

Problem solved :)

Everyone's a winner.
 
JoseDominguez said:
Hell, I stopped ages ago :) I got bored with someone saying 'this is my final word on the subject' (seven times now bye the way!).
So, here's how it works..... this is MY final word on the subject: If you don't want to argue, then you simply do this.............

Nothing.

Problem solved :)

Everyone's a winner.

It is rather interesting to note that you felt you needed to get the last post in however.

Thats not really doing nothing now is it.
 
Back
Top