christof139
Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
I have to agree with Lensman here. You seem quick to anger and quick to jump on someone who disagrees with you. I looked through the thread in the public beta forum as well as this one here. The only comment I saw from Lensman that I would consider at all annoying is when he told you you were "not in the ballpark" with your information, but that would slide off most people. All you would have had to do was reply with the data you did and say that you disagree. Instead, you seemed to take it personally that he disagreed with you. Your reply was full of exclamation points, several entirely capitalized words (which on the internet mean shouting). While you didn't up and insult him the tone of your reply was pretty darn peeved. I realize you thought he was completely wrong, but hey, people are wrong every day - if you have better info, just share it, don't get upset because someone else doesn't have that same info. Now, for what it's worth, I believe you're right about the Mississippi at that time being navigable a ways up by quite a few ships, though perhaps not all. I've read the same about the ships that worked their way up to New Orleans, Port Hudson and beyond. I think it's an area of the game we could work on. For now, the gunboat units fulfill that role well enough but it would be good to have a little more cross-over for that one river as far as the naval unit possibilities. Now, the final comment here: "So tell me, are you off your noodle or what??" ...is definitely an invitation to an argument and it's pretty darn personal. I don't know if you realize how that comes across, but I understand what Lensman was saying when he thought you wanted a flamewar. Whether you are right or not, you don't need to get so darned personal about it! I was on the receiving end of this kind of thing from you once and I know what I'm talking about here. You need to be a bit less touchy and take things in stride. You clearly know a LOT about the Civil War. Not everyone knows as much, which means that when you find some information that you know is erroneous, just correct it - there's no need to kill the messenger. Lensman clearly spoke up based on some really good contemporary knowledge he has about the Mississippi. I think the history of the ACW contradicts some of that info and you brought that up, but you shouldn't be bothered that someone disagrees with you. It's perfectly possible to share information and win people over without getting in an argument with them. There is an old saying about catching more flies with honey - it's true, you know. Regards, - Erik < Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 4/14/2007 7:55:23 PM > _____________________________ Erik Rutins Director of Product Development and Business Relations You know Eric, I put up with this guy telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about, then you pop in in, not reading the whole thread that the self-righteous jerk that you are, so let me ask you the same thing: Are you off your noodle?? Lensman's knowledge only concerns TODAY and the UPPER MISS> RIVER IN IOWA and NOT THE MID AND LOWER MISS. RIVER of ACW TIMES. Plus, I gave some faactual scientific info. and further Geologic info., but neither of you two clowns being a Geologist you wouldn't have the faintest idea of what is going on with the Miss. River. You do this all the time and are a complete yo-yo. And go take a hike, a long one. Because as another person said somewhere, this if 'The Forge of Frustration'. I wouldn't submit any modifications I do to your screwy Guns.txt file for your persual because you don't know your buttocks from a whole in the ground concerning the subject to begin with. You try and twist things like the used car salesman you must be. Good riddance, this is a complete waste of time, Chris
_____________________________
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae. That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55 Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
|