warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1
How very sad...
1. I have appointed myself to haunt you? haunt you? good god man get a grip....
I think you will find that I have never had any quarrel with you of any sort until your ridiculous, mis-placed, high-handed, self opinionated attack on a whole forum from a few weeks back. Having got no response from you on that - I genuinely thought some form of apology may be offered - I decided to provide support to someone you are attacking in similar tone to that you exhibited in that earlier attack. Who on earth are you to decide how a wargamer should learn to play a game?
(a) I do not apologise for things I did not say or which are (perhaps deliberately) misinterpreted. You really must try to read closely which words I employ and try to place them in and understand their context.
(b) others on that thread either agreed fully with what I said or went much further referring to 90% drivel. Yet you only singled me out. Were you afraid you might lose some friends if you were consistent?
(c) there you go again putting words in my mouth which were not uttered. In this thread I have not laid down by fiat the "how" but what "must" be tackled. You seem to be content to just rely on inaccurate opinions when the succinct and correct answer is in the manual.
2. Refrained from coming up with denigrating remarks about me?
Please feel free. You could try adding to the "content free zone" and "unable to understand complexity" that has already been levelled in my general direction 
(a) Here we go again, someone who misreads what I write. In that other thread which has clearly rankled you, were you mentioned by name? No. Did your forum persona meet the characteristics you quote. No. Did I say everyone who posts in the General Discussion forum met all those characteristics. Again no. However now that you have clearly identified yourself as belonging to that group who engage in "content free zone" and "unable to understand complexity", maybe I was wrong and you truly deserve to be lumped in.
(b) Now that you have identified yourself as belonging to that group, how do you feel being part of the 90% drivel which someone else, whom you do not attack, said in that very same thread.
(c) Your attack is very much undermined by posters who freely admit they do not play AE because it is too complex for them, too time consuming, too much micromanagement. Or is this another instance where the truth is too close to home for you?
3. As for your third point, please allow me to answer in the style that you use to answer people you see beneath you like poor Sieppo or indeed, the whole of the General Discussion Forum.
(a) Here we go again twisting what I said to suit your own purposes. Find where I said the "whole" in that thread.
(b) I would not bother having contact with people beneath me so how do you explain my participation in this thread. Unlike some on the forum I do not "green button" anyone. I would have thought it obvious that the action of "green buttoning" a person would be the classical definition of a person who deems someone else to be a person beneath them.
1. The name is Matrix World In Flames (MWIF) not WIF. Judging from your use of syntax I suspect that you know English perfectly well and know its MWIF, but were simply too lazy to give the game its correct name.
(a) Hoisted by your own petard. You have referred to that vapourware as World In Flames, with no use of the word Matrix in the title.
(b) Common practice on the forum is to abbreviate game titles. You yourself do not regularly use the full title "War in the Pacific: Admirals Edition". So by your own criterion which you fail to employ with regard to both these game titles, you must be "too lazy to give the game its correct name". Hmm, I'm starting to see why you freely, of your own volition, placed yourself in the camp of those who met the characteristics you found objectionable above.
(c) In some instances posters refer to games simply as "stock" or use other ambiguous terms. Does it really matter what title is employed provided everyone knows which game is being referred to. You, scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find points to criticise me, clearly understood which game I was referring to when I said WIF. Indeed you could not have misunderstood as you yourself have employed the abbreviation WIF.
2. MWIF is not vapourware, its a game based upon the award winning board game World In Flames. Why you choose to call it vapourware I have no idea, but I (and of course I am always right) suspect its because you do not understand the difference.
Now you are just being silly and desperate. WIF or as your recent conversion on the Road to Damascus would have it, MWIF, is vapourware.
(a) How many years has it been in development?
(b) Has it been published yet?
(c) Has it's publication date and sale to the public been announced yet?
The answers all point to vapourware. Only when it is actually on sale, if ever, will it lose its tag of being vapourware. That there already exists a board game does not exempt it from the term vapourware which is a term applied to computer games.
So once again, in your desperate attempt to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find points to criticise me, you shoot yourself in the foot.
3. Why would I be dealing with unsatisfied customers? I am not programming, developing, publishing or distributing the game. That comment makes no sense. I suggest you read a manual on retail practices in the wargaming world and then post again once you are sure of your facts.
So you have been quite comfortable with giving the impression that you have been involved with that game when all along you have had absolutely no role whatsoever? Not even as a play tester? On what basis do you leap to its defence, as being the best game ever, if you have no involvement whatsoever?
(a) Well that then begs the question, do you actually play any Matrix game?
(b) If you do play any Matrix game where do you provide newbies with the benefit of your knowledge?
(c) If you don't play any Matrix game, why not?
As to wargaming retail practices, you are hardly in a position to lecture anyone seeing that you are neither employed in the industry and as you so comprehensively put, have no involvement whatsoever with WIF (and yes I will not follow your recent affectation for use of the abbreviation MWIF). Another desperate attempt to find a point to criticise me, methinks.
There really is no need for rudeness Alfred.
Oh, and one more thing, I back up my AE comments with facts. I only see your own made up facts to support your assertions against me.
Being magnanimous, I will accept your apology. I am prepared to overlook your numerous "ridiculous, mis-placed, high-handed, self opinionated" posts in various other threads. You see, as I mentioned above, I do not dictate by fiat "how" people should learn. "What" they need to know, well by your own admission, there is a fair bit for you to tackle.
Alfred
warspite1
I could respond to this, point by point as you have done, but having read and re-read your comments I really feel there is little point.... You are quite clearly an intelligent individual Alfred, but boy is there something missing or what? You accept my apology? what a funny little man you are...
In your latest response there is an awful lot of mealy mouthed words to try and cover up for what was, by any stretch of the imagination, a quite obnoxious post that simply belittled a whole forum. How on earth can you defend the line?
"For many of the General Discussion regulars, despite their often boisterous claims, it is not obvious that they actually spend much time playing games."
So who is that then? wodin, parusski, Orm, me, Mo Reb, rogo, shunwick, Yogi? Sorry, who?, what boisterous claims? Prove to me we don't play games. Where did that rubbish emanate from?
"There is very little cross forum postings". Look harder ....
And you were not attacking me?
"That small group is smaller than the regulars who post on the AE forum and more often than not their posts are content free zones".
"Far too many over there just like to bump up their post numbers"
Well as I post as much, if not more than most, yes, by definition that is me.
Content free zones? In whose opinion? Post just to boost post count? Says who? Even if true - is that a crime? Ever heard of fun?
"Very few seem to be interested in the more complex Matrix games, nor do they seem to apply themselves to coping with complexity".
Do you really, genuinely - particularly in conjunction with the foregoing - not UNDERSTAND just how earth-shatteringly hideous that sounds???
"Consequently they love to repeat ad infinitum sterile positions, tilting at windmills...... and availing themselves of being unnecessarily abusive to each other which they may think is humorous but in fact is not at all".
What?!?!?!?
Try swapping General Discussion Forum for WITP-AE Forum and posting your original nonsense on the GD forum. Do you imagine that no one in the WITP-AE forum would get a tad upset?? If you think not then you live on a different planet.
Back to your latest response:
The more I try and understand, the more I actually read blah, blah, blah. Why would I deliberately misquote you? I didn't have any axe to grind until you spouted your nonsense. I would ask you again to re-read it, but clearly - and for all your intelligence - you just don't understand, or want to understand, the point. You cannot see that there is a way of talking to people - internet or not. No I do not accept that uncompromising teacher argument - most of us are in our ahem (very, very) late 30's.... RUDE is simply RUDE.
As for the point about losing "friends".... god this is tortuous. I wasn't going to respond to each individual post was I?? Clearly, anyone who agreed with all you posted concerning the General Discussion comment is, in my view, as wrong as you in that opinion. Where are the "friends" to lose? I DID respond to two others - Chickenboy and AW1Steve. The former because he made a jocular comment about my name, and the latter because I respect his opinion and he said something to the effect that reading the GD forum made him stupider or some such.
And for the point about answering in the manner in which you dish out your pearls of wisdom - well that just completely and utterly flew over your head didn't it?? Hoist by my own petard?? Shot myself in the foot? Nooooo I don't think so. But I can't get into that because your answer simply confirmed the gulf between us in even trying to communicate. How you missed that whole point I do not know....
As for the criticism's of MWIF, well you are entitled to your opinion - and really, er I'm interes.....
Interestingly we actually agree on something i.e. the lack of use of the green button... well well....
Well that's my lot on this subject, so you can get the last word in. Good luck with that.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/15/2013 11:56:27 PM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805  |
Printable Version
RE: Ships preferring deep water - 
I thought this thread had decided, that it also preferres deep waters for good 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread