Sailor Jerry Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 I don't care who you are........I know funny......and that !@#$ ing video in god damned hilarious!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orfeas Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 More like our friends wanted part in the fun and as you'r alliance is broken why not feast On the carcass? This may be the case too. Or may both statements be true. We will never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 This may be the case too. Or may both statements be true. We will never know. Nope, we do fear things, but neutrals are not one of Them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Nope, we do fear things, but neutrals are not one of Them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orfeas Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Nope, we do fear things, but neutrals are not one of Them. That's what YOU say. No way to prove it now. Edited September 30, 2016 by Dorgam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabasstion Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 im pretty certain this thread is exact proof we arent afraid of neutrals. you know...the thread in which we declared war on a neutral... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orfeas Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Hahaha! I have mixed feelings about these movies Sailor. But it was nice comment here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orfeas Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) im pretty certain this thread is exact proof we arent afraid of neutrals. you know...the thread in which we declared war on a neutral... you know... Try to follow the conversation Glue. I said "It looks like you were afraid that we would actually follow your plan about attacking your lower level guys. XD" You are the ones that translated it differently. Arguing on comments you made is strange. Edited September 30, 2016 by Dorgam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 you know... Try to follow the conversation Glue. I said "It looks like you were afraid that we would actually follow your plan about attacking your lower level guys. XD" You are the ones that translated it differently. Arguing on comments you made is strange. Well my Comment stated we werent afraid of neutrals period. You said it couldnt be proven. Seabass pointed out This show is proof. Wheres the derailing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orfeas Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Well my Comment stated we werent afraid of neutrals period. You said it couldnt be proven. Seabass pointed out This show is proof. Wheres the derailing? Since you answered to my comment, I guess that you were refering specifically to the neutrals that could possibly try to get full military to attack your lower rank players. In this sense, you answered that you were not afraid of this specific "threat", not neutrals generally. The same threat could come from non-neutrals. Glue's comment would be on topic if I have said "you are afraid of neutrals". I said that you could be afraid of a specific tactic (irrelevant of neutrals). Which tactic was proposed by you by the way, and that's exactly why the current turn of events is funny. I hope this is clear enough for you. Edited September 30, 2016 by Dorgam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabasstion Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 you putting quotes around "threat" is the only reasonable statement you've made in this thread. sure...you guys are a "threat" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orfeas Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) you putting quotes around "threat" is the only reasonable statement you've made in this thread. sure...you guys are a "threat" Thanks for not arguing that your previous post was not irrelevant. I had started having doubts about the level that can be maintained in this conversation. Of course the threat needs quotes. This "threat" was your proposal, remember? Your brilliant plan of needing 4 days for 11 of us to get fully militarized in order to attack 3 of your lowest ranking members. You know. The plan that would change the tide of the war, if your friends had not attacked the players you cannot reach. Edited September 30, 2016 by Dorgam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Since you answered to my comment, I guess that you were refering specifically to the neutrals that could possibly try to get full military to attack your lower rank players. In this sense, you answered that you were not afraid of this specific "threat", not neutrals generally. The same threat could come from non-neutrals. Glue's comment would be on topic if I have said "you are afraid of neutrals". I said that you could be afraid of a specific tactic (irrelevant of neutrals). Which tactic was proposed by you by the way, and that's exactly why the current turn of events is funny. I hope this is clear enough for you. No i answerd you'r spesific statement, with a general statement covering the spesific and alot more. I cant say ankle biteing wouldnt concern me, if it was Mensa biting our ankles it would. But regardless of tactic neutrals dosent, you lack so Much its irrelevant that we have forcefeed you tactics to counter our strength. And Thus seabass coment is still relevant. Btw, if you hit our lowest it wouldnt turn any tides, it would just force us to find counters. Something we did regardless. Edited September 30, 2016 by Ole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatnate Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Thanks for not arguing that your previous post was not irrelevant. I had started having doubts about the level that can be maintained in this conversation. Of course the threat needs quotes. This "threat" was your proposal, remember? Your brilliant plan of needing 4 days for 11 of us to get fully militarized in order to attack 3 of your lowest ranking members. You know. The plan that would change the tide of the war, if your friends had not attacked the players you cannot reach. You still hadn't moved any slots around. You guys were just going to sit on your asses and hope we got bored. We did, so we invited some friends to the party. We told you that plan because we're all painfully aware of how incapable you are of carrying it out. We saw how tiny your warchests were when we beiged you the first time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bambino Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Man, the trolling level on this thread is awesome. Need bigger lines give the whales we're catching. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orfeas Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Btw, if you hit our lowest it wouldnt turn any tides, it would just force us to find counters. Something we did regardless. Tell that to seabasstion... That was his plan... And he insisted that we should follow it. Do you remember the tables he sent? You see, that's the problem. We write something, you write it then in a different way to make fun of it and then you answer seriously to a statement that you made as if it was ours. Now, you countered seabassstion... It is really difficult to follow the discussion like this. Actually, at this point, I do not know what is even the point of this discussion. Originally, I started commenting to find out what your motives were and what was the great evil we were doing to you for not accepting your flag. I did ignore some of your members' insults or sarcastic attitude that most had for the shake of the conversation. Besides, this may be the tradition of the forum, the roleplaying part of your alliance or your individual members and so on (although I would expect members with high ranks to be more diplomatic and have better arguments than "you are stubid"). I did that in order to learn some things from fellow players as a newer and less experienced one. And I did see that many of you have this ideal of the community, trying indirectly or directly to help even enemies, because some of you want indeed to help, others want to just share the knowledge and others want to look like a smartass. But seriously, this is getting really tiring. Even if you get upset with "idiocies" stated from less inexperienced players, I think that you can keep the level of the conversation high and actually try to gain something from this. If you have something serious to discuss or ask, I will be more than happy to join you again. I don't see the reason to rebatle meaningless posts anymore though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Man, the trolling level on this thread is awesome. Need bigger lines give the whales we're catching. For ease of viewing: Edited September 30, 2016 by Sailor Jerry 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post seabasstion Posted September 30, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted September 30, 2016 ah! you are in luck! there has been a major scientific breakthrough in this chain of events that is apparently extremely difficult to comprehend outside of the most beautiful minds in orbis. allow me to recap these events and we will attempt to get to the bottom of this ole said this Nope, we do fear things, but neutrals are not one ofThem. you immediately replied with this That's what YOU say. No way to prove it now. i respond with this im pretty certain this thread is exact proof we arent afraid of neutrals. you know...the thread in which we declared war on a neutral... now lets analyze this line by line. in quote 1, ole can be seen saying "we do fear things, but neutrals are not one of them". scholars have long debated what this means and there are two lines of thought, which until just recently, have been very divisive. for years the foremost literary and litigious minds in the world would come together to debate this cryptic message until a breakthrough came in the form of the desert sand summit when the recent will and testament of gene wilder provided the true meaning behind this sentence shrouded in mystery. casting light into what was once the forever uncertain into something very easy to digest. in the wilder document it lays out the frame work into how we can accurately detail ole scrolls. 1) the word "WE" refers to terminus est. this was a very key component into understanding what he was attempting to say 2) "FEAR" is meant to represent an feeling of anxiousness and unpleasantness. 3) "THINGS" is still up for a small amount of debate due to the ambiguity in the wilder document, but the consensus is that 'things' represents anything tangible like a physical object (think of falling rocks), or intangible like a state of emotion that is most closely represented by a love for blood. sometimes test loves blood so much it can be frightening to themselves. using these first three key components we can piece this together into something more easy to understand. this can be easily interpreted to "Terminus est has feelings of anxiousness and unpleasantness regarding certain objects and thoughts" while dense, the current scientific community feels 95% of the population can understand this. for the other 5%, this sentence has been reduced down further into something so simple that children with basic reading skills can comprehend. this translation reads: "we do fear things" on to the second, and arguably the more difficult portion to understand. the scrolls of ole then state "but neutrals are not one of them" there are four key components in this second half 1) "NEUTRALS" is a vague term, but scientists concluded (and confirmed by the wilder paper) that this is used to designate people that either do not care about playing the politics portion of the game, or people that are afraid to play the politics portion of the game. 2) "ONE" this is one of the more simple components. one is used to represent an entity in a set 3) "THEM" refers to the set itself. the set of what??? hold your horses we will get back to that! 4) "NOT" is the absolute key component of this statement. this is a binary statement that could represent either a yes or a no. in this case it is a no. putting this second half together, top translators have provided us with "people afraid to play the game is outside of that set" the alternative extremely easy to understand statement that can closely represent this is as follows "but neutrals are not one of them" ================================================================= putting all of this together was performed by a specialist team of MIT engineers specializing in neural networks. they have concluded that the appropriate understanding of this cryptic message is as follows: "Terminus est has feelings of anxiousness and unpleasantness regarding certain objects and thoughts, people afraid to play the game is outside of that set" and that is where the real breakthrough came! by combining these statements we can clearly see that the set that is referenced in the second half of ole scrolls is actually from the first half of the ole scrolls...specifically talking about the set of things that test fears!!!! with this in mind the entire ole scroll can be reduced to something so simple only the illiterate could not understand, and that is: "we do fear things, but neutrals are not one of Them." ==================================================================== this paved a very easy path for what the response of dorgam was actually saying. the response of dorgam reads in two easy parts 1) "thats what you say!" 2) "no way to prove it now" dissecting part 1) is pretty cut and dry. you is referring to the ole scrolls and is representing the message as an entirety. to reiterate, that message is "we do fear things, but neutrals are not one of them" part 2) "no way to prove it now" can be subject to debate what 'proof' is but most scientists agree that it is used to irrefutable represent evidence to support the claim. using the wilder papers the community has agreed to the schoolhouse translation of: "thats what you say! no way to prove it now" the world rejoiced over this cryptic breaktrhough! =========================================== and the final component - wise sage sweet potato, after a very exhaustive search of both the universe and the soul, finally looked inward and found that the proof was the thread itself in which the discussion was being held!!! this shocked the community, but when the official statement of "im pretty certain this thread is exact proof we arent afraid of neutrals. you know...the thread in which we declared war on a neutral..." the scientific community found it both extremely easy to understand yet equally complex and wise. a truly miraculous statement. it didn't need changed any further as everyone was able to understand it perfectly. ==================================================== in an upcoming documentary morgan spurlock delves into the social significance of the ole scroll exchange. a brief summary can be outlined as: 1) ole says we arent afraid of neutrals 2) dorgram says you cant prove it 3) seabasstion says 'we just declared on a neutral - you' it is critically acclaimed and expected to become the highest grossing documentary of all time 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypher Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 What did I just read 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Seabass you are my favoritt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Phiney Posted September 30, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted September 30, 2016 (although I would expect members with high ranks to be more diplomatic and have better arguments than "you are stubid"). You are stubid 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betulius Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 It looks like you were afraid that we would actually follow your plan about attacking your lower level guys. XD Yeah, I've seen your "build-up". It's pitiful. Why would we fear that? Even with 5 days on beige, we know you don't have enough stocked up to actually do anything. Quote Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]> God your worse the grealind >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 This is starting to feel a bit like an avian encounter. "This is what not to do if a bird shits on you..." 2 Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted September 30, 2016 Author Share Posted September 30, 2016 I found the problem. You believe you deserve diplomacy from us. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insert Name Here Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Nope, we do fear things, but neutrals are not one of Them. Then again, who is afraid of neutrals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.