Geico V Random

[DeletedUser]

Was thinking it'd be a nice war if it was, maybe that so called "gangbang" on Random is starting to take shape :icon_rolleyes:

2 VS 6

Trust 82nd to stick up for the lone rider, or maybe they just want you to think that :icon_eek:

considering 82nd is now joining in after -TDR-, FFs, RT, and random are already attacking and joining in?(so far I think random has only faked us. -TDR- and FFs coordinated together, RT is just randomly attacking me and others.)

Lowkey is in a war against Sane also.

how is 82nd sticking up for the lone rider?

 

[DeletedUser]

We're not. We don't care about the other tribes. Lowkey-SANE is hardly a war. Kicking the Anubis refugees like we asked would put a stop to it anyway. And actually half of Geico is off-limits per Eagle (as per the email you recieved on that account). Its really just you we want, not Dshockr. Now more than ever.

 

[Mekolp]

random never attacked geico... you nobled vils with incomings.

 

[DeletedUser]

Does good players mean they have a good leader?
No. Bullshitting facts? Please, stop. Wait. Use your brain. Stop. Wait some more. Okey, have you thought about what you just said there? Have you never heard the expression Overexaggerating to make a point ? Never?
If so, then your excused, if not, then turn off your computer and spend some time developing instead.

I never said Geico was a bad tribe, I simply said you had the worst possible leader.

And stop calling me a Random follower, you know, simply because someone do have a brain and knows how to stand up to pricks doesn't mean they are groupies of Randoms. Or perhaps they must be, I haven't seen any Geico's or Geico followers displaying any superior intelligence these days..

I wonder how difficult it is going to be to penetrate that stubborn aura you put around logic long enough to tell you that "1+1=2". Probably a while, but I'm going to give it a shot anyways.

Of course people "overexaggerate facts" to make a point. Politicians do it when they're desperate for attention. Debaters who can't argue with facts stretch them and make them up in a pitiful attempt to win. That doesn't mean its justified. No matter how you put it, you can not change fact. Fact is, he never sat another account for 2.5 months. Taking something that is not fact, and stating it like fact is not called "over exaggerating to make a point". You only need one word to define it.

"Lying".

If this is truly how you make your arguments, by lying; then why wouldn't Nuke question the validity of your points? Why wouldn't he block you? He doesn't need to argue to win an argument with you. He wins the moment you lie. No matter the strength of your argument or the weight of your opinion, you've lost everything you built with your statement the moment you start spouting fluff instead of facts.

Yes "Facts". I can play the "pretend your opponent has yet to pass 3rd grade game" too. Repeat it with me. Slowly. "Facts". It has one syllable, and it means something that is absolutely and undeniably true, and can be backed up with irrefutable evidence. Its a noun. You are not above them. You are not justifying your act of making up or stretching facts just by saying you are doing it. You. Are. Lying.

Now let's go back. 1+1=2. That is undeniable. It is math, a subcategory of science. It is fact. You can not say "1+1=3" earlier, then later admit that 1 plus 1 is infact, 2, then try to justify it by saying "Haven't you ever heard of overexaggerating to make a point?" This same way, you can not justify stretching the number that nuke sat an account to 2.5 months by using that same line.

Comprehende? You probably do. But you will pretend you don't and repeat yourself, except with the lines rearranged, and your words twisted in an attempt to do the impossible. But keep in mind, everything you say against this one simple fact, you may as well be trying to prove that "1+1" does not equal "2".

Give it your best shot.
-------------------------------
For the sake of not giving you an opening to say that I ignored the rest of your post and concentrated on this one bit, I will give my responses to the other parts as well.

1) No it doesn't. But why would good players stay loyal to a bad leader?
2) I said you were a Random supporter. You are supporting Random in this argument. Therefore you are a "Random supporter". "Random" the name of the entity/group you are supporting, "Supporter" The title in which you have been acting out.

 

[DeletedUser]

We're not. We don't care about the other tribes. Lowkey-SANE is hardly a war. Kicking the Anubis refugees like we asked would put a stop to it anyway. And actually half of Geico is off-limits per Eagle (as per the email you recieved on that account). Its really just you we want, not Dshockr. Now more than ever.

considering orignal Geico is in K37, K55, and K54 and not in K45 have fun sending nukes that far away :|

random never attacked geico... you nobled vils with incomings.

Random faked(maybe attacked though now looking I don't think so) a player, not just a village I believe, maybe I am wrong :S

 

[DeletedUser]

Its really just you we want, not Dshockr. Now more than ever.

Is there a particular reason why??

Have I missed something?

 

[DeletedUser]

There are people we know and respect. There are others we will remove from this world. Or get rimmed trying. Anyway, Game On.

 

[DeletedUser]

considering orignal Geico is in K37, K55, and K54 and not in K45 have fun sending nukes that far away :|

Don't worry. I'll get there soon enough. Anyone that knows me from the bkmjr account knows that I have no problem with long-range tribal offensives. And its just you that I want now. Anyone that cares to get in the way, good luck to you.

 

[DeletedUser]

Don't worry. I'll get there soon enough. Anyone that knows me from the bkmjr account knows that I have no problem with long-range tribal offensives. And its just you that I want now. Anyone that cares to get in the way, good luck to you.

o fun, I get to snipe some

 

[xyziz]

I wonder how difficult it is going to be to penetrate that stubborn aura you put around logic long enough to tell you that "1+1=2". Probably a while, but I'm going to give it a shot anyways.

Of course people "overexaggerate facts" to make a point. Politicians do it when they're desperate for attention. Debaters who can't argue with facts stretch them and make them up in a pitiful attempt to win. That doesn't mean its justified. No matter how you put it, you can not change fact. Fact is, he never sat another account for 2.5 months. Taking something that is not fact, and stating it like fact is not called "over exaggerating to make a point". You only need one word to define it.

"Lying".

If this is truly how you make your arguments, by lying; then why wouldn't Nuke question the validity of your points? Why wouldn't he block you? He doesn't need to argue to win an argument with you. He wins the moment you lie. No matter the strength of your argument or the weight of your opinion, you've lost everything you built with your statement the moment you start spouting fluff instead of facts.

Yes "Facts". I can play the "pretend your opponent has yet to pass 3rd grade game" too. Repeat it with me. Slowly. "Facts". It has one syllable, and it means something that is absolutely and undeniably true, and can be backed up with irrefutable evidence. Its a noun. You are not above them. You are not justifying your act of making up or stretching facts just by saying you are doing it. You. Are. Lying.

Now let's go back. 1+1=2. That is undeniable. It is math, a subcategory of science. It is fact. You can not say "1+1=3" earlier, then later admit that 1 plus 1 is infact, 2, then try to justify it by saying "Haven't you ever heard of overexaggerating to make a point?" This same way, you can not justify stretching the number that nuke sat an account to 2.5 months by using that same line.

Comprehende? You probably do. But you will pretend you don't and repeat yourself, except with the lines rearranged, and your words twisted in an attempt to do the impossible. But keep in mind, everything you say against this one simple fact, you may as well be trying to prove that "1+1" does not equal "2".

Give it your best shot.
-------------------------------
For the sake of not giving you an opening to say that I ignored the rest of your post and concentrated on this one bit, I will give my responses to the other parts as well.

1) No it doesn't. But why would good players stay loyal to a bad leader?
2) I said you were a Random supporter. You are supporting Random in this argument. Therefore you are a "Random supporter". "Random" the name of the entity/group you are supporting, "Supporter" The title in which you have been acting out.

Actually it very well could have been over-exaggeration. If the account was sat for a long period of time, then it is just an exaggeration of the time.

Your maths logic for the example makes no sense at all. Of course you can not use a literal maths statement and call it exaggeration, an exaggeration is "describing of something and making it more than it really is". You cannot describe a statement.

Sith pointed out that there was a rather long sitting, and exaggerated the actual time period. Hence it was an exaggeration.


Oh and it's usually called fabrication too, not lying, when the subject at hand is politics/propaganda.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sith pointed out that there was a rather long sitting, and exaggerated the actual time period. Hence it was an exaggeration.

I actually only been sitting the account for about a week now. lol I don't know where he gets the idea of 2.5 months sitting or multi-accounting. :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh and it's usually called fabrication too, not lying, when the subject at hand is politics/propaganda.

Google to the rescue.

Fabrication: A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Examples of fabrication: A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn't actually know the directions.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually it very well could have been over-exaggeration. If the account was sat for a long period of time, then it is just an exaggeration of the time.

Your maths logic for the example makes no sense at all. Of course you can not use a literal maths statement and call it exaggeration, an exaggeration is "describing of something and making it more than it really is". You cannot describe a statement.

Sith pointed out that there was a rather long sitting, and exaggerated the actual time period. Hence it was an exaggeration.


Oh and it's usually called fabrication too, not lying, when the subject at hand is politics/propaganda.

I'm not denying that it's over exaggeration. I am saying that over exaggerating something that is proven fact is not at all different from lying. And used the math analogy to prove it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wonder how difficult it is going to be to penetrate that stubborn aura you put around logic long enough to tell you that "1+1=2". Probably a while, but I'm going to give it a shot anyways.

Of course people "overexaggerate facts" to make a point. Politicians do it when they're desperate for attention. Debaters who can't argue with facts stretch them and make them up in a pitiful attempt to win. That doesn't mean its justified. No matter how you put it, you can not change fact. Fact is, he never sat another account for 2.5 months. Taking something that is not fact, and stating it like fact is not called "over exaggerating to make a point". You only need one word to define it.

"Lying".

If this is truly how you make your arguments, by lying; then why wouldn't Nuke question the validity of your points? Why wouldn't he block you? He doesn't need to argue to win an argument with you. He wins the moment you lie. No matter the strength of your argument or the weight of your opinion, you've lost everything you built with your statement the moment you start spouting fluff instead of facts.

Yes "Facts". I can play the "pretend your opponent has yet to pass 3rd grade game" too. Repeat it with me. Slowly. "Facts". It has one syllable, and it means something that is absolutely and undeniably true, and can be backed up with irrefutable evidence. Its a noun. You are not above them. You are not justifying your act of making up or stretching facts just by saying you are doing it. You. Are. Lying.

Now let's go back. 1+1=2. That is undeniable. It is math, a subcategory of science. It is fact. You can not say "1+1=3" earlier, then later admit that 1 plus 1 is infact, 2, then try to justify it by saying "Haven't you ever heard of overexaggerating to make a point?" This same way, you can not justify stretching the number that nuke sat an account to 2.5 months by using that same line.

Comprehende? You probably do. But you will pretend you don't and repeat yourself, except with the lines rearranged, and your words twisted in an attempt to do the impossible. But keep in mind, everything you say against this one simple fact, you may as well be trying to prove that "1+1" does not equal "2".

Give it your best shot.
-------------------------------
For the sake of not giving you an opening to say that I ignored the rest of your post and concentrated on this one bit, I will give my responses to the other parts as well.

1) No it doesn't. But why would good players stay loyal to a bad leader?
2) I said you were a Random supporter. You are supporting Random in this argument. Therefore you are a "Random supporter". "Random" the name of the entity/group you are supporting, "Supporter" The title in which you have been acting out.

overexaggerating by definition is not lying. As someone said better than me, it was simply used as a mental picture for someone having spent a long time on an account.

The math analogy can't be used here, it would limit every possible outcome of the discussion to your own advantage, and therefore is really, simply, not especially good. Use one that has more branches to go from, one that doesn't actually make you the complete winner of the discussion by eliminating every other possibility to show others what my point actually was.

Now, I find it incredibly amusing that you have the same ability as Nuke does in disregarding every other point that might make you look bad if answered.

You keep on answering something small, instead of answering the complete posts.

Nuke blocked me because it's easier to ignore than face the truth, you know that, I know that, everyone else knows that. My point when answering you was that Geico doesn't have bad players, they simply have a bad leader.
Though, from what I've seen posted on the forums, you guys really aren't much else besides just above the average TW player who has read a guide on sniping and slashing..

As Pervis said, you don't have to spend an enormous ammount of time on tribal wars to become good at it. You need 3 things:
1. The ability to read
2. The ability to learn
3. The ability to admit when your right or wrong

Most other things one could more or less learn with some time.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not denying that it's over exaggeration. I am saying that over exaggerating something that is proven fact is not at all different from lying. And used the math analogy to prove it.

It isn't a proven fact.
He has yet to prove that he haven't sat the account for 2.5 months (I'm not saying that he has, but 1 week, that's bullshit from one end to the other.)

 

[twenty-five]

"Lying".

If this is truly how you make your arguments, by lying; then why wouldn't Nuke question the validity of your points? Why wouldn't he block you? He doesn't need to argue to win an argument with you. He wins the moment you lie. No matter the strength of your argument or the weight of your opinion, you've lost everything you built with your statement the moment you start spouting fluff instead of facts.

So when it is proven you lie, you have to shut up with the bull crap?

Here I go. Once a liar, always a liar. I will attempt to show you to be the liar you are, which results in your credibility failing, and you are shown to be a hypocrite.

The night of Jax's 15th birthday.

[spoil]

[/spoil]

Check the dates, that's this year earlier this month. Before you call a forge, am I really going to go to the effort of setting one up a few weeks before? No. That is why the dates are in a red square, sure I could have edited it in paint, photoshop, whatever. But why would I? What have I got to gain? Nothing, I only bring this up because it presents itself to me, I would not go seeking this intentionally. Ok this skype screenshot does not show him to be a liar.

However when shown in this one:

[not spoiled as it isn't very big]

Jax aged 2 years in little under a month? This shows jax has lied to me about his age. At the very least, lied to me.

Now we are going to play a little game, it's normally called spot the difference, however normally it is for 10 or so. Here there is just one.

Screenshot 1.


[spoil]

[/spoil]

And a link to the post.

Screenshot 2.

[spoil]:

[/spoil]

And a link to the post. (Had to be a screenshot of a quote of it, but as you can see this post hasn't been edited)

Spot the difference? Yes. Jax changed it so his age said ' 2) My age? You can just stop asking. Its 14. No its 8. Gtfo.' to '2) My age? You can stop asking. Its 14. gtfo. '

Now why would someone to this on the eve of them becoming a mod? Perhaps they are attempting to conceal the truth to protect themselves, after all he remembered a thread from many months ago the night he became a mod. After all, we all know mods have to be at least 16. It's quite obvious, he lied about his age on his application, and now wants to conceal it.

I think that shows something about Jax and some certain character flaws.

Moderator, this relates to jax being a hypocrite and as such verbally floors anything he has to say, as he is a Geico member and I am a Random member, this relates to the topic at hand.

 

[DeletedUser]

sorry for the double post but I found this interesting.

from the forums of the great tribe 82nd:

Title: Help Random
Question: Help Random by going to war with Lowkey in the North, and Geico in the South
Choice 1: Yes
11 Votes (100,00%)
Choice 2: No
(0,00%)

Sithmeister on 18.08. at 19:46 Quote Edit Delete
Whatever brings down that little ******* Nuke, I'm up for it.

I guess random has some help. I enjoy your forums 82nd, some nice information you have there. O and I see how close you guys are now sith, your members are so loyal(replying to a comment about that Geico doesn't have anyone as loyal as 82nd members. EI, careful who you hand accounts out to.

heh, you're making fun of another tribe for having spies in it ?

glass house semantics :lol:

 

[darkx]

:icon_cool: Can someone sum this up for me? Geico & Random's act war?

 

[DeletedUser]

So when it is proven you lie, you have to shut up with the bull crap?

Here I go. Once a liar, always a liar. I will attempt to show you to be the liar you are, which results in your credibility failing, and you are shown to be a hypocrite.

The night of Jax's 15th birthday.

[spoil]

[/spoil]

Check the dates, that's this year earlier this month. Before you call a forge, am I really going to go to the effort of setting one up a few weeks before? No. That is why the dates are in a red square, sure I could have edited it in paint, photoshop, whatever. But why would I? What have I got to gain? Nothing, I only bring this up because it presents itself to me, I would not go seeking this intentionally. Ok this skype screenshot does not show him to be a liar.

However when shown in this one:

[not spoiled as it isn't very big]

Jax aged 2 years in little under a month? This shows jax has lied to me about his age. At the very least, lied to me.

Now we are going to play a little game, it's normally called spot the difference, however normally it is for 10 or so. Here there is just one.

Screenshot 1.


[spoil]

[/spoil]

And a link to the post.

Screenshot 2.

[spoil]:

[/spoil]

And a link to the post. (Had to be a screenshot of a quote of it, but as you can see this post hasn't been edited)

Spot the difference? Yes. Jax changed it so his age said ' 2) My age? You can just stop asking. Its 14. No its 8. Gtfo.' to '2) My age? You can stop asking. Its 14. gtfo. '

Now why would someone to this on the eve of them becoming a mod? Perhaps they are attempting to conceal the truth to protect themselves, after all he remembered a thread from many months ago the night he became a mod. After all, we all know mods have to be at least 16. It's quite obvious, he lied about his age on his application, and now wants to conceal it.

I think that shows something about Jax and some certain character flaws.

Moderator, this relates to jax being a hypocrite and as such verbally floors anything he has to say, as he is a Geico member and I am a Random member, this relates to the topic at hand.

Thank you Tom. Now allow me to explain:

1) I am constantly getting pestered by people asking me for my age in TW. Yes, that happens when you screw around as much I do on Skype :icon_wink:
2) I didn't want to give away my real age on an internet game for no valid reason. After saying "I'd rather not tell you" a few times, people would still continue asking. So I just made up an age. Anyone who asked me afterwars immediately got an answer of me being 14. Then my birthday came, and I said I was 15.
3) Then, when the time came, I decided I wanted to apply for a mod. Of course, a mod application is an actual serious responsibility (A valid reason), and so I gave my real age. Which is 2 years older than the "fake age" I give out to people who ask.

Yes, you are right in saying I lied to some people on TW about my age. That is true. Obviously wanting internet privacy is a serious character flaw. :icon_rolleyes:

However, I really don't see why tom being able to prove that I lied about this has much to do with refuting my argument that stretching facts is the same as lying.

Furthermore, I started getting people who I gave my "fake age" to asking me "Hey, aren't you too young to be a mod?" To which I would have to explain the entire situation over again. So, in order to avoid more complications in the future, I simply decided to simply drop the illusion, and went back to edit any significant posts/threads I made that I could find that would to something that would better clarify my age. Of course if there was a way to avoid giving it out, but still not give people the wrong number, I would use it. So I editted that thread in which you screenshotted to make it seem like a joke. I don't give away my age, and I don't confuse people. Win win. Of course, because of this post that is for naught.

But really, congrats Tom, you have revealed....my age. Great PnP. 5/5.

 

[DeletedUser73620]

Thank you Tom. Now allow me to explain:

1) I am constantly getting pestered by people asking me for my age in TW. Yes, that happens when you screw around as much I do on Skype :icon_wink:
2) I didn't want to give away my real age on an internet game for no valid reason, so I made one up. Anyone who asked me immediately got an answer of me being 14. Then my birthday came, and I said I was 15.
3) Then, when the time came, I decided I wanted to apply for a mod. Of course, a mod application is an actual serious responsibility (A valid reason), and so I gave my real age. Which is 2 years older than the "fake age" I give out to people who ask.

Yes, you are right in saying I lied to some people on TW about my age. That is true. Obviously wanting internet privacy is a serious character flaw. :icon_rolleyes:

However, I really don't see why tom being able to prove that I lied about this has much to do with refuting my argument that stretching facts is the same as lying.

Bull. You conveniently decided you'd like to be older than you actually are because being a moderator required you being older than you really are. You can make up excuse after excuse, but anyone with an ounce of intelligence in their head knows better.