Semantics are the study of meaning... When someone says someone is arguing semantics, they usually mean that someone is arguing with someone, when they're really saying the same thing. So... You think that being kicked is the same as leaving? I mean, yes, both ways he did leave. In an example of why this isn't semantics though: If you shoot someone in the face, or they shoot themself in the face, the person is still dead... But I doubt anything would think they're the same thing.
People quoted the Time merger specifically as their reason that they left? Can you quote them? I can't really prove that no one ever said that, but I haven't seen it.
So what you're saying is that no one actually said that DMCD was in fact part of the restructuring. Golden Rat asked if ONE was falling apart, Blue Eyes says, "No, we're restructuring" and references Fremen, which DMCD was never associated with. Weak correlation at best. Grasping?
Well.... An enemy could noble two villages and call it a trend. Technically it's true. On the other hand, we could say that our current trend is a weak start and a better finish. Which is also tenically true. It's all a matter of perspective.
This is my last response to Gearhound, as I know the forum community hates when we clog up the forums. All that need be said is that his first quote, telling me about how semantics is "the study of meaning" was enough to prove his misinformation. Wikipedia is not a valid source:
"Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used to understand human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics."
I think it's fairly obvious that I'm talking about linguistic choices of words and their meanings, and your attempt to debate them with me. Linguistic semantics is still semantics.
Further, being kicked or leaving may not be exactly the same, but they do have the same basic reasoning behind it; there was some sort of problem that was unresolvable at the time that showed a clear lack of ability to effectively communicate and solve itself without him leaving or being kicked. That shows internal problems. Not to mention that all I said was that he didn't leave due to restructuring, that he was kicked due to problems in the tribe. If you want to change the "was kicked" to "left", feel free. It's not going to make a difference.
Me said:
Seriously? Do I have to quote the progression of the conversation? Goldenrat shows a bunch of people leaving, including dmcd. Blue eyed sandwalker says "Oh, it's called restructuring". I specify that dmcd was not a part of the group.
By the gods, I doubt I've ever seen someone try to so deliberately misconstrue my words. I specifically said he was not associated with the group, not associated with restructuring, and you tell me I am. What more do I have to do for you to read?
And for the last time, I'm not saying it couldn't turn around. However, your ridiculous example and the losses of 50-126 in favor of your enemies over the past month is not a "2 village loss" that quickly turns around. Especially when the losses are getting worse in ratio (in total for the war, you are down 111-164, and in the past week it's been 18-64). All stats are including Fremen. Anything else you want to nit-pick? Feel free, really, but I'm not clogging up the forums if you're not even going to bother to read my posts :icon_neutral:.
Damutantman, while they do cost you troops and nukes and defense, to include them would be akin to GotRob including all of the small tribes they fight, and =GTC=, and ESL, and then claiming that they are winning because their war stats vs. small tribes is far superior to yours. You effectively get nowhere when you don't look at the wars that
actually matter, because I can assure you that ~LL~ losing their war is expected. It's all in perspective, and if your players see you losing wars to GotRob, ESL, and =GTC= while winning against ~LL~, I can assure you that it's not going to change their perspectives on the quality of the tribe.
