I don't understand how it could be a lack of interest when you said you'd respond if I posted, but when I did, you conveniently disappeared. Make of it what you will, but your posts are conflicting with each other.
Anyway, it occurred to me that all of this has been a strong distraction regarding Parm's overreacting about me wondering if his account would perform the same without the co-player that helped make it what it is. You demanded I respond to that here, and given the liberties we've been granted for this conflict on this thread by mods and public alike, I see no reason not to.
Here is my response to Parmenion without any of the extra information. Anyone wanting a Red-Bull inspired in-depth coverage should check this link out.
[spoil]The entire foundation for Parmenion's debate is grounded on the accusation of me lying. He tries to prove I am by twisting my words and by misrepresenting my posts and quoting them out of order. For example, I say something about post
A, he says, "you said this about post
B, so obviously you are wrong with that post." (paraphrasing), even though I was not saying it about
B at all. Everything past this is an attempt to distract the debate from bringing any light to the changes that may have taken effect on his in-game account.
The simple reason there is repetition Atraeus is because you are missing or deliberatley avoiding my points.
This accusation goes both ways Parmenion. I think you are deliberately ignoring my points, and I'd say the rest of this post pretty well proves it.
The sequence of events are:
1. I post my opinions on the TARDIS disband.
2. Your next post clearly states:
This is a direct reply to 1. - Proximate Cause of your post. I can call anyone a liar when I know they are lying regardless of whether or not you think I have grounds to. Its irrelevant if its a joke or not because...
I agree, that jibe was in direct response to your post.
I never indicated it wasn't.
3. I reply to you stating simply that there is nothing new about this side to me. Badlapje later confirms this is true from his viewpoint but I think there is nobody in the world other than you who would see some new side to me.
4. You state:
You don't know 2 Parmenion's Atraeus. You know only one because you only know the man who posts on the forums and I state this to you here making it clear that you only know 1 face, 1 player:
Whether I "know" you and/or your old co-player are redundant.
I know that "Parmenion" was two people, and is now one. I don't need to know any more than that (I clarify a little later)
5. You stated that there is more to an account than the forum personality BUT you ONLY know the forum personality. You also stated that you were just musing which is in itself back tracking and this is why...
Again, whether I know you or not in game has no bearing on any changes the absence of your co-player would have in game. (more clarification to come, in case this isn't enough)
Musing by its definition is contemplation: a calm, lengthy, intent consideration. Musing on something is to consider a matter with reflection.
That is a very pointed direct statement. You are stating that it DOES show a whole new side to me. If you were musing you would have used more ambiguous terminology characteristic of reflection such as: this might show a whole new side, this could show a whole new side etc. This is basic linguistics Atraeus.
I agree. That was not a musing, and I never said it was. That was a
joke. Dry sarcasm to be specific. The musing came later.
But you dont only call your first post a musing, you go on to say its also sarcasm!
This is a blatant lie. Again, I never called that first post a musing. You are twisting my words to support your case Parm. The musing came later, the first post was a joke, and I made this clear with this quote:
I wasn't originally out to make a point Parm, I made something of a dry joke at the end of that post. But your response to that did spark some thought, which led me to a musing.
And regarding this:
You cannot make up your mind apparently. Again, just like its not a musing, its not sarcasm either.
I just proved it wrong, since you have twisted my words to come to this conclusion.
Sarcasm defined as A form of humor that is marked by mocking with irony, sometimes conveyed in speech with vocal over-emphasis. Saying something that is opposite of what is intended to be meant.
My example of dry sarcasm: You act the way you always act, and I say in a very dry tone that we see a whole new side to you, and use the shocked (surprised) emoticon. That would be like me posting a text wall, and you saying, wow, this is a whole new side to Atraeus. :icon_eek: (shock!!!) The dry statement is ironic because it is not, in fact, shocking at all, and not what you would expect from a serious post. Or put another way, I was saying the opposite of what I meant and exaggerated the point. Like saying on dark, cloudy evening, "wow, its bright as hell out here! :icon_eek:"
Seriously, the only crime you can even remotely say I committed was failing to communicate to you the humor intended in that post, otherwise you are just intentionally trying to spin this a different way.
There is no mocking irony here. There is no over emphasis. You weren't saying the opposite of what you meant either and therefore you were not being sarcastic. You either don't understand sarcasm or musing or as previously states by me Atraeus. You are lying about the intent behind your statement. I think its quite clear that I had grounds to call you a liar and the above deconstruction categorically proves this.
I think I just made it clear that you don't have grounds to call me a liar. You missed the humor there, and I realized this after you and Bad posted. So I told you guys I meant that specifically as humor.
But you choose to ignore this in favor of twisting my point. A twist that supports the rest of your case against me. You can call me a liar all you want Parm, but that doesn't make it true.
This is the stage at which I asked you exactly what your point was which led into the rest of the discussion. Up until this I had been replying directly to your statements that you had been making explaining certain things and why you were incorrect in your thinking. But at this point I wanted to know if there was a point to your posts other than to have said something in the thread and to have shared an opinion for the sake of having shared an opinion. Therefore, I asked you what your point was.
You implied that it was not possible for me to know you because I was not fighting you, and because you are Irish. How did you expect me to respond? None of that had anything to do with what I was saying. It seemed to me then, and does even more so now, like you are taking the idea of me thinking I know you personal. Like an insult that you must disprove, when as stated earlier,
it has no bearing on what I was saying.
So you posted for the sake of posting and postulating like you knew something you didn't. You state yourself that your point was in fact musing. Musing is not a point. Its a reflection and as I have demonstrated you weren't musing. You're linguistics don't satisfy the nature of it.
I guess I need to remind you that my original post (the one you say was done just for the sake of posting) had nothing to do with you until the last, single line, which
was a pointless joke. No,
that post had a purpose, all of it, except the joke at the end, which didn't.
It was just me being a sarcastic smart ass, something I'm known to be, and was a lighthearted poke.
Again,
the following post was me expressing my musing, and the point came from that musing, it wasn't the musing itself. The musing was the realization that there must be, and has been, a change in the "Parmenion" account.
The point was to state that I believe there is a change, and to vocalize my interest to know in what way the account would be different, due to the change. So what you accuse me of doing here is total crap, as I have pointed out quite clearly already.
You then went on to make a sequence of statements which were incorrect as identified and shown in my last post.
I fail to see how you disproved anything I've been repeatedly saying, just as you continue failing to do so now.
Now to your most recent post:
You disagreed I was the same Parmenion and I am and you cannot accept that. My co-player had an effect in game but not on the forums and the only Parmenion you know is the forum one since you don't play world 30 and have never had any direct dealings with me. This isn't an angle Atraeus. Its a statement of facts. You don't know me and you are perceiving some convoluted change in me that is a figment of your imagination. Its a figment of your imagination because you are the only one seeing this so called change.
Here you are taking my point out of context by twisting my words. I do disagree that you are the same Parm, I still do, because of the impact your co-players absence will have on your in game presence. At the time that I was referencing in that quote (my second post), I was still yet to learn that your co-player wasn't present on the forums, so I believed you were not the same on
all fronts. Yet you ignore the fact that I recognized this and respected it when you told me otherwise, and I didn't argue with you over it. (i.e.)
At no time have I argued about your forum presence since you informed me you co-player wasn't on here.
My belief of a different Parm is not a "perceived change," it is
logical reasoning. At no point did I say I perceived a difference. Actually, I said the opposite when I said it would be interesting to see a difference. Nevertheless, the fact stands that in any aspect that your co-player would have impacted your account, there is, in his absence, now a change. It doesn't have to be seen to be believed, it is just practical to expect.
The angle is you are trying to use my words to lock me into referencing the forums only, which is a manipulation and misconstruction of my points, and a blatant disregard for the facts to support a false case.
ANYONE at all reading these forums seeing this change that Atraeus believes simply must exist? ANYONE?
Only time will tell if there is a change.
But again, my opinion is based on logical reasoning, not perceptions, and at this point, you only appear pissed because I think there is a difference at all. You seem more bent on proving there is no difference more so than anything else, and appear willing to manipulate our interaction to achieve this.
Atraeus, you made idle incorrect speculations without all the facts. You were wrong in doing that and continued trying to defend a position that is indefensible. The matter has not been blown out of proportion. I have continued with this because you are failing to see your errors and because you are talking crap in this instance. This has nothing to do with heart or any other emotional involvement. You were wrong with your initial statement and you have perpetuated misrepresenting what you initially stated because you simply cannot admit that you perceived change was based upon the supposition that 2 players played my account both on the forums and in game in your mind.
My initial statement was a joke. I was not wrong with the joke, because it was a joke that actually meant exactly what you are saying about being the same Parm on these forums.
Just because you choose to ignore the fact that it was a joke and take it seriously, to support a false case, does not change the fact that it was a joke. And I have stuck to my story from the start because its the truth. I have no need to twist it, to warp it, to manipulate it or to speculate secret meanings or intentions. I see it how I meant it, I can't see it any other way.
If you want to say I'm talking crap because I'm not willing to lie to myself and see it your way, then so be it. Call it what you will, but I will continue to keep talking this crap, because...(surprise! surprise!) the "crap" is the truth.
The thread has no further need to be in existence given all involved stated their respective positions. The only remaining issue is your random statements directly relating to my initial post in this thread and your trying to conceal the fact that you wanted to appear to the world like you have some insight into Parmenion that you weren't privy to. An insight that was built upon false assumptions simply to make you appear somehow bigger in stature or a knowledge base relating to me than you actually are.
I sir, do kindly disagree.[/spoil]