Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
The population limit is much more obvious when moving people around than when recruiting with a radio beacon, since you have direct control and can see immediately when a settlement won't take any more people.
As for occasionally, what a load of brahminshit it is at last 5-6 times a month for days at a time until I get so @#$%ing disgusted with your stupidity, double standards, and arrogance I just unsubscribe.
Every @#$%ing time you quote something, then use some minute nearly irrelevant detail loophole that does not meet your standards to create an argument because you are addicted to arguing with people. Yet you repeatedly fail to apply those same standards of proof to yourself by saying ♥♥♥♥ like "You/it did not specifically exclude that."
Then a day or two into the argument you try claiming you never said what you did. Everything you said can be quoted and you forget that EVERY @#$%ing time.
You never once said WORN items, you said BOOSTS. Anything to create the lie to keep from admitting you were wrong. Yet if I do bring it up that only makes it so you argue whether the term boosts includes buffs or not. Simply because your are an arrogant argumentative troll that will do anything to avoid admitting you were wrong.
On top of that, you are such a pathetic horrible liar, you try to claim you never said chems. Yet you just spent two @#$%ing days arguing that the timer on chem buffs affect population limits. How @#$%ing stupid are you that you forgot you jsut argued for two days on the subject.
It is arrogant to think my attitude towards you will ever change for the better. You sure as @#$% are not going to improve that attitude by arguing for days on end you @#$%ing arrogant idiot.
You've got the block/ignore option if you can't even stand seeing unrelated posts near yours without feeling magically compelled to respond.
It's your own warped interpretation of my actions you're getting frustrated over, and a butting heads a few times a month is hardly unusual for a couple of long-term members on the same forum.
As I've said before, I'm quite detail-oriented, and I am always willing and able to explain what is relevant and how.
My standards for it are quite consistent, even if you seem inexplicably unable to understand what is important and why. It's quite difficult to address with someone who has priorities like treating the wiki as more important than the original game.
When you quote it almost inevitably proves exactly what I was saying, to which you apply some bizarre interpretation of what you think it meant, often directly contrary to what the words involved say.
It's like you're blind to the actual words, and see only your opinion of them.
As you can see in post #15 my reference is initially to happening to "have on" some extra items that boost Charisma. I didn't use the specific word "worn", but "have on" is synonymous, and it's certainly not how you refer to taking chems.
I don't object on any boost/buff basis; those terms are also synonymous here.
I said I never originally spoke about them, which is because I was originally talking about the more likely boost from items someone might have on.
Once you used chems as an example boost in your reply (after also mentioning them in your post about time having nothing to do with population limits), I went with that example since it was similarly useful for talking about how timing was required for affecting population limits.
Tell me, if you're wrong about a matter like this one, what do you think is the way to convince you of it?
While you could be easily buttered up by someone playing the role of a fawning sycophant who just agreed with you on everything, it wouldn't really change anything if you just continue to be insulting the moment another disagreement arises.
take it to the real life..
fight.. fight.. fight!! ;)
ah.. I was talking about you two.. and your arguments. I'm sure you both will feel better after some punches ;)
Notice when I said his arguments are harassing behavior and too frequent he argued to deny it. Yet you just said it and he did not even say a word about it. Talk about double standard douchebaggery.
That arrogant troll will literally take any comment I make and try to think up some dumb ass way he can twist what was said into an argument. I explain that is NOT what I meant, he stills argues like the arrogant troll he is.
Take this argument in this topic as a prime example:
Splattergutz made a comment that the time you own a settlement increases population limit. I replied time has nothing to do with the population limits.
Along comes the arrogant troll to argue there is an exception that time does matter.
The code for population limits does not care about time. It only cares if the buff is present or not. Yet that arrogant troll creates an argument over that.
Then the arrogant argumentative troll tries to claim he never said chems, he said worn items.
Which is a lie because worn items do not have a buff duration, so time is irrelevant.
Watch him come up with another brahminshit word salad trying to argue his way out rather than just admitting he was wrong.
Pretty @#$%ing sad when you try to lie after arguing about buff time duration for two @#$%ing days.
He will lie and twist anything he can to avoid admitting to being wrong. Yet even after being told he does this repeatedly he still can not grasp the concept why nobody wants to put up with his brahminshit discussion.
You can even point out how his arguing derails a topic and drives everyone away. He does not care. That is one hell of an amazing personality you can enter a topic and drive everyone else away from because they no longer want to listen to your brahminshit word salads.
When you confront the arrogant troll about ending the arguing, he NEVER stops. It is always the same old brahminshit how I should have to ignore him or stop replying. Which is exactly the attitude a bully harassing other people says.
See look at this example:
Notice the arrogant argumentative troll immediately goes straight o disagreeing and contradicting. He wants the argument to happen. The thought of simply asking a question instead never even occurs to him at all.
I replied to Splattergutz before you did and made a point specifically about using buffs at the right time. Specifically, that a possible cause for an unexpectedly high population limit would have been having on a Charisma buff item at the time.
Naturally when someone followed my post by saying time had nothing to do with population limits, I pointed out the exact exception to that I'd just mentioned since it was directly related to what I'd been saying.
You have to be wearing them at the right time, which is particularly for Charisma items as it's common to only put them on for the limited bit of time in which you need them.
I can only take responsibility for my half of a discussion, not yours, and I give priority to the OP and original topic if they're continuing. I don't really get the "word salad" part you're going with.
A bully would also shout at people and try to use insults and aggression to get their way. Or might try to constantly paint someone as an "arrogant troll" and place entire responsibility for a mutual exchange on them. Which of us fits that mould better?
I have a lot of stamina for discussion, but I do it all in individual replies. I post. You post. I post. You post. If you're not posting something to which I would form a reply anyway, I don't try to provoke a response from you.
You don't get to decide that someone else can't respond just because you don't like what they're saying. Only bullies expect that.
I told you why I wouldn't take the approach I described, because it would lack integrity even if it might temporarily pacify the situation; it would be a poor patch, and ultimately futile. I did also ask you the question, below, you just ignored it:
If you're trying to avoid having an argument, why would you not answer if I reach out to you like this?
Why would you try to pretend I didn't ask how you thought a disagreement like this should be approached?
Yet you missed the detail you were being ignored. I did not quote you. You made the assumption I actually bothered to read your brahminshit word salad.
Yet you ran right out quoted me and claimed I was wrong. That is NOT a discussion. That is an argument and you should know that after years of your incessant arguing. Trying to deny it would cause an argument when you did it is nothing but a lie.
Years of harassment and you were actually stupid enough to think I would believe that brahminshit. How many times have I said I do not want to argue, and how many times did you say the same bullying things:
So yeah, trying this whole "reaching out thing"is nothing but a lie. If you were ever willing to reach out you would have stopped harassing me a long time ago.
You are so damn arrogant you do not even understand that when someone posts something, then you quote and contradict it undermines a person's credibility. Which forces someone to have to defend themselves. Then you turn around and turn that defense post into an argument. Then the argument continues endlessly until they have to unsubscribe and stop responding to you. Every @#$%ing time. This is because you are nothing but an arrogant argumentative bully that enjoys harassing people into arguments.
Consider for a moment that I'm being honest about what I say, and that I'm not going out of my way to harass you, just disagreeing here and there. You've been insulting me for years over nothing. How should I feel about that?
For example, I note a minor exception I'm already talking about (because I'm really detail oriented), and instead of a reasonable person's "yeah, that's a corner case" or something like it, I get pages of insults and aggression, no matter how calmly and patiently I explain my position on the matter and my reasoning.
How is that not what you're also doing by contradicting me in turn? That's going to happen any time people disagree, and there will be contradiction even if they don't use the forum's quote function.
Personally, I hold what I say to be credible if there's appropriate evidence and sources to back it, and if it checks out for other people. Being angry and defensive about it does nothing for someone's credibility.
It's not an attack. If you're worried about being credible just discuss it like a reasonable person. I've never begun such an exchange by trying to degrade or insult the person I'm talking with as you do. My goal is to convince, not destroy.
By your reasoning, you're harassing me as an arrogant bully, by continually contradicting me and forcing me to defend my credibility, while also being incredibly insulting about it, even if I've not once insulted you.
Because I am genuine about it trying to resolve disagreements more peacefully, I'll ask the question again: If you're wrong about a matter like this one, what do you think is the right way to convince you of it?