These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

ORE ship reimbursement and upcoming expansion

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#381 - 2013-03-11 11:18:36 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"I didn't ask you" = "I know you're right and that's why you should shut up"

I was asking Roberto. And as you can see is Tippia not capable of following a simple discussion. You know I am right, don't you?
This is NOT a discussion. Discussions involve analysis and acceptance of what the opposite says.
That's NOT what's happening in the usual GD thread, (and your behaviour supports my words),
hence it's not a discussion.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#382 - 2013-03-11 11:19:31 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
I was asking you.
I know, and in return, I'm asking you: why on earth anyone should be reimbursed when they haven't lost anything?

Quote:
I see no ground for any discussion between you and me.
So you agree, then, that since no-one has lost anything, there should be no reimbursements. Excellent. Nice of you to see reason for once.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#383 - 2013-03-11 11:21:06 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
No, I was not.
Incorrect.

You thought that I was asking you. I am telling you that I am not. Now you do not believe me.

I see no ground for any discussion between you and me.


Dude, when you post on a public forum, you post it for everyone that has access. That includes Tippia. So get over yourself and answer the question, or continue to dodge it and make excuses for having no answer. Your call.

You may think so, but when I am telling you that I was not asking you, but you do not want to believe me then what good is it?


No. As long as you're free to comment and express your opinions here, you make them open to comment and criticism from anyone that has access. By virtue of posting here, you ask everyone whether you wanted to or not. It's just like when you undock in the game, you are fair game for anyone and everyone whether you like it or not. What you or I 'believe' is irrelevant, what matters is what is, and what is is that you made your opinion publicly open to scrutiny and criticism and question just by posting it in a public forum. If you can't handle that, then it only demonstrates how well your opinion holds up against that criticism or question. If you were so sure of yourself, then the criticism and questions should be easy to answer, regardless of who asks them or who you were 'mindfully' directing them at.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#384 - 2013-03-11 11:21:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
I was asking you.
I know, and in return, I'm asking you: why on earth anyone should be reimbursed when they haven't lost anything?

Quote:
I see no ground for any discussion between you and me.
So you agree, then, that since no-one has lost anything, there should be no reimbursements. Excellent. Nice of you to see reason for once.
He sounds like you scarred him emotionally.
Is there something between you and him we (probably) should(n't) know ? ^_^
Whitehound
#385 - 2013-03-11 11:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
You are all entitled to have your opinions of course, but the question was a direct reply to Roberto.

If you cannot see this even when I am telling you then there is no point to discuss anything with you but with the exception being the weather maybe.

And you know I am right.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#386 - 2013-03-11 11:24:02 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
You are all entitled to have your opinions of course, but the question was a direct reply to Roberto.

If you cannot see this even when I am telling you then there is no point to discuss anything with you but with the exception being the weather maybe.

We know who you were replying to.
That doesn't mean we can't respond to what you said. If you really think that then you're being absurd.
You have no place posting on a public forum if you can't take criticism. You can't pick and choose who gets to reply to you and who doesn't.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#387 - 2013-03-11 11:25:02 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
You are all entitled to have your opinions of course, but the question was a direct reply to Roberto.

If you cannot see this even when I am telling you then there is no point to discuss anything with you but with the exception being the weather maybe.

And you know I am right.


No, because just saying "I am right" doesn't make it so. If we knew you were right, we wouldn't be demonstrating why you're wrong and you wouldn't be trying to defend your refusal to answer Tippia's very simple question.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#388 - 2013-03-11 11:25:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
You are all entitled to have your opinions of course, but the question was a direct reply to Roberto.
…and it doesn't really matter because it was posed as a general nonsensical hypothetical — with no bearing on the topic at hand or with any basis in reality — to anyone who has read the thread. Anyone who wants to respond can take it as a question asked directly at them.

Either way, it was never the actual question. Rather, the question from the very beginning was: why on earth anyone should be reimbursed when they haven't lost anything?
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#389 - 2013-03-11 11:25:04 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
If you cannot see this even when I am telling you then there is no point to discuss anything with you but with the exception being the weather maybe.

There's no point in discussing the whole matter, factually.
Except for you, of course, because you believe expressing your opinion is somehow relevant to a greater good.

Oh btw ... why should something be reimbursed, when there is nothing lost ?
The Slayer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#390 - 2013-03-11 11:26:58 UTC
Did I get any of my skills back when CCP drastically changed what a carrier could do? No. Did I get any of my skills back when CCP drastically reduced the entry level to carriers from BSV to BSI? No. Did I get any of my skills back when CCP changed the nature of titans from AOE doomsday machines to Single Shot Bridging devices? No.

Suck it up princess.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#391 - 2013-03-11 11:27:10 UTC
Now Tippia has entered I feel this thread has not just gone down hill, but fallen off the edge of a cliff. :)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#392 - 2013-03-11 11:27:25 UTC
Basically the entire argument comes down to "CCP hurt my feelings I want compensation".

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#393 - 2013-03-11 11:28:23 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Now Tippia has entered I feel this thread has not just gone down hill, but fallen off the edge of a cliff. :)

"Our cruisers can't repel logic of that magnitude!"

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#394 - 2013-03-11 11:29:06 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Now Tippia has entered I feel this thread has not just gone down hill, but fallen off the edge of a cliff. :)
So you haven't actually read the thread, I take it? Lol
Whitehound
#395 - 2013-03-11 11:33:50 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
You are all entitled to have your opinions of course, but the question was a direct reply to Roberto.

If you cannot see this even when I am telling you then there is no point to discuss anything with you but with the exception being the weather maybe.

We know who you were replying to.
That doesn't mean we can't respond to what you said. If you really think that then you're being absurd.
You have no place posting on a public forum if you can't take criticism. You can't pick and choose who gets to reply to you and who doesn't.

No, it does not mean that and I am also not saying it. But I can choose to whom I reply and how I reply. You can then choose to like it or dislike it. Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#396 - 2013-03-11 11:35:41 UTC
I'm wondering.

If i instead used a battlecruiser to blow more of my "load" into a "ship",
would that reflect a subconscious fear of not having enough "firepower" ?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#397 - 2013-03-11 11:35:51 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
You are all entitled to have your opinions of course, but the question was a direct reply to Roberto.

If you cannot see this even when I am telling you then there is no point to discuss anything with you but with the exception being the weather maybe.

We know who you were replying to.
That doesn't mean we can't respond to what you said. If you really think that then you're being absurd.
You have no place posting on a public forum if you can't take criticism. You can't pick and choose who gets to reply to you and who doesn't.

No, it does not mean that and I am also not saying it. But I can choose to whom I reply and how I reply. You can then choose to like it or dislike it. Lol

I've never met someone who took their signature to heart as much as you seem to have.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#398 - 2013-03-11 11:36:41 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
I'm wondering.

If i instead used a battlecruiser to blow more of my "load" into a "ship",
would that reflect a subconscious fear of not having enough "firepower" ?

Only if it's a Talos.
If it's a rail Naga that reflects on an entirely different subconscious fear.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#399 - 2013-03-11 11:38:40 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
I'm wondering.

If i instead used a battlecruiser to blow more of my "load" into a "ship",
would that reflect a subconscious fear of not having enough "firepower" ?

Only if it's a Talos.
If it's a rail Naga that reflects on an entirely different subconscious fear.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA XD
Whitehound
#400 - 2013-03-11 11:39:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Solstice Project wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
If you cannot see this even when I am telling you then there is no point to discuss anything with you but with the exception being the weather maybe.

There's no point in discussing the whole matter, factually.
Except for you, of course, because you believe expressing your opinion is somehow relevant to a greater good.

Oh btw ... why should something be reimbursed, when there is nothing lost ?

CCP does plan for a reimbursement and they plan to give the players the Mining Barge V skill as if they had willingly trained for mining barges. Reallocating / moving skill points around then does not add anything either other than the right to revisit and possibly change an old decision.

So you may want to rethink your logic behind your argument here.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.