Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

gwar no need for theatrics man. This is not the end of the world by any means. It would be nice if people could respect each others opinions but... Oh well.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:gwar no need for theatrics man. This is not the end of the world by any means. It would be nice if people could respect each others opinions but... Oh well.

If the person actually admitted it was their opinion, that would be fine. WHen they are claiming those are the rules, and have done so now for 22 pages without offering a shred of actual proof from the rules - thats a different thing.

Additionally would you appreciate being misquoted in order to construct a case that you are making a fallacious argument?

GW dont need to FAQ what "onto" means because the English language does it perfectly well.

You know you have valid points but don't let other people drag you down.. You are a cool guy. :-)

It's just the repetition after 22 pages of what was said page 1, and that DR, KP et al have come no closer to refuting.

This reminds me of that picture that says arguing on the internet is like running in the.....

Nah, the XKCD cartoon posted a few pages back was perfect...for some reason trying to get someone to finally realise the difference between on and off, and that applying rules commutatively isnt a winning strategy, is quite addictive...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nah, the XKCD cartoon posted a few pages back was perfect...for some reason trying to get someone to finally realise the difference between on and off, and that applying rules commutatively isnt a winning strategy, is quite addictive...

Until the high blood pressure kills you.

Still waiting for the cute Asian girl picture....

Gorkamorka wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Here we go again, you judge the whole based on a part..... .000001 of the model is on the table, the entire model is on the table. That is what it sounds like when you say partially on is on. Compostion fallacy period. You saying it's not, does not make it so.

...so you misquoting what we're saying so that it is a compositional fallacy makes it a compositional fallacy? I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy for that...

Noone is saying that if it is partially on then it is entirely on. It's not entirely on.
But it is on.

You are saying that it fullfils the requirement of on yes? Again, what it sounds like you are saying when partially on is (ON). I had to isolate that particular part of the sentence so you can see it. You are putting an assumption into what you have read. I am doing the same. There is a catch though. You seems to be working under the assumption that partially is allowed. As for Nos I care not for your insults and degredation, you by attacking me have created another problem for yourself. I will let you figure out which is which on the bottom of the page. I am sorely disappointed in you and am truely let down by your actions. You are grasping at something and using your own interpretation as law. DR has anwsered your question about models needing to be on the table, he has also given you what part of the board the model takes up (base/Hull) and yet that does not seem to make you realize that your argument is wrong. Also I have given you playing area, which you have seem to have discarded with all the care of a wanton child, so as to not have your arguement be wrong, and yet it is still wrong. When you put those two things together any move that does not finish with the base/hull on the table is an illegal move. This is where you need to look really hard because there is just no arguing it with you anymore because it has come down to personal attacks. If any part of the model is not occupying the playing area it is not a legal move. PERIOD. Have a nice day hope this thread remains open.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
You are saying that it fullfils the requirement of on yes? Again, what it sounds like you are saying when partially on is (ON). I had to isolate that particular part of the sentence so you can see it. You are putting an assumption into what you have read. I am doing the same. There is a catch though. You seems to be working under the assumption that partially is allowed. As for Nos I care not for your insults and degredation, you by attacking me have created another problem for yourself. I will let you figure out which is which on the bottom of the page. I am sorely disappointed in you and am truely let down by your actions. You are grasping at something and using your own interpretation as law. DR has anwsered your question about models needing to be on the table, he has also given you what part of the board the model takes up (base/Hull) and yet that does not seem to make you realize that your argument is wrong. Also I have given you playing area, which you have seem to have discarded with all the care of a wanton child, so as to not have your arguement be wrong, and yet it is still wrong. When you put those two things together any move that does not finish with the base/hull on the table is an illegal move. This is where you need to look really hard because there is just no arguing it with you anymore because it has come down to personal attacks. If any part of the model is not occupying the playing area it is not a legal move. PERIOD. Have a nice day hope this thread remains open.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Continually referencing logical fallacies incorrectly really doesn't help your argument.
Nor does continually referencing unrelated rules or text that doesn't actually contain any supporting rules.

For about the 500th time, partially on is on. It's not fully on, but the rules don't ask for fully on.
They ask for on, and being partially on counts as being on in the english language. I'm not sure what language you're using.

"You must be fully on the table, because a model takes up the area of it's base" isn't an actual argument that shows anything. Sure, a model takes up the area of it's base... but being partially on is still on and the rules still don't ask for fully on. We're back at square one.
"A model must be fully on the playing field" isn't an argument, because the rules don't ever actually say it in any context relating to this situation. Find me a rule that actually specifically says this.
"There is a playing area" isn't an argument, because the rules never define any restrictions on what that means.
All of your arguments are based entirely on shaky extrapolations from very vague text, not on the actual concrete text itself. If the rules don't specifically say it, then you don't have any proof or backing for your argument and need to stop posting like you do and like you have permission to add clauses to the rules governing how you think they should play out.

"You seems to be working under the assumption that partially is allowed." No assumptions are involved. Unless you can prove that any of the perfectly legal actions involved are illegal, or that the result is specifically labeled illegal (or that partially on isn't on in the English language), then the action is legal. You can't, and your "grasping" at all these unspecific or unrelated rules is proof enough.

Also, using personal insults ("wanton child", etc.) after your tirade against Nos using them is rather hypocritical... don't you think?

Wow 22 pages and flamy. I am shutting this puppy down for the good of humanity. I think you're just repeating yourselves at this point.
Clearly its time for another picture of the Yoda of the Weiner world.