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.

It's kind of ironic that the OP doesn't address Sgt_Smudge's points for the sake of avoiding repetition and dragging the conversation out but in doing so does the very thing he states he's trying to supposedly not do.

Seems like a fishy and semantic way to not concede that the OP might be in the wrong here.

I'm actually going to point out that Maximus has ignored me on two points. The first, they say:
"Smudge, you're so persistent, you don't give up. Unfortunately for you, neither do I.

Unfortunately I'm quite busy as of late, so I'll take much time to give a detailed rebuttal.

But I'll get back to you, I promise."

When they do respond, it's not a rebuttal of my point, or even about the topic presented, but rather with how I write chronologically.

I then wrote another section about how people aren't falling into these "pitfalls of misunderstanding", because it's not the execution of the idea that's the issue, it's the idea itself. I categorically go through the OP, explain the problems of the idea, and that the discussion on chronology could be addressed in PM, but wouldn't be suitable here.

Neither On-Topic points were addressed, as of writing this.

This is getting ridiculous. Smudge's points were crystal clear and precise. This swirling around nonsense is just trolling for attention at this point.

 Maximus Bitch wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It's kind of ironic that the OP doesn't address Sgt_Smudge's points for the sake of avoiding repetition and dragging the conversation out but in doing so does the very thing he states he's trying to supposedly not do.

Seems like a fishy and semantic way to not concede that the OP might be in the wrong here.

Grimskul, I understand why you might look at it that way.

But although I'm harping on this issue, I'm not being repetitive. In fact, I have experienced the bogging down with Smudge when talking about the main topic(s), and now for this line of discussion, the same thing.

Is it definitely me who's doing the bogging, or could it be him as well?

Do you see Smudge addressing on point when I ask him to clarify? Or do you see some evasion? Do you see repetitiveness from Smudge?


I am not trying to dishonestly avoid conceding. I am not dishonest. This has been borne through my experiences with Smudge. Not just this thread, but on another one as well.

Let me just make this very clear, I have consistently asked that we actually discuss the terms of your thread. I'm repeating my point because you refuse to actually get on topic of your own thread.

Please, tell me, in what way am I bogging this down? I have asked that we get on topic, and that you address the points I raise. All of them. If that means you repeating yourself to enforce a point, please do so. So long as we actually get on topic.

If anyone else deems that I am responding with this in an inappropriate manner, then I will be glad to be corrected. However, multiple people have called you out on this.

There is no need to bring other threads into this one - if you have an issue with them, please, PM me. That's your concern, not mine, or anything to do with this thread.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm actually going to point out that Maximus has ignored me on two points. The first, they say:
"Smudge, you're so persistent, you don't give up. Unfortunately for you, neither do I.

Unfortunately I'm quite busy as of late, so I'll take much time to give a detailed rebuttal.

But I'll get back to you, I promise."

When they do respond, it's not a rebuttal of my point, or even about the topic presented, but rather with how I write chronologically.

I then wrote another section about how people aren't falling into these "pitfalls of misunderstanding", because it's not the execution of the idea that's the issue, it's the idea itself. I categorically go through the OP, explain the problems of the idea, and that the discussion on chronology could be addressed in PM, but wouldn't be suitable here.

Neither On-Topic points were addressed, as of writing this.

First of all, I promised you that I will address those. I am not dishonest.

I said I would get to it. I did not ignore Smudge.

Yes, and you chose to make a remark about "chronological posting" over actually dealing with points in the thread.
I think that speaks for itself.

I'm still waiting for you to address them, and seeing as that is actually the point and topic of this thread, I think that that is the more pressing matter.
I'd be happy to let the mods make that decision.

Second, after I said "But I'll get back to you, I promise."", I posted this:

 Maximus Bitch wrote:

@Sgt Smudge

You said you'll address everything chronologically, aka in order of writing. That means you've really got to address every bit so as not to miss out anything.

Secondly, if you see something that contradicts later on, will you scroll back up to edit your earlier part? Otherwise, you could post a reply that contradicts itself, and it is way more messy that way

Thirdly, I'm worried that if some of my points are in separate sections of my reply, I'll have to repeat myself needlessly.

You can see why I need Smudge to do this.

In this thread? This thread about Tyranid gods? And not over PM?
Are you sure this is on topic, and needs to be discussed here?

I need you to clarify. I have not addressed those On-Topic points yet. But you have not addressed this yet.

Want to PM? Ok, good. I await your PM, Sgt. Smudge.

Look, this is your thread. If you want to keep it derailed, that's on you. I am consistently asking you to actually get back onto your own topic, and answer my points.

I am emphasising this, for clarity:
I am asking you to respond, as you said you would, to my On Topic points in this thread.
You refuse to do so until I address an Off Topic point, in the same thread.

I don't see why the Off Topic point takes prevalence in this thread, seeing as it's, yanno, Off Topic.
If you want an answer, PM me. It's your concern, and does not need to be in this thread. If you want to address it, do so there. If you want to continue to derail your own thread by expecting me to answer something Off Topic to it, I'm afraid that it doesn't belong in this thread.

Now, I will ask again: please, bring your thread on topic, and respond to the points from not only myself, and others as well.

 Maximus Bitch wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. Smudge's points were crystal clear and precise. This swirling around nonsense is just trolling for attention at this point.

It is not. As I've explained to Grimskul.

Please, evidence? Again, we're going off topic.
And still waiting an On Topic response.

 Maximus Bitch wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. Smudge's points were crystal clear and precise. This swirling around nonsense is just trolling for attention at this point.

It is not. As I've explained to Grimskul.

Actions speak louder than words. Respond to the damn points about your idea. I don't see why your ego is so fragile that you can't do that.

This thread is such a waste of time. But it proves completely that the idea is without merit if even you are refusing to defend it.

Quite.

I started deleting some posts to try and salvage the thread but, frankly, given the efforts sown by some thus far doesn't really seem worth it.

If people are not willing to engage honestly then hit the alert and/or move on.