vTards move Rook and start hiding the CV's

[vNUCKS]

You agreed with it, you said OBVIOUSLY. You didn't say OBVIOUSLY EXCEPT the name. You didn't say anything to contradict that part, you just agreed, then you back pedaled FAST when I called you on it. Critical reading means understanding what you read in the context of the register.

Now lets review Mayhem's 1st possibility,

1) "I'm as you say "Full of it" and trying to further spread a rumor I was unaware of. I really have nothing to gain from this other then Pissing you off which really I'd rather do that in the game. If I was lying then i wouldn't have an issue further lying and giving you a Name. I can even make it credible by giving a name of some Vguys I shot down a few nights ago during a mission with the date and time. After all it would be my word against theirs and he or she wouldn't be able to prove they didn't. I could start one evil little witch hunt leading to disharmony in the ranks."

to which I replied.

"1. Obviously the case.  "

In his same post, he also stated:

"Oh for the record If your reading this and your one of the guys feeding me or others Intel I swear on my sheep's wool I will never ever give your name up. 8) So you don't have to worry about me ratting you out now or in the future."

and you want to connect these dots to infer that:

"PS. By agreeing with Mayhem's #1 point, you also agree if he WAS lying, he would give you a name. You also agree it's a he said, she said argument, meaning you also agree you can't find the truth from the argument. All in all, that means by agreeing, you agree he's telling the truth because if he wasn't, he would lie to all of us about the name."

And I even later offered a theory as to despite his assertion that he would offer a name if he was lying, and my request for him to do so, he wouldn't.

"All the easier for him to accuse everyone than let someone defend themselves"

So... I'm done arguing with you, if you will not take the time to read and understand what I have said then there's absolutely no reason for me to even try.

[SEseph]

FAIL - often = frequent, but doesn't = typical or usual, get a dictionary and see for yourself... you're trying to argue semantics, and you doing it with half a wit.  And I haven't back-pedaled one bit, your entire argument is senseless. 

Lets try a few more examples: 

You can often or frequently get a cold, but that by no way means you usually or typically have a cold, or that you spend half your time with a cold.

I often fly a Corsair, but I usually fly a pony.

There often aren't even 40 countrymen online when I play, but usually there are more than 100.

Take this to school with you tomorrow and ask your English teacher of to critique your analysis.

fre·quent·ly
   [free-kwuhnt-lee] adverb - 1. constant or habitual


con·stant
   [kon-stuhnt] adjective - 1. not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable


ha·bit·u·al
   [huh-bich-oo-uhl] adjective- 1. of the nature of a habit;  fixed by or resulting from habit


u·su·al
   [yoo-zhoo-uhl, yoozh-wuhl] adjective - 1. habitual or customary

Let me fix this for you.

[Y]ou're trying to argue semantics, and you doing it with a half wit. 

Fixed

FAIL - often = frequent, but doesn't = typical or usual, get a dictionary and see for yourself... you're trying to argue semantics, and you doing it with half a wit.  And I haven't back-pedaled one bit, your entire argument is senseless. 

Lets try a few more examples: 

You can often or frequently get a cold, but that by no way means you usually or typically have a cold, or that you spend half your time with a cold.

I often fly a Corsair, but I usually fly a pony.

There often aren't even 40 countrymen online when I play, but usually there are more than 100.

Take this to school with you tomorrow and ask your English teacher of to critique your analysis.

This one is easier still. You agreed with it. You said obviously. He said he would not divulge the names unless he was lying and he did not. NOW what he DID do was press your buttons by making that statement. Most of us would do that to begin with, yet your infer that it means he's lying. When you give him the 'chance' to come clean and he holds his ground, the only thing it proves to YOU is he's lying. No matter his response, it would be a lie so you felt secure in your self. If one of my friends was sending me intel, or even some disgruntled person from your squad, I'd never rat them out. Mostly because they'd ask me not to do so and I agreed, I'd not be willing to break that trust. You apparently would sell anyone out so they could defend themselves, though.

It's okay, we get it, you have a need to defend your squad and that's cool, but why not take these complaints, no matter how baseless you feel they are and look into them? Normally Legend, myth, rumor and fish tails have something rooted in truth. We know your new dictator is a bad sport, we have screen shots of it. We have videos on YouTube of you guys doing things and many of us have seen it for ourselves. Just stop this withering defense and address the issues than tell us all to F off and prove you've changed. Your actions are the only thing stopping the community from embracing you.

[vNUCKS]

fre·quent·ly
   [free-kwuhnt-lee] adverb - 1. constant or habitual


con·stant
   [kon-stuhnt] adjective - 1. not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable


ha·bit·u·al
   [huh-bich-oo-uhl] adjective- 1. of the nature of a habit;  fixed by or resulting from habit


u·su·al
   [yoo-zhoo-uhl, yoozh-wuhl] adjective - 1. habitual or customary

Let me fix this for you.
Fixed

This one is easier still. You agreed with it. You said obviously. He said he would not divulge the names unless he was lying and he did not. NOW what he DID do was press your buttons by making that statement. Most of us would do that to begin with, yet your infer that it means he's lying. When you give him the 'chance' to come clean and he holds his ground, the only thing it proves to YOU is he's lying. No matter his response, it would be a lie so you felt secure in your self. If one of my friends was sending me intel, or even some disgruntled person from your squad, I'd never rat them out. Mostly because they'd ask me not to do so and I agreed, I'd not be willing to break that trust. You apparently would sell anyone out so they could defend themselves, though.

It's okay, we get it, you have a need to defend your squad and that's cool, but why not take these complaints, no matter how baseless you feel they are and look into them? Normally Legend, myth, rumor and fish tails have something rooted in truth. We know your new dictator is a bad sport, we have screen shots of it. We have videos on YouTube of you guys doing things and many of us have seen it for ourselves. Just stop this withering defense and address the issues than tell us all to F off and prove you've changed. Your actions are the only thing stopping the community from embracing you.

Sorry, said I was done but I can't help myself. I'm usually opposed to clubbing baby seals, but this ones bark is quite annoying.

Case in point, the word I used in my original quote was "OFTEN".  The word "frequently" was introduced by you when you misquoted me.  But Kudo's on getting the dictionary out.  

[vNUCKS]

And for the record, you keep misquoting Mayhem as well.

His first possibility again...

1) "I'm as you say "Full of it" and trying to further spread a rumor I was unaware of. I really have nothing to gain from this other then Pissing you off which really I'd rather do that in the game. If I was lying then i wouldn't have an issue further lying and giving you a Name. I can even make it credible by giving a name of some Vguys I shot down a few nights ago during a mission with the date and time. After all it would be my word against theirs and he or she wouldn't be able to prove they didn't. I could start one evil little witch hunt leading to disharmony in the ranks."

He never said he would divulge the names if he was lying, he said "then i wouldn't have an issue further lying and giving you a Name".

Please note that when I quote someone, I quote them verbatim.  You, on the other hand paraphrase, and quite recklessly.

[SEseph]

Sorry, said I was done but I can't help myself. I'm usually opposed to clubbing baby seals, but this ones bark is quite annoying.

Case in point, the word I used in my original quote was "OFTEN".  The word "frequently" was introduced by you when you misquoted me.  But Kudo's on getting the dictionary out.  

Sorry, here:

of·ten
   [aw-fuhn, of-uhn; awf-tuhn, of-] adverb - frequently

fre·quent·ly
   [free-kwuhnt-lee] adverb - 1. constant or habitual


con·stant
   [kon-stuhnt] adjective - 1. not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable


ha·bit·u·al
   [huh-bich-oo-uhl] adjective- 1. of the nature of a habit;  fixed by or resulting from habit


u·su·al
   [yoo-zhoo-uhl, yoozh-wuhl] adjective - 1. habitual or customary

So either Merriam-Webster is wrong, or you are when we look at this: Often=Frequent=Habitual=Usual and by how you guys react on these posts, I will be none surprised when you tell us you're right and they are wrong. I'm just the middleman, don't blame me for the definitions you failed to realize before you told me the dictionary was wrong.

[68ZooM]

This is beginning to remind me of a Movie, A Few Good Men, where the Lawyers are just arguing trivial stuff for more face Time in the Movie..... Who's Playing Tom Cruse?

[Mayhem]

This is beginning to remind me of a Movie, A Few Good Men, where the Lawyers are just arguing trivial stuff for more face Time in the Movie..... Who's Playing Tom Cruse?

Vnucks is - He seems the Scientology type.  

Oh and he can't handle the truth. 

[SEseph]

This is beginning to remind me of a Movie, A Few Good Men, where the Lawyers are just arguing trivial stuff for more face Time in the Movie..... Who's Playing Tom Cruse?

My wife thinks I should be a lawyer, so if this is what they do, I might have to do just that! 

[Mayhem]

btw Do you all know why I use the "Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit!"  in my Signature?

[vNUCKS]

BARK BARK

Sorry, here:

of·ten
   [aw-fuhn, of-uhn; awf-tuhn, of-] adverb - frequently

fre·quent·ly
   [free-kwuhnt-lee] adverb - 1. constant or habitual


con·stant
   [kon-stuhnt] adjective - 1. not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable


ha·bit·u·al
   [huh-bich-oo-uhl] adjective- 1. of the nature of a habit;  fixed by or resulting from habit


u·su·al
   [yoo-zhoo-uhl, yoozh-wuhl] adjective - 1. habitual or customary

So either Merriam-Webster is wrong, or you are when we look at this: Often=Frequent=Habitual=Usual and by how you guys react on these posts, I will be none surprised when you tell us you're right and they are wrong. I'm just the middleman, don't blame me for the definitions you failed to realize before you told me the dictionary was wrong.

Merriam Webster (online) also defines often as "many times" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/often), and defines frequently as "at frequent or short intervals" http:(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frequently)

In the English language, words often have multiple definitions, and the proper definition in use is determined by context. The dictionary isn't wrong, you just don't understand context.

CLUB CLUB

[vNUCKS]

btw Do you all know why I use the "Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit!"  in my Signature?

Whom virtue unites, death will not separate.  Whew, glad I don't share your virtues.

[Changeup]

Whom virtue unites, death will not separate.  Whew, glad I don't share your virtues.

Ahhh...argumentum ad hominem.  The debate tactic of the weak minded.  Dont attack the person you are arguing with...attack the argument...and so far, you are losing because you let him drag you into definitions instead of arguing the merits of your ridiculous position.

Carry on...

[vNUCKS]

Ahhh...argumentum ad hominem.  The debate tactic of the weak minded.  Dont attack the person you are arguing with...attack the argument...and so far, you are losing because you let him drag you into definitions instead of arguing the merits of your ridiculous position.

Carry on...

Losing?  Can you even define my position?  And if so, can you provide an argument to it?  He's not even offered an argument to what I've said, but rather an argument to ho his own misquoted words.  I figure if he want's to make a fool of himself, who am I not to oblige?

[SEseph]

BARK BARK


Merriam Webster (online) also defines often as "many times" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/often), and defines frequently as "at frequent or short intervals" http:(//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frequently)

In the English language, words often have multiple definitions, and the proper definition in use is determined by context. The dictionary isn't wrong, you just don't understand context.

CLUB CLUB

Oh, I agree it means many different things and since you agree context dictates the meaning, you must also concede that perception of the context plays a vital role in it's meaning. With that said, because of the context and perception, I believe you are just trying to back pedal, as do many others. Many also perceive the context of your CO's letter and the squad actions as a whole, to be a sign that your squad has issues the community doesn't want in her midst, yet you still stand by those who give you a negative perception as well. If you wish to be clear so that perception doesn't have such a strong pull on the context you wish to convey, be very clear with your use of the English language or who you let speak for you.

It's good to see you didn't dispute me this time, you only disputed my perception. We're getting closer to you being more open to reality, which is a good thing.

One final thing because this has degraded thanks to you. It's a quote you might want to learn about.

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”~ E. Hubbard

[vNUCKS]

Oh, I agree it means many different things and since you agree context dictates the meaning, you must also concede that perception of the context plays a vital role in it's meaning. With that said, because of the context and perception, I believe you are just trying to back pedal, as do many others. Many also perceive the context of your CO's letter and the squad actions as a whole, to be a sign that your squad has issues the community doesn't want in her midst, yet you still stand by those who give you a negative perception as well. If you wish to be clear so that perception doesn't have such a strong pull on the context you wish to convey, be very clear with your use of the English language or who you let speak for you.

It's good to see you didn't dispute me this time, you only disputed my perception. We're getting closer to you being more open to reality, which is a good thing.

One final thing because this has degraded thanks to you. It's a quote you might want to learn about.

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”~ E. Hubbard

No I don't agree, the context was obvious.  The fact that you so vehemently argued the obvious speaks volumes. And as for your follow up statements, would you like to engage in another clubbing?

And my baby seal, if you would learn to quote accurately, this would have never "degraded".