Author Topic: Round 3 voting  (Read 7621 times)

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #120 on: October 28, 2011, 11:12:07 AM »
The 38's pretty much the gold standard for twin performance. :)

And lest someone misread what I wrote because of Krusty's interpretation - I'm not asking for the 410 to be only single seater.  I'm saying itd be a great option in the hangar.  Along with, and at the cost of none of the rest of the options.  Which looks doable, I ran thru it in one of those threads +-1 year ago.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #121 on: October 28, 2011, 11:13:34 AM »
[Edited: It's not worth the aggravation]

And it wasn't personally meant to get you riled up. Sorry
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 11:38:47 AM by Krusty »

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #122 on: October 28, 2011, 11:18:10 AM »
Yeah.  I sound upset.  You keep saying that.  It's just as incorrect every single time.  How many times before you notice a pattern?

Quote
you keep alternating between praise and disparaging comments on the 410 in general. Hence my "admitted you only care about the single seater" conclusion.
They both were accurate and non-contradictory. 

I wouldn't have voted 410 without likelihood of SS'er because without it it's too redundant to say with a straight face that we (we, IMO) need it more than a Beaufighter or Meteor or Ki-something-early-war or whatever.

Quote
It was simply meant to suggest we explore more of the game than one narrow field.
Where you pull this stuff from like you could be so sure of it is a mystery to me.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #123 on: October 28, 2011, 11:30:00 AM »
They both were accurate and non-contradictory. 

Fair enough... The signals you sent were mixed, and I wasn't the only one to mention it (I wasn't even the first). You can't blame me for that.


I wouldn't have voted 410 without likelihood of SS'er because without it it's too redundant to say with a straight face that we (we, IMO) need it more than a Beaufighter or Meteor or Ki-something-early-war or whatever.

...and comments like that are where I get this from:

Where you pull this stuff from like you could be so sure of it is a mystery to me.

Saying something like that, with that choice of words, suggests you only care about the single seater. If that's not the case, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. You might want to re-read before posting. It could be read as saying you only care about the single seater (for example), or it could mean as you suggest now it's true meaning is that the single seater puts it above the others on the list, but isn't the only reason you want it. This latter message doesn't come through as strongly.

So, again: sorry for the mixup.





EDIT: P.S. If we're going to nitpick, in my comment I said "IF"... IF. If not, then it's not a problem.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 11:42:09 AM by Krusty »

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #124 on: October 28, 2011, 12:00:18 PM »
Again.  Who said anything about blame?  Blame for what and what for?  Why do you keep bringing these nagging emotional worries into every single technical argument?

This is why I don't bother anymore.  Not even for something I want as much as this pixel plane.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline TDeacon

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #125 on: October 28, 2011, 12:15:12 PM »
Quote
Again.  Who said anything about blame?  Blame for what and what for?  Why do you keep bringing these nagging emotional worries into every single technical argument?

This is why I don't bother anymore.  Not even for something I want as much as this pixel plane.

What he is referring to, Moot, is that the tone of your most recent posts implies that you are irritated with him.  The result is unpleasant to read.  The "nagging emotional worries" which you disparage appear to be an attempt on his part to return the conversation to a more friendly plane.  Regardless of his previous transgressions (numerous though they may be), this attempt on his part would appear to be a good thing.  What is the problem with this? 

MH

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #126 on: October 28, 2011, 12:17:53 PM »
Your own words. to "Krusty's misinterpretation" and saying I'm spreading this misunderstanding to others. I wasn't the first, and I wasn't the only one. It's not my fault folks were misunderstanding your comment.

There was the blame, directly from you, to me. You claim you're all emotionless, all technical, but you're not.

That's all I'm going to say on it. I explained my reactions which were based only on your own words. I said I'm sorry. Don't villify me for no reason.


EDIT: Thanks TDeacon. I think most people understand me and only a few are having issues right now. I try not to hold it against 'em. :)
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 12:19:37 PM by Krusty »

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #127 on: October 28, 2011, 12:22:47 PM »
What he is referring to, Moot, is that the tone of your most recent posts implies that you are irritated with him.  The result is unpleasant to read.  The "nagging emotional worries" which you disparage appear to be an attempt on his part to return the conversation to a more friendly plane.  Regardless of his previous transgressions (numerous though they may be), this attempt on his part would appear to be a good thing.  What is the problem with this? 

MH
What you don't see is krusty's edited stuff.... context.
See Rule #4

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #128 on: October 28, 2011, 12:28:06 PM »
What he is referring to, Moot, is that the tone of your most recent posts implies that you are irritated with him.  The result is unpleasant to read.  The "nagging emotional worries" which you disparage appear to be an attempt on his part to return the conversation to a more friendly plane.  Regardless of his previous transgressions (numerous though they may be), this attempt on his part would appear to be a good thing.  What is the problem with this? 

MH
I am irritated after years of trying. 
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #129 on: October 28, 2011, 12:29:47 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 01:45:47 PM by Skuzzy »

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #130 on: October 28, 2011, 12:38:49 PM »
See Rule #2
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 01:45:29 PM by Skuzzy »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #131 on: October 28, 2011, 12:43:25 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 01:45:10 PM by Skuzzy »
See Rule #4

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #132 on: October 28, 2011, 12:50:50 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 01:44:49 PM by Skuzzy »

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #133 on: October 28, 2011, 12:57:44 PM »
See Rule #2
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 01:44:36 PM by Skuzzy »

Offline FireDrgn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Round 3 voting
« Reply #134 on: October 28, 2011, 01:01:32 PM »
Yak3


problem solved  Muahahahahaha
"When the student is ready the teacher will appear."   I am not a teacher.