You're abusing the quantifiers here. In order to reject Stairc's suggestion offhand, you would have to claim that no evidence is fabricated. If some evidence is fabricated, then it is possible that the evidence Stairc is questioning is fabricated. You cannot reject that possibility without argument -- or rather, you can, but if you do, you are applying a double standard. You clearly expect us to give your own allegations of falsification a fair hearing; doesn't Stairc deserve the same courtesy?Quote from Typho0nn »@Blinking Spirit
"And your entire case rests on the claim that evidence has been fabricated."
Is my claim that ALL evidence is fabricated? I have made it clear that I agree with some of it.
Good luck with that. Your first hurdle is that I'm not a leftie. (Well, except physiologically.)Quote from Typho0nn »I will use your style to answer some of your ramblings(leftie attack).
Please read my response to your link above.Quote from Typho0nn »Please watch Micheal C. Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon as linked above
You didn't actually believe me, did you? I certainly hope not. So you were not deceived. You are aware, aren't you, of the concept of saying outrageous and obvious untruths for the purpose of humor? Or do you get this upset whenever anybody tells a joke? "Wait a minute! Chuck Norris' tears don't cure cancer! Conan O'Brien is lying to me!1!!"Quote from Typho0nn »"Well, I didn't deceive you"
"San Lorenzan Bokononist."
-If you believe that.... Its over
This is not a hole you want to keep digging, bud.Quote from Typho0nn »"Says the guy alleging a Jewish banking conspiracy."
And Jews can't be fascist... That seems racist to me... (racist card, leftie arguments FTW!!!)
Before we can even get to the facts we have to have a logical framework that allows us to process facts sensibly. I suspect this is actually what your video is talking about: formal argument, the form of the argument, the argument as it stands before the particular facts have been plugged into it. If your formal argumentation is flawed -- and boy howdy is it ever -- then the facts don't matter, because you can't reliably tell which facts are true or draw accurate conclusions from them. This is what I have been criticizing your argument about from the beginning.Quote from Typho0nn »Please learn to put an argument forth supported by facts...
I think I'm good, but thanks for your concern.
1
1) While we don't use As-Fan here, as it doesn't quite apply to the way players receive cards, we do make exactly 1/3 of the mercenaries of each faction. As you auction until you get a mercenary, we know mercenaries will be equally represented. From here it's a simple matter of checking out the turn count to ensure enough mercenaries are auctioned to get a good mix. Right now it seems reasonable.
2) The entry barrier is something we're considering. The rules aren't the barrier here, but rather the confidence. After playing one game, players tend to fell like they have a much better idea of what something is worth. We're likely going to include a few example turns to prime players in terms of gold value, and possibly have a rule that the more experienced player goes first (as the first player sets the price for the cards of the first auction, and the second player only needs to figure out if they want to pay 1 more than the first player's suggested price at that point). Tiers of cards might be helpful, but I'm not sure how to work that in without recommended gold prices, which is its own issue in misleading.
@DJK - We're open to other suggestions for the Covert word. I'm surprised at this reaction though. It seems pretty thematic. Covert operatives can't be blocked by normal opperatives. You need counter-intelligence, other covert ops, to engage with them.
I like switching things around to be "Wraith Mercenary - Human" Instead of "Mercenary - Wraith Human" too.
1
This is why you have a lot of anarchists complaining about corrupt politics and advocating anarchy as an alternative. They don't take the time to think through that corrupt politicians are already self-interested unshackled by any sense of responsibility to others, and pure self-interested anarchy is just more of this for everyone. But if they don't like the current system, they don't think past "get rid of it".
1
1
Because it's a debate forum.
Why are you here?
2
And from the same post...
.
And there were only four sentences in the post!
1
1
Oh? It's that easy? Well I have the solution for preventing corrupt or bad politicians as well. It's called, "The voter".
Great, we're done here. Or is it maybe a little bit more complicated than you like to pretend?
The extra-hilarious thing here is that consumers ARE what cause monopolies to form. People go for the best offer. Business gets bigger. Economies of scale and distribution channels allow it to beat everyone else. Eventually swallows up the market and then stops playing fair now that it's the only option available and can temporarily use predatory pricing as well as influence over its stakeholders (meaning suppliers and distributors in this case) to keep competitors out of the market. Then you end up with only one choice.
This isn't even economics 101. People learn this stuff usually before they take an econ class. And if you can't figure out why consumers aren't enough to overthrow monopolies, why do you think voters aren't enough of an answer to bad politicians?
1
1
1
Also...
Yes. We know. You agree with the parts that you think support your jewish conspiracy views and claim anything else is fabricated or false. This is the point Blinkspirit and I have been making. When you have to deal with your own style of reasoning, you get so frustrated by the obvious flaws that you just stop engaging entirely. It's like a horror movie twist. You think you're running from it... But in reality... It was you all along.