Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGayAl
I fullheartedly think the alliance cap should be 30-40.
May I ask, what the **** did your dismal apple analogy have to do with the topic of debate? Other than an imature attempt to patronise those that don't agree with you.
I would have stayed out, but when you start saying fancy phrases like "scientific theory" or whatever, to try and make yourselves look like big boys, urgh.
Furthermore, since you and tzu are bumchums, sprouting the exact same opinions (who's are they? his or your's?) - I would say there's more call for you to **** off. Or him. You're effectively double-posting constantly.
|
Forgive me for having a mate with whom I happen to agree with on a number of issues. I realise having somebody like-minded to ascociate with can be confusing for some people, but I assure you it's almost entirely heterosexual.
Also, my apple relevence was illustrating to faults in the logic of the person with whom I was disagreeing with and consequently directly relevent to the argument.
Because you seem to have missed the point, I'll try and dumb it down for you scientist types...
"Despite the outcome of setting alliance limits to 50 with full score contribution being almost fully predictable, I think we should try it anyway just to be 100% sure"
then
"Despite knowing that if I drop an apple, its very predictable as to what will happen next - I still think we should drop the apple to just see if anything happens to stop it reaching the floor".
Surely you can see the error in the logic of both of the above, and how similar the apple analogy is to what Kaiba was suggesting we do?
Also, I don't remember using the phrase 'scientific theory'. I know we agree on a few things, but tzu and I are two seperate people so if you'd like to argue then please do so on an individual basis.
And, if you're going to do that, can I ask that you please do so in pm as to not further derail this conversation?
Thank you kindly.