Conquer Club

This thread really needs to be infused with some extra posturing. We haven't gotten nearly self-important enough.

patrickaa317 wrote:Can you imagine what would have happened if Senator McCain would have responded to Obama with one of your quotes:

Can you imagine comparing an internet discussion with a Presidential debate?

patrickaa317 wrote:Before you assume how I vote too, don't bother. I was using that analogy simply as an example since McCain served his country and Obama didn't.

Why would I care how you voted?

Woodruff wrote:Which part of my responses leads you to believe that was my intent? I'm truly curious. Perhaps the parts where I agreed with you completely?

I believe my responses were quite non-flammatory toward you.

patrickaa317 wrote:How sad that you're so willing to live your life through presumption and lack of information. You should definitely work on that.

I suppose the portion I highlighted in red was also non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") towards me?

Yes, I would absolutely say that's non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") toward you.

patrickaa317 wrote:You did a good job baiting me into this by attacking things I clearly laid out as my opinions.

I've baited you? I've attacked you? You seem very self-absorbed. Even moreso than I do, and that's a remarkable feat.

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Can you imagine what would have happened if Senator McCain would have responded to Obama with one of your quotes:

Can you imagine comparing an internet discussion with a Presidential debate?

patrickaa317 wrote:Before you assume how I vote too, don't bother. I was using that analogy simply as an example since McCain served his country and Obama didn't.

Why would I care how you voted?

Woodruff wrote:Which part of my responses leads you to believe that was my intent? I'm truly curious. Perhaps the parts where I agreed with you completely?

I believe my responses were quite non-flammatory toward you.

patrickaa317 wrote:How sad that you're so willing to live your life through presumption and lack of information. You should definitely work on that.

I suppose the portion I highlighted in red was also non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") towards me?

Yes, I would absolutely say that's non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") toward you.

patrickaa317 wrote:You did a good job baiting me into this by attacking things I clearly laid out as my opinions.

I've baited you? I've attacked you? You seem very self-absorbed. Even moreso than I do, and that's a remarkable feat.

What is your purpose behind this whole conversation and quoting me as you have been? Just to point out little flaws in my statements and/or to show where you disagree with me? Maybe that is where we are going astray. I figure you reply to my comments with purpose but yet struggle to find a purpose.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Can you imagine what would have happened if Senator McCain would have responded to Obama with one of your quotes:

Can you imagine comparing an internet discussion with a Presidential debate?

patrickaa317 wrote:Before you assume how I vote too, don't bother. I was using that analogy simply as an example since McCain served his country and Obama didn't.

Why would I care how you voted?

Woodruff wrote:Which part of my responses leads you to believe that was my intent? I'm truly curious. Perhaps the parts where I agreed with you completely?

I believe my responses were quite non-flammatory toward you.

patrickaa317 wrote:How sad that you're so willing to live your life through presumption and lack of information. You should definitely work on that.

I suppose the portion I highlighted in red was also non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") towards me?

Yes, I would absolutely say that's non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") toward you.

patrickaa317 wrote:You did a good job baiting me into this by attacking things I clearly laid out as my opinions.

I've baited you? I've attacked you? You seem very self-absorbed. Even moreso than I do, and that's a remarkable feat.

What is your purpose behind this whole conversation and quoting me as you have been? Just to point out little flaws in my statements and/or to show where you disagree with me? Maybe that is where we are going astray. I figure you reply to my comments with purpose but yet struggle to find a purpose.

I "quote you as I have been" so that you know exactly what I'm responding to. I quote in this method to give it more of a feel of a real conversation (you say something, I respond, etc...). Unlike some, I strive for clarity. It's certainly not being done "to point out little flaws", because if it were for that reason why would I quote those parts where I agreed with you completely (you never have responded to my pointing this out to you)? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose? I don't even know what you mean by "struggle to find a purpose"...the purpose behind my replies are pretty clear to most folks.

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Can you imagine what would have happened if Senator McCain would have responded to Obama with one of your quotes:

Can you imagine comparing an internet discussion with a Presidential debate?

patrickaa317 wrote:Before you assume how I vote too, don't bother. I was using that analogy simply as an example since McCain served his country and Obama didn't.

Why would I care how you voted?

Woodruff wrote:Which part of my responses leads you to believe that was my intent? I'm truly curious. Perhaps the parts where I agreed with you completely?

I believe my responses were quite non-flammatory toward you.

patrickaa317 wrote:How sad that you're so willing to live your life through presumption and lack of information. You should definitely work on that.

I suppose the portion I highlighted in red was also non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") towards me?

Yes, I would absolutely say that's non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") toward you.

patrickaa317 wrote:You did a good job baiting me into this by attacking things I clearly laid out as my opinions.

I've baited you? I've attacked you? You seem very self-absorbed. Even moreso than I do, and that's a remarkable feat.

What is your purpose behind this whole conversation and quoting me as you have been? Just to point out little flaws in my statements and/or to show where you disagree with me? Maybe that is where we are going astray. I figure you reply to my comments with purpose but yet struggle to find a purpose.

I "quote you as I have been" so that you know exactly what I'm responding to. I quote in this method to give it more of a feel of a real conversation (you say something, I respond, etc...). Unlike some, I strive for clarity. It's certainly not being done "to point out little flaws", because if it were for that reason why would I quote those parts where I agreed with you completely (you never have responded to my pointing this out to you)? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose? I don't even know what you mean by "struggle to find a purpose"...the purpose behind my replies are pretty clear to most folks.

I guess I don't know what else to say as this conversation has dried up in a hurry. I find myself getting bored with your explanations behind everything. My wife is getting a kick out of your replies though...

Yes.....YES.....YEEEEES! TELL EACH OTHER HOW YOU ARE BETTER THAN THEY ARE BASED ON THE WAY THEY CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN AN ONLINE CHAT ROOM! THEY'RE THE REAL DOUCHE BAGS HERE!

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I "quote you as I have been" so that you know exactly what I'm responding to. I quote in this method to give it more of a feel of a real conversation (you say something, I respond, etc...). Unlike some, I strive for clarity. It's certainly not being done "to point out little flaws", because if it were for that reason why would I quote those parts where I agreed with you completely (you never have responded to my pointing this out to you)? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose? I don't even know what you mean by "struggle to find a purpose"...the purpose behind my replies are pretty clear to most folks.

I guess I don't know what else to say as this conversation has dried up in a hurry. I find myself getting bored with your explanations behind everything.

Yeah, I didn't think you were very interested in the truth, either. You made that fairly clear with your entry into this thread.

Then the Taliban has already won.

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I "quote you as I have been" so that you know exactly what I'm responding to. I quote in this method to give it more of a feel of a real conversation (you say something, I respond, etc...). Unlike some, I strive for clarity. It's certainly not being done "to point out little flaws", because if it were for that reason why would I quote those parts where I agreed with you completely (you never have responded to my pointing this out to you)? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose? I don't even know what you mean by "struggle to find a purpose"...the purpose behind my replies are pretty clear to most folks.

I guess I don't know what else to say as this conversation has dried up in a hurry. I find myself getting bored with your explanations behind everything.

Yeah, I didn't think you were very interested in the truth, either. You made that fairly clear with your entry into this thread.

Man you are just completely obnoxious. Next time I want to learn from such an intelligent guy, I'll send you a message because obviously you are the know-all, and definitely the tell-all.

As these were my first non-game related postings, they'll probably be my last as well. I tried throwing my opinion out there and just got annoyed with a certain member flapping his gums simply to listen to himself. This will be strictly a game only sight from now on for me. Peace out.

patrickaa317 wrote:Man you are just completely obnoxious. Next time I want to learn from such an intelligent guy, I'll send you a message because obviously you are the know-all, and definitely the tell-all.
As these were my first non-game related postings, they'll probably be my last as well. I tried throwing my opinion out there and just got annoyed with a certain member flapping his gums simply to listen to himself. This will be strictly a game only sight from now on for me. Peace out.

You misspelled "site". Just thought you should know.

Poland - Iraq
fake invasion - fake nuclear program
Territory - Oil
Jews are greedy - "Sandn*****s" are terrorists
Volksempfänger - FOX News
KZs - Guantanamo

starting to see a pattern?

Falkomagno wrote:Poland - Iraq
fake invasion - fake nuclear program
Territory - Oil
Jews are greedy - "Sandn*****s" are terrorists
Volksempfänger - FOX News
KZs - Guantanamo

starting to see a pattern?

I'm starting to see a pattern of nonsense.

OH!

Falkomagno wrote:Poland - Iraq
fake invasion - fake nuclear program
Territory - Oil
Jews are greedy - "Sandn*****s" are terrorists
Volksempfänger - FOX News
KZs - Guantanamo
starting to see a pattern?

I'm against the war in Iraq. That being said, all I'm seeing here is a pattern of incongruity.