civ 3 players will not move on

Come off it, T.A.! Those 11000 views and over 500 posts look a little
different in reality.
No doubt man. Why you've picked up on what I already did. Great job!! I said the actual margin of posters compared to posts is wide .
On the 'VEIWS' front, I set aside 3000 for those habitual posters to get a better idea of how many spectacters enjoy in your words 'my rude posts'..or your more 'civil' contrubutions' :confused:

Take 4 or 5 guys like You, Churchill, Mrt etc, away,
What have you got left? Maybe 20 other posters like me who've tried
to answer the original question in a civil manner.

I like how you stuck me with those others (specially the one who almost got banned! lol) .
I was as civil or polite as the next guy. I talked with fact which sometimes draws some contention. Yet, I go on defending agaist these statements without flamin them. You talk with " hey its all good lets be friends!" or what I said first " The popular one line respone is 'Hey! its just a game. Let him play what he likes best" Nothing wrong with that but....

Your def that 'civil' somehow means we cant argue or debate in meaniful disscussion, something Ive been a part (atleast told Ive been part of)) is a wrong and weird statment in so many ways

But hey Glad you enjoyed the show bro :D
 
No doubt man. Why you've picked up on what I already did. Great job!! I said the actual margin of posters compared to posts is wide .
On the 'VEIWS' front, I set aside 3000 for those habitual posters to get a better idea of how many spectacters enjoy in your words 'my rude posts'..or your more 'civil' contrubutions' :confused:



I like how you stuck me with those others (specially the one who almost got banned! lol) .
I was as civil or polite as the next guy. I talked with fact which sometimes draws some contention. Yet, I go on defending agaist these statements without flamin them. You talk with " hey its all good lets be friends!" or what I said first " The popular one line respone is 'Hey! its just a game. Let him play what he likes best" Nothing wrong with that but....

Your def that 'civil' somehow means we cant argue or debate in meaniful disscussion, something Ive been a part (atleast told Ive been part of)) is a wrong and weird statment in so many ways

But hey Glad you enjoyed the show bro :D

i dont know who your talking about by saying (specially the one who almost got banned! lol) . but if your talking about me or mrt then your wrong because you almost got banned too on page 26
 
OK Civ3 players, I need to ask you how much time you spent with Civ4. My theory is that you tried Civ4 in its infancy and didn't like it; come on, give it a chance! Civ4 is now much, much different than in December 2005.

I played for almost a year. Theory proven wrong.
 
I've been playing Civ 4 on and off over the last 2 and a bit years, and single playe hasn't given me as much enjoyment as Civ 3 SP has.

Multiplayer Civ 4, specifically PTBS, is awesome though.
 
your wrong because you almost got banned too on page 26

I wasn't talkin bout you but Your statement towards me rings as true as your out of blue "Civ4 is outsellin civ3 on a scale of x2" :D
Hey did you ever try backing that up?

I was warned not to encourage a troll and only you would call that case for ban (THe rest call that furthering entertainment value lol) . I can Prtn screen my account to show the score and rub in some more but I doubt that would be appreciated or considered acceptable conduct. Considing the fair reruling that might or might not have took place after my later reasoning, I don't feel like pressing my luck :)

Churchill you should be ashamed for some of the stuff you put up but on the other hand I give props for producing a Civ fan bestseller NIce job man.
Now can we close this baby down? Its feelin a bit stale as of late
 
I wasn't talkin bout you but Your statement towards me rings as true as your out of blue "Civ4 is outsellin civ3 on a scale of x2" :D
Hey did you ever try backing that up?

I was warned not to encourage a troll and only you would call that case for ban (THe rest call that furthering entertainment value lol) . I can Prtn screen my account to show the score and rub in some more but I doubt that would be appreciated or considered acceptable conduct. Considing the fair reruling that might or might not have took place after my later reasoning, I don't feel like pressing my luck :)

Churchill you should be ashamed for some of the stuff you put up but on the other hand I give props for producing a Civ fan bestseller NIce job man.
Now can we close this baby down? Its feelin a bit stale as of late

well maybe i was fueling up the conversation later in this thread but at the first post i was just trying to get a question answered maybe one or 2 posts.
i was not expecting the 27 pages. but when people started to go on about how good civ 3 is i decided to do the same thing about civ 4. not expecting to be insulted by the civ 3 fans because they were doing the same things. but this thread just became a big debate and besides all the moderater actions i enjoyed this thread. (see we can have a civilized debate):)
 
well maybe i was fueling up the conversation later in this thread but at the first post i was just trying to get a question answered maybe one or 2 posts.
i was not expecting the 27 pages. but when people started to go on about how good civ 3 is i decided to do the same thing about civ 4. not expecting to be insulted by the civ 3 fans because they were doing the same things. but this thread just became a big debate and besides all the moderater actions i enjoyed this thread. (see we can have a civilized debate):)

Im glad you had fun. THe amount of attention your thread garnered will soon be a record for these type of disscussions I bet.
I kinda got a kick out of some you comments. you got some funny stuff to share. Your not afraid to say anything but try to keep it more factual when its claimed to be fact ;) (me joke light hearted)

( ALSO IMPORTANT!) Don't think everyone is unruley and always losing merit points for getting red inked my friend!.
My fault was not telling on(ratting out ) a member to PROPER authoritys. Instead I choose to take action myself and in the process bring to light CERTAIN PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR of one member to 1000s upon thousands of onlookers.
Here I crossed the line with forum rules. I acted wrong and apoligize to TF and staff.
PLease let this be a lesson and learn from my mistake. Still, It may have been judged more favourably in other places, like proper "civil code" of the street, but not here at civfan that I now surley understand. :twitch:

Take care and thanks all for the support (IM done with this dish :yumyum: ) :)
Truly your friend T.A
 
And as they ride off into the sunset, arm in arm, the orchestra strikes up
a sentimental tune.......................;)
 
And as they ride off into the sunset, arm in arm, the orchestra strikes up
a sentimental tune.......................;)

Ya kinda brings back memories dosn't it :cool: :lol: :lol:

Spoiler :

jessiecat said:
And just a word for T.A. Jones. Check out the 1982 Constitution Act and
you'll see that neither the Queen or British Parliament have any jurisdiction
over the Canadian constitution or parliament. The Queen is only the head
of state in the sense that she is the head of the Commonwealth and thus
the ceremonial head of state of all the countries in it. Hope that helps!

T.A JONES said:
NO reading that helps you or me little without going to the jest of it.

Our leaders are reprensetitives of the monarch and therfor do not possess power they exercise power. "they do not reign they rule"
"The Gov general "reigns" but does not rule, possesses the power but does not exercise it."
By deligating her power and not exercising her power the Queen is left safe from outside conflicts and division in politics.-like our friend says ''holyer then thou"

I guess you can argue since the Monarch has not yet chosen to weild her power that means she has none over us?
You can say the same about USA's Patriot act, it reads: In the case of a major terrosist act the President can declare marshal law. He hasn't done this ever but does that mean he never will or, point being, has no power?

Since in Canada the amount of time thats passed with no Monarchy interference is much greater then AMerica's hold on its patriot act powers, does that mean we have some kind of greater chance it will never be acted on in case of emeregnecy? We can argue the crown will never have to resort to these drastic measures cuz we listen anyway....have we ever not? :D

NO offence to you truly, but I believe you may be lacking a bit in your understanding what it is to truly indepent or what the hold of monarchy really entails in our very distinct 'Canadian' society

Dont' think a great nationalist attidude can not be seperated from our sworn ties to the English thrown, But do you realy think AMericans let Britian have power in their Gov affairs like some of these: ...oh btw, Hope this helps


Quote:
Look into who we name are fleet ships after
Look into who the Prime minster swears his allegience to, the Queen or the people who elected him.
Look into who new citzens swear their alligence to.
- If the Queen has power to raise her own milita or call new elections
- If she has the power to pardon Canadian criminals or bestowe titles upon citizens
Look into her power to refuse legislation, dismiss are PM or call a state of emergency.
Look into her power to sift through confidential gov papers or intelligence documents

Look into her power to inact laws in her 'majestys name'

I could go on but I ran out of smilles Remember I responsed to the guy saying "we broke free of the hold of England" IM not sure if you think thats true aswell, God I hope there ain't 2 that far gone
ALl I know is reality and that are Constitutional Monarchy by Power of the Queen of England can't be debated by ether of you as unreal.

... but you can say I have bad grammer like the other guy did if it makes you feel better


Jessiecat said:
I'm not really disagreeing with you in theory, only in practice. After the
1982 Act it was no longer necessary for laws or constitutional changes to
be ratified by the Queen or the Privy Council. Sure, all the other stuff you
mention does exist on paper, but it's never used. That's the point.
Instead of worrying youself about what could or might happen in future,
try dealing with the present. It's not Britain that runs Canada as you
well know. Try looking south if you want the answer. Our economy is
completly dominated by US corporations in the States and through their branch companies in Canada. Canada has no military independance. Zero!
And if you really think Canada is independant, politically, from the U.S,
think again. Sure we trade with Cuba and all that, but watch the Northwest
Passage issue. Do you really think we can enforce territorial sovereignty
in the Arctic all by ourselves? Rather than bothering yourself about some
imaginary threat to Canadian independance from the Queen, try checking
out the real world. Foriegn domination by the U.S. is fact, not theory!!!

T.A JONES said:
Why refrence America? Was I suppose to be covering economic stipulation regarding foreign ownership in my response to your backing of the argument "we broke free of the hold of England"

My intent was simple, to deliver fact in response to fiction. I won't sidetrack Its your right to question if thats scary or not.

Why you changed gears is puzzling but I think your going into mearky water here. I'll let you pursue this NEW topic on you own. I'll just say if your going to the heart in a money sence why stop at 'American' control?
Find out who's been controling their Privitized banking system 'The Federal Reserve act' since 1913, or atleast what 'foreign nationals' sponsered the bill that passed.
Who knows, mybe you'll come right back to where we started. ;)

Jessie cat said:
OK. Truce.

T.A JONES said:
Yes Truce is good. Btw I envy the adventures you must be having in Europe. Nice to be you. I wish to see the museums and that sorts one day to.

Funny first you refer to me as crude in rude but now Its to polite after the so called 'fight' ? Hey somethings not right . Hell don't sweat it IM sure one day you'll be alright :crazyeye:
For now Take er easy pal or should I say SHallow Hal? :D

Enjoy your idea of 'great game' safe from the flame. Havin control over 'postin crazies' might help. Should be a breaze, just part of old age im guessin. Youll get used to it. Peace out man
 
looks like this thread is dead. or there is nothing to talk about.
 
looks like this thread is dead. or there is nothing to talk about.

On the contrary, I believe this thread has stirred up some very interesting comparison and argument which I hope someone will take it as a project (like an editor for CivIV for example ;) ). Although I agree that in times the argument did get a little heated. :D
 
On the contrary, I believe this thread has stirred up some very interesting comparison and argument which I hope someone will take it as a project (like an editor for CivIV for example ;) ). Although I agree that in times the argument did get a little heated. :D

i did not like the heated part but i just want this thread to continue but really i dont know what to say
 
This bump was for nothin legit but to seal your threads 12 000th hit :)
WHo needs to restart "tearing quotes apart" so soon
These threads fill up n' fall down like phases of the moon

WHat im sayin is, Yours won't be the last so just let it slip into the past.
 
How are Civ4's graphics cartoonish aside from SOME of the leaderheads?:confused:
 
i know the thread is dead but i agree with Swein. Everyone is saying the graphics are cartoonish. civ revolution will be cartoonish. Maybe besides like monty i do not think they are cartoonish.
 
Top Bottom