You've long since been forgiven; that doesn't mean I'll let you live it down when you're flinging mud at other players though
OK, I can live with that
You have a habit of assuming people must be "sore" if they don't agree with you.
Because they ususally are
. But seriously, in this context the reason I keep saying you are "sore," is because I get the impression that you were upset that AMAZON got a reload, beacause you felt it was a really big deal, and that it cost Merlot (your team) the game. As in "If only AMAZON hadn't got that reload, everything would have been different and we (Merlot) would have won!
" Now I disagree with that sentiment as you know, but if its your opinion then you have every right to it.
That is NOT why I presumed you were "sore." The "sore" I am referring to is not the part where you think the reload was a big deal, but that you seem to be so unhappy about it... still. It seems like its more than just you wanting to poke some much deserved fun at that bad ol' puddytat, Sommers. It kind of seems like you are really using the reload thing as a vehicle to complain about losing the game. That's just my opinion obviously but I'm just giving you my honest impression about how it sounds.
(A little way back in this thread you were bandying around equally silly accusations of "sour grapes" for thinking your idea for the next game is pants.)
Can you point that out for me? I don't know what you mean. I remember using the phrase "sour grapes" a long long time ago, but not in the context you mentioned.
Nope, I simply found your rant about blubmuz to be ridiculously over-the-top
You are right about that. It certainly was "ridiculously, over the top" but funny too
you have to admit. That's just Sommers for ya... Mr. RidiculouslyOverTheTop
(That's quite ok, I assure you even at the time we let you have your reload I'm pretty sure everyone already guessed your threat to quit was just a bit of foot-stamping to get your way.)
Uhhh,
*cough* *choke* *gasp*
... Excuse me
? You "let" us have our reload
? Doth mine eyes decieve me?
You didn't "let" us have sh!#
You guys fought and objected and whined and complained
and then finally voted against the reload. And then even after it was voted on, you kept complaining about it. You're STILL complaining about it.
(In the Mavs thread, they try to pull this trick too, complaining about how "ungrateful" AMAZON is after they (Mavs) graciously and generously "allowed" us to have a reload
, knowing d@mn well that they voted against it
)
That's one of the funniest things about this (ongoing) discussion. Not only are you using the reload complaint as a backdoor way of complaining about losing... you also lost in your attempt to vote the reload down, and then you complained about that. You participated in the vote, you lost fair and square, and then you complained about the process being unfair. Then you lose the game fair and square and start complaing that the result of the reload vote was unfair, causing you to lose the game
... Don't get me wrong whb, arguing with you has been one of the more fun and memorable parts of this game for me, but talk about glassiness of houses! sheesh
Oh yea, and while I'm on-a-roll, heres another thing
If everyone knew that I was just "foot-stamping," why all the guilt and righteous indignation? Why all the implication that the reload was such a game changer? If you knew good and well that I was just putting on a show, and it really wasn't that big a deal... how can you try to pretend afterwards that it was a big deal
?
Who cares. 90% of the players at the start of this game quit at some point. Even our first King left without trace after he was usurped, but nobody's ever likely to suggest it's some kind of problem or throw it in his face in any way. It's a two year game (nearly). It happens.
Right, but you are missing the point (again). The reason I pointed out Blubmuz quitting was not about him foot-stamping, which as you point out, I did some of that myself... and let's be honest, so did you buddy... right? (remember that huge rant that you deleted later becuase of how out-of-line it was?
) Read the line again... The reason I wrote that line was to point out how Blubmuz was BLAMING the admins (DaveMCW), for him quitting the game. It's about quitting and then blaming someone else for you quitting. When I asked for the reload, I posted and fessed up about what happened and took responsibility for it. Blubmuz DMed, and then tried to deny it, got caught, and then quit and blamed the admins for "wrongfully" punishing him for breaking rules, even though he was clearly guilty.
So by calling my house "glassy" compared to Blubmuz, what you are doing is putting me in the same category as him. That's not a fair comparison, be honest about that at least. I didn't break rules. As DaveMCW pointed out, I used a timeout, paused the game, and we did a legal amendment to the rules which was voted on by teams. Everything I did, everything was within the rules. At least give me that.
Even my "foot-stamping" was to persuade folks to vote in our favor, also completely legal, it was not to influence the admins to just "give" us our way. Go back and read the context.
Sorry, this'll be taken as ruder than it's intended, but your post puts the image in my head of Violet Elizabeth Bott, first making anguished cries about why she must have a take-back as it would just ruin her game if she didn't get it, and then afterwards indignantly declaring that it "really" had no impact and she would have won anyway. And all without anyone else needing to suggest otherwise either time!
I don't know who Ms. Bott is, but I get the analogy
, and I think its a pretty good one (albeit fatally flawed). Here's my response... if as you say you "knew I was just foot stamping" then you also knew that it wasn't really going to "ruin our game." So once you admit that, the rest of the analogy fails right? Because the whole point is that her game DEPENDED on the take-back, and she wouldn't have won without it, right? But here, you admit that our game didn't depend on the take-back at all, because you "knew" as you said, that it was just foot stamping. So if our game didn't depend on the take-back, then the win didn't depend on it either.
Not to mention that a "take-back" in a game like chess or golf or croquet or whatever Ms. Bott was playing, is probably not analagous to a reload to undo a settled-city error in Civ. What happened with Ms. Bott I imagine, is she thought about her move, decided upon it, moved her piece, and then after she moved it, she realized it was a bad move, and asked for a take-back. That's not analogous to what happened with our reload, you know that, right? What you are suggesting is if you and I are playing Chess, and one of my children comes along flailing their arms and knocks my piece onto another square, that it counts as my move... I mean, Really?
I cant move my piece back to where it was? You're really gonna tell me that I am asking for a "take-back" to undo that? C'mon
But again, what this whole conversation suggests to me, is that you are still trying to imply that Merlot would not have lost, but-for the reload, or at least that AMAZON would not have won. Am I right?
Because if that is truly the heart of our discussion, then let's talk about that, rather than "whether or not I have the moral ground to sling mud at Blubmuz." What I'm saying is, I suspect that what you really want to talk about is whether AMAZON's win is legitimate, given the reload, and you are using this Blubmuz nonsense to bring it up, right? So let's talk about it