I’m not sure if I just read a post, or just heard some Old God whispers trying to drive me insane, by making reality seem like a parody of itself…
How do you fail at understanding a definition, when it is right in front of you? You did not provide a source, you just said there was an interview somewhere that said Dazar’alor was vengeance for Teldrassil. That is not providing a source, that is claiming it exists, somewhere.
The problem is, I do not trust you, that it exists, because, as you illustrated in the conversation, you like to make things up, or lack the ability to distinguish your own fantasy and actual facts about the game. Therefor, attacking your character is a perfectly valid strategy. I did not attempt to avoid the topic, because you had not provided the topic of conversation.
How could you fail at this?!
Where did you get any idea of “compatibility”. Anyways, again, as by the definition provided, there was no whataboutism provided by me, because, again, you provided no source, just asserted it existed, and I pointed out that you are an untrustworthy individual meaning no one has any reason to believe what you say at face value. Also, I did not accuse you of being a hypocrite to dismiss your claim, meaning you failed to even grasp that part of the defintion you provided.
I am seeing a pattern of illteracy from you.
No…I never did any of this. You just made this up. You know my past posts are there, for all to see, right?
Are we stereotyping faction members by the actions of one member of that faction? That’s dangerous territory for someone playing Horde.
That is fine and all, and seeing as Jaina never commited genocide, I guess there is no problem.
From your ability to reason, I doubt it only occurs whilst driving.
You would say that. I doubt a lot of other people would say a person who thinks it is okay to murder civilians because an exiled member of their nation did some bad stuff to someone else, has a solid moral compass. But keep telling yourself that.
So…one second I am a minor, and now I am a young adult. Gosh, your thoughts are less coherent than Zarao’s.
Holy crap, this is some of the boomerest writing put to screen. You should have added the caption “Back in my day…” I think it is time to give grandpa his meds.
You should know that boomer is a mindset, one which you beautifully examplified in your mad rant.
Imagine thinking anyone bothers to read this, or think it worthwhile if they do. Learn how to write these dumb strawman stories in a way that does not torture the eyes. It just looks dumb.
Another boomerpost? Weeew Brigitte you gotta take a break sometime
Your heart might not be able to do all this activity in such a short timespan.
Come! I’ll roll you down to the park, where you can tell me stories about your epic LARP exploits.
I imagine he sometimes sits alone in a room, talking to himself, roleplaying as his character and an Alliance strawman, conversing about how the Purge of Dalaran is the worst thing that has ever happened in wow, and the Alliance character is just too dumb to get it. At least that way, he can win the argument.
I’ll leave if the players actually, truly enjoy the vehement atmosphere going on around here but…
Maybe there’s a line to not cross. It has been literally slagging off each others intelligence and now crossing into RL values for a few good posts now.
Oh don’t worry about that. I have had my values questioned because I am both conservative and a Brexit supporter.
I fully agree. Honestly, I don’t particulalry agree with Brigante, but making fun of someone’s illness goes way too far.
Oh my god…
I mean, its not about being so much as “ahead” , and more about just letting it pass instead of further picking on the subject and insisting on going on, and on and on.
Anyway, if you wish…
In the quote above you are purposely mixing stuff in a way to save face, as that bit was about you asking for a source regarding Blizzard dumping all blame on a single character.
Regarding that part, and after referencing it both passively and actively, i ended up pointing at the novel War Crimes, where Garrosh (and garrosh alone), was trialled for stuff aaaall the faction did under him.
Funny thing is, that upon facing said fact, you first tried to claim it was unrelated to the topic at hand (which is a blatant lie as it can get), and then shifted to the forenamed Ad Hominem.
You see, i didn’t feel like pointing at the interview, because i didn’t want to go with your feigned stupidity (that i suspect was a mechanism to bail out). I didn’t dignify this attitude with the things you asked for, because sincerely, didn’t feel like doing it. But, since you insist so much, and given you genuinely seem to have forgotten what a trending topic said subject was, here you have it. The interview:
There is a conscious effort to balance “bad” events for factions in WoW’s storytelling. Battle of Dazar’alor is the “response” to Burning of Teldrassil when it comes to the balance of power between the factions.
Shocked? Surprised? Yeah…you shouldn’t be. You’ve referenced this bit of information on plenty threads that came after this interview.
Unless your brain is that of a Goldfish, my bet is on you acting dumb purposely regarding this information. Given the usual back and forth around here, anyone that has spent about an hour reading these threads knows about this interview.
Mocking illnesses, I do not agree with.
But thats an indifrutably, coherence to the most popular of cermonts and beliefs.
That summary isn’t exactly what was said, though. And it throws the replys to two questions together. Yes, they say that Dazar is a (not the) response to Teldrassil in as far as they wanted to give the Alliance a tangible hit against the Horde. And yes, they do try to balance losses and victories within the war plot. But no, they didn’t say Dazar was everything that was needed to create balance.
So… no, Word of God did not tell anyone to see Teldrassil as repaid. In that interview, at least.
I never asked for this.
It was unrelated. I asked for citations of your claims about Blizzard’s mindset, and you answered by bringing up some irrelevant facts about Garrosh. And do not dare try to counter that by bringing up the time I asked for citations in response to your claims about Blizzard’s mindset, one of which were that Garrosh was to blame for all the atrocities done in Southshore and Gilneas specifically. That was never said in War Crimes, and even if it were, it is disproven by the very fact that Genn still wants vengeance against Sylvanas in Legion. Your point is mute.
Congratulations, you finally stopped trying to bail out on your responsibilities. And what a shocker, they never say Dazar’alor was vengeance for Teldrassil. You just made that up, like always.
I of course knew everything about this interview, including the fact that they never said what you claimed. I just wanted to embarass you by once more illustrating your illiteracy.
The word “vengeance” is literally never mentioned once. That was about balance of power, not justice of revenge. You made all of it up, just like I suspected! Blizzard never said Dazar’alor was vengeance for Teldrassill! I am starting to believe your brain is that of a Goldfish with how consistently you fail to read what is in front of you.
You literally said that: Keywords being “Night elves had vengeance for Teldrassil with the raid of Dazar’alor” about the interview! Nowhere does it say that! See, you cannot be trusted to act honestly! I knew this, yet you got all hissy about “ad homs”. You lied! You lied! You lied, and I have proven it!
Listen, you cannot make a convincing lie while showing text that proves you wrong!
Not my summary.
Fine by me if you want to put under scrutiny if its either a “the” or an “a”, but if the set of questions is carried towards a route that obviously puts parity to the forefront (would be intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge thats the purpose of it), and if devs take those two events and equate them in such a broad manner, they are weighting both similarly.
Otherwise, there would be no point of invoking any “balancing issue they are taking care of”.
Aah, the last resort: getting pedantic and grasping at words.
How is it that you were all the time expecting me to quote an interview about Blizzard saying anything about “vengeance”, when the claim you asked source for didn’t mention said word either?
The “vengeance” word came as a way to direct you towards the thread that tackles this interview. Its a word that gets repeated a lot there:
But, if your only straw left is that Blizzard didn’t outright say Dazar’alor was the vengeance for Teldrassil, then i can end this right here. Wasn’t asked on sourcing that, was i?
They don’t equate them. They relate them. There is no weighting going on.
This is literally what you said:
You literally claimed the interviewed asserted the Night Elves had vengeance in Dazar’alor! Those were your words! That is why I expected to see this! How are you this dishonest?! You cannot back-pedal from this! What is your response to this?!
I am not getting “pedantic and grasping at words” as a last resort! I am showing what you claimed and that your source does not contain the information!
Yes, you were:
This is the paragraph you responded to with your link, meaning you were asked for it, and acknowledged the charge.
You lied! Now, are you going to own up to it like an intellectually honest person and apologize for lying and admit I was right to doubt you, or keep dodging the issue, acting like you are still in the right, when all facts prove you wrong, just to save face?
Now just wait how Zarao will twist his own words. Isn’t this amazing?
My guess is that he will chicken out, but I kind of want to see him try to wiggle out of this corner he has painted himself in. It should prove entertaining.
/10chars dot,dot, dot.
EDIT: (Forgot to answer the post that was kinda worth answering).
Whats the point of talking about a balance issue if you aren’t weighting the events that you bring as a case or proof that shows you acknowledge the issue?
They are talking about unbalanced stuff as a case to show they care about balance?
And there it is, he is not even going to acknowledge he claimed this:
Is this really the best you could come up with? The interview did not even claim what you asserted it did.
I mean, it does not even fulfill your original claim:
Everyone can see the fact that you lied, and you are just going to ignore it? Pathetic. Honestly, pathetic. If you are going to fail this hard, at least make it entertaining for me!
That an event was meant to go towards creating a balance doesn’t mean this event alone created the balance. Yes, they made the Alliance attack DA because they needed an Alliance response. Yes, this went towards balancing the losses. But no, it doesn’t mean that DA alone was repayment for Teldrassil. It might be, but no one said that in this interview. UC probably also counted a bit. And there might be future events that they have planned.
And no, they didn’t just bring DA and balancing the factions up. That was Taliesin in several different questions. Really, if you want to use this as a source, you might actually want to listen to it. Asking me to explain your source is kind of asinine.
And i already explained the why and purpose of the wording.
Which is more than you have done regarding your apparent psychic powers that somehow had you waiting for an interview that referenced “vengeance”…45 minutes before i even typed that word.
I mean, i know that at this point the only thing left for you is to grasp at wordings, and that you need to mix posts separated for about an hour in order to build something to hold on to.
But as an authority regarding what i said, or meant, i’ll clarify for you once more: My initial post, the one you asked a source for, didn’t say a word about vengeance. And despite the wording isn’t exactly the same as the one the summary has, in essence the message remains the same.
You can’t bail out of this fact by trying to grasp at a later post that had as function to direct you to the thread that debated said interview.
Well, you can, but you’d be essentially building your own strawman to argue with.
PS: Not really fond of people butting in discussions that don’t have to do with them, but this:
Is rather rich, when coming from the guy that not long ago tried to make “tacit” pass as “outright”.