Brdavs wrote:
No, not at all. It`s only normal for ppl to strive to be the best. You do it with hard work and dedication, you deserve it. But you deserve it as long as you can preserve it. With hard work and dedication.
Then you speak of competition (and I thank you for it). Yet 75% of "the best" (lets call them cop) are allied and to the remaining 20% (lets call them cia) you are now serving an argument that the war is silly because others will catch up and we should have peace for the sake of it, to prevent it. I now appologise if I`m misreading this, but that sounds like fear/trying to stomp out competition. One of those "if you can`t beat them have them join you or find an outside "threat" to unite you" type of things. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
So I suggested that only a group in power with fear of loosing that power would field an argument like that in an attemp to preserve their status. Only logical for them to do it but tbh only logical for majority out of that group to not to be too eager to "chip in" with the said "preservation scheme"... Why should say let`s say TSA stop figthing cos apparently let`s say TO is having a blast catching up with let`s say Omega at the summit? (don`t get hangup on this now, just a practicall example)...
Surely you contradict yourself when you say you welcome and savour competition yet you serve new alliances and players rising up while we duke it out as a reason to stop the war...
quote
No, not at all. It`s only normal for ppl to strive to be the best. You do it with hard work and dedication, you deserve it. But you deserve it as long as you can preserve it. With hard work and dedication.
but b4 you said people have some thing wrong with them if they do this, who is contradicting them selves. you can not have it both ways
quote
Then you speak of competition (and I thank you for it). Yet 75% of "the best" (lets call them cop) are allied and to the remaining 20% (lets call them cia) you are now serving an argument that the war is silly because others will catch up and we should have peace for the sake of it
This is not waht i said, what i have said that the goals of the war may have been reached & a side effect is that this has happened.
quote
I now appologise if I`m misreading this, but that sounds like fear/trying to stomp out competition. One of those "if you can`t beat them have them join you or find an outside "threat" to unite you" type of things. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
what is this meant to mean, if it is aimed at me, this just show how focused you are & i like i have tried to show people they are not seeing the whole picture. you look for something to put a negitive, becuase it works for your arguement.
In truth what i have been doing is to falicitate discussion & if anything i have weaked the COP by having Dune, but they have not complained, if they have players gone to Dune, they in most have just accepted it.
& what the hell am i getting out of this ( a load of crap & peole saying things like you just have), when it is not needed it will be dibanded.
quote
So I suggested that only a group in power with fear of loosing that power would field an argument like that in an attemp to preserve their status. Only logical for them to do it but tbh only logical for majority out of that group to not to be too eager to "chip in" with the said "preservation scheme"... Why should say let`s say TSA stop figthing cos apparently let`s say TO is having a blast catching up with let`s say Omega at the summit? (don`t get hangup on this now, just a practicall example)...
Surely you contradict yourself when you say you welcome and savour competition yet you serve new alliances and players rising up while we duke it out as a reason to stop the war...
Yet again, i have to point out that i am not representing either side, but you have yet again tried to turn it to things to look like it works for your argument. again this either comes down to you being focused or you are doing it on purpose, if you carry on the latter is the only option.
as for me contradicting myself, by you not reading or understanding what you are reading you yet again attempt to turn this into your favour in a disscusion.
I apoligised in my otheer post if i was misreading your post, by your next post i was not misrading, but you have not taken anything on board, but carried on, in a way that only suits you point of view, even if this means making things up/distorting the truth, etc.
Its pointless having a discussion unless you are willing to look at the other persons points , infact it is not a discussion at all
jeff (S T I)
in fact i have wasted my time going though your post as all can see.
