The Transcendance Of The Chairman

[Archaic]

Apologies all for the thread hijack, but given that the post seemed to be made in the safe knowledge that I'd very likely miss it, with how much I'm absent from the forums thesedays, I feel like I have to reply to this insult.

Originally posted by binTravkin

After some rather immature 'bull****, strawman' type postings at a particular thread, I do not have interest to play that game anymore - it wouldn't lead to anything good.
If I'd lose I'd have to listen to useless boasting, if I win I'd have to poke him each time for next turn until the game dies OR he would be grabbing every possible reason out of thin air just to say the situation favoured me.

I fail to see how I was being immature in that thread, by pointing out how blantantly wrong you were.

In any case, if I won, I'd hardly boast, since we use practically the same strategy with only minor tweaks anyway. I could hardly claim the situation favoured you either, given that we'd be working from the same base save, and we both prefer the exact same starting conditions.

In any case, I simply don't have the time to play it anyway (I barely manage doing my PBEM's late as it is, with the hours I have to do at work currently), though I have to admit that I've lost interest in playing you as well, given that I've lost any hope of being able to have a rational debate over the merits of our two strategies afterwards, given how perfectly fine you seem to be in holding onto such obviously illogical beliefs in the face of rational arguement. If it was religion, I might be more understanding, but believing that the moon landings were hoaxed? Give me a break!




Getting back on topic....damn Lazerus, that's just...excessive. ^^;; How developed was your infrastructure, if at all?

[binTravkin]

Apologies all for the thread hijack, but given that the post seemed to be made in the safe knowledge that I'd very likely miss it, with how much I'm absent from the forums thesedays, I feel like I have to reply to this insult.

I fail to see why should I care whether you read it or not.

I fail to see how I was being immature in that thread, by pointing out how blantantly wrong you were.

Phrases like 'bull****', 'strawman', 'idiocy', 'you provide no proof' (when there's actually nothing what can defined as unquestionable proof) and not reading your own links are not ways how to point out anything.
They rather serve as reinforcement of opinion.

I've posted such myself, I admit, but Im not proud of it and I think it's very immature to try to prove anything that way.

I've lost any hope of being able to have a rational debate over the merits of our two strategies afterwards, given how perfectly fine you seem to be in holding onto such obviously illogical beliefs in the face of rational arguement. If it was religion, I might be more understanding, but believing that the moon landings were hoaxed? Give me a break!

And you call this mature?
In the very same way you can demote Newton for not being possible to do 'rational argument' with you, because the poor guy actually believed in God.
And being more tolerant to religous beliefs than to argumentation about controversial subjects..?
Oh, come on, gimme a break!

[Archaic]

Originally posted by binTravkin
I fail to see why should I care whether you read it or not.

Badmouthing me, when it's highly unlikely that I'd ever see it, and thus highly unlikely that I'd have a chance to defend myself? You didn't need to go into that to answer the question that was asked of you. I call that intentional character assassination.

Originally posted by binTravkin Phrases like 'bull****', 'strawman', 'idiocy', 'you provide no proof' (when there's actually nothing what can defined as unquestionable proof) and not reading your own links are not ways how to point out anything.
They rather serve as reinforcement of opinion.

And pointing out bull****, strawman logical fallacies (you *do* know what they are, don't you?) is a crime? Perhaps you should have taken a loolk at your own statements, rather than simply having
As for asking for proof...I'm of course asking for proof beyond reasonable doubt. You never even attempted to provide any evidence whatsoever.
And as far as reading my links, I did. You took what I said out of context and twisted things.

Originally posted by binTravkin
I've posted such myself, I admit, but Im not proud of it and I think it's very immature to try to prove anything that way.

You think it's immature to demand that people provide some actual evidence to back up their statements? How did you ever get through university, assuming you did. Surely the first thing you would have ever learnt with regards to essay writing, even in an arts degree, is proper referencing and research.

Originally posted by binTravkin
And you call this mature?
In the very same way you can demote Newton for not being possible to do 'rational argument' with you, because the poor guy actually believed in God.
And being more tolerant to religous beliefs than to argumentation about controversial subjects..?
Oh, come on, gimme a break!

The poor guy was indoctrinated into it from birth, as so many people are, which is why I can understand why people might hold onto those beliefs for dear life, even though they're illogical.

In any case, you don't specify the actual topic of this debate with Newton, and unlike with you, where I have actual first hand experience with your inability to apply logic, I simply do not have that kind of evidence on hand regarding Newton to make any evaluations.
Though, while he did follow the scientific method for some things, Newton *was* a wack-a-loon by modern standards. Do you know how involved in alchemy, etc, he was? He got some things right (or as right as he could get them with the knowledge and ability to measure things in the day), but for the most part, the guy subscribed to so many insane things it's simply not funny.

In any case, I fail to see the relevance of this. You showed yourself incapable of being able to engage in logical debate. What's any famous figure from history got to do with it? I'd disrespect anyone who showed themselves willfully incapable of simple logic like backing up their statements. Your point is?

[binTravkin]

Yeah, whatever.
This is the bullest sh^t I've ever read!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by binTravkin
There is no need to bring up old quarrels to fuel the new ones.

EDIT: besides, it's a thread hijack


All praise glorious chairman and his victory over the humanitarian wimperer!

[Illuminatus]

binTravkin, Archaic, chill out.

[Lazerus]

Getting back on topic....damn Lazerus, that's just...excessive. ^^;; How developed was your infrastructure, if at all?

size 14-18 all specialists except boreholes, 60mins, 100ec, 200 labs average at my core bases. They had most facilities bar the stuff that came too late like quantum labs and nanoreplicators. Outer bases not much, genejacks mainly for mineral production.

How did you build 200+ bases in 124 turns?

That's impressive.

As cata said it's quite easy and had the game been a few turns longer since most of my core bases had all facilities i was going to do that on a massive scale, with PTS i could have added 500pop a turn easily heh

Leon - I did build near 200 bases myself i was upto Hive62-140 and throw in the original set. I think my total bases was around 250

[Leon Trotsky]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Lazerus
size 14-18 all specialists except boreholes, 60mins, 100ec, 200 labs average at my core bases. They had most facilities bar the stuff that came too late like quantum labs and nanoreplicators. Outer bases not much, genejacks mainly for mineral production.[/SIZE]

I'm just curious, how much did you lose to inefficiency? (As if that mattered at that point).

Leon - I did build near 200 bases myself i was upto Hive62-140 and throw in the original set. I think my total bases was around 250

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
Well, you definitely put the infinite in Infinite City Sprawl.

-seriously.

Doesn't ICS spoil the fun out of the game after a few victories? It seems so... soulless.

[Kataphraktoi]

SMAC not supporting globalwide economic development is one of the worst aspects of the game imho...cities all across the map 1x1 spacing

The other hand of that is, some people make mods with the thought in mind of chiron being very inhospitable...in that case a global metropolis similar to earth wouldnt be realistic. but their should still be bases in all corners of the map, even as outposts. AFAIK 4x cant support this play because of the inherent turn advantage system which promotes snowballing and makes sending out CP further and wider silly.

[binTravkin]

The other hand of that is, some people make mods with the thought in mind of chiron being very inhospitable...in that case a global metropolis similar to earth wouldnt be realistic

You mean would be realistic?

In my thoughts it would be far easier to build one or several dome-protected metropolis' with all the life support and industry near and in them and then expand them.
The concept of crawlers also add to such possibility.
We don't have a working prototype of the unit IRL yet, but by 2160 we could (and should) have.

[Kataphraktoi]

Look at the context...

"The other hand[the first hand is referring to me liking a game friendly to wide empires] of that is, some people make mods with the thought in mind of chiron being very inhospitable"

meaning very harsh land and struggle to survive, which chiron is depicted as[and isnt]

"[continuing on prevoius sentence's idea]...in that case a global metropolis similar to earth would not be realistic"

a metropolis covering the globe like lazerus had wouldnt be realistic if chiron was really intended to be a harsh place to live. earth is very lush and a metro area is easy to make here.

[/betterhavemadesense]

To build a metro area that literally covers miles of the surface requires a huge investment in machinery and resources. a pair of CP with 10,000 people each should not be able to build this in 100 years, IMHO.

[Kataphraktoi]

Lazerus how did you take a picture of a PB debris cloud? My puter wont take a screenie there and instead waits till the animation is done.

[binTravkin]

Lazerus underwent special training of fast print-screen clicking..

[Lazerus]

Yeah I just hit print screen then pasted in photo editor, my graphics card is really weird. Sometimes i'll get good pics, other times its messed up even if i do exactly the same thing as before.
I'm sure its breakin up because i'm getting that split screen thing upon loading smax alot more often now aswell.
Whats weird is that in the first pic the PB was next to PK HQ but it doesn't appear in the screenshot.

[dacole]

Sigh Well good to see you let the gains live till the end...and how little change I ever had playing as the uni (south of LAL who I thought I first I was going to attack)