Blueprints on the steam store? A bad idea or the Baddest idea? - Rust

[QUOTE=billy79;46325277]The context is your example to which you stated it having nothing to do with a specific time frame. In fact, you did not address my objections, you dismissed them outright. A reasonable person can conclude that your statement of "I am satisfied or Rust satisfied me" has nothing to do with qualifying it with a specific time frame.[/QUOTE] That was not my whole example, you're severely misrepresenting my statements now, as you have done many times previously. Also, by dismissing your objections, I thereby addressed them.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325289]That was not my whole example, you're severely misrepresenting my statements now, as you have done many times previously. Also, by dismissing your objections, I thereby addressed them.[/QUOTE] What the fuck! I'm quoting you! That truly is it. You have to be a troll. [QUOTE]None of this affects my example. This issue has nothing to do with perception versus reality.[B] It doesn't have to do with establishing a specific time frame either.[/B] If something provides me with a satisfying experience, I can declare myself satisfied. That is how those two words interact. It's quite simple. You're still trying to give the word satisfied some special, singular meaning, when it can be legitimately used in other ways.[/QUOTE] Now you want to specify a time period.

[QUOTE=billy79;46325293]What the fuck! I'm quoting you! That truly is it. You have to be a troll.[/QUOTE] You quoted only a part of my example...not the whole thing...that's misrepresentation...is that a hard concept for you to grasp?

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325299]You quoted only a part of my example...not the whole thing...that's misrepresentation...is that a hard concept for you to grasp?[/QUOTE] I quoted the whole thing which does not change the context in the least. You want to specify a time period now when you said it did not matter before. Now you want to say I'm misrepresenting you....READ YOUR FUCKING WORDS! You change so often, I can understand why your are confused. This is essentially what you've said: My example doesn't have to do with establishing a specific time frame.

[QUOTE=billy79;46325302]I quoted the whole thing which does not change the context in the least. You want to specify a time period now when you said it did not before. Now you want to say I'm misrepresenting you....READ YOUR FUCKING WORDS![/QUOTE] Let me break it down for you. I gave an example. You said that time frame mattered. I said the time frame didn't matter. Then we shifted to a different part of the discussion in which time frame did matter. We were not discussing the same things, so there is no contradiction. I can assure you, I read all of my words. I don't think this issue should be so hard for you to understand.

[QUOTE]"If Rust satisfies me in the sense that it causes me to be happy or pleased, then it has satisfied me, regardless of other needs or desires. That is an acceptable way to use those words."[/QUOTE] So, you are saying time period does not matter according to this example that was in question. Here is where you clearly indicate the oppisite: [QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46324786]I actually didn't say that "anything that happens will not change it from being satisfied." I said that anything that happens after being satisfied does not change that fact that you were satisfied. The fact that at some point in the past, you were satisfied cannot be changed in the future. The fact that you are satisfied currently can be changed minute to minute, or it might not. This is simple.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=billy79;46325328]So, you are saying time period does not matter according to this example?[/QUOTE] Yes, it does not matter. No time frame needs to be specified, because the phrase "it has satisfied me" already refers to the past tense.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325351]No, it does not. No time frame needs to be specified, because the phrase "it has satisfied me" already refers to the past tense.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I actually didn't say that "anything that happens will not change it from being satisfied." I said that anything that happens after being satisfied does not change that fact that you were satisfied. The fact that at some point in the past, you were satisfied cannot be changed in the future. The fact that you are satisfied currently can be changed minute to minute, or it might not. This is simple.[/QUOTE] Here is where you indicate time period is critical to understand your objection. Time period is relevant, not relevant depending how you feel I guess. Or:

[QUOTE=billy79;46325356]Here is where you indicate time period is critical to understand your objection. Time period is relevant, not relevant depending how you feel I guess.[/QUOTE] No. That was a different part of the discussion. We were no longer dealing with the same example. lol, seriously, think harder please!

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325366]No. That was a different part of the discussion. We were no longer dealing with the same example. lol, seriously, think harder please![/QUOTE] [QUOTE] It doesn't have to do with establishing a specific time frame either. [/QUOTE] Your statement or example has nothing to do with establishing a time period, yet its the basis of your entire point. 1st example: [QUOTE] it has satisfied me[/QUOTE] is the same as: second example: [QUOTE]"It satisfied me" is past tense...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=billy79;46325373]Your statement or example has nothing to do with establishing a time period, yet its the basis of your entire point.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? In the first instance, you brought up time frame to attack my example. I dismissed that objection as irrelevant. LATER, and dealing with a SEPARATE issue, time frame became critical to my argument. Time frame is not the basis of my "entire" point, but has only affected my arguments recently. And once again..."it has satisfied me" is not my example... ???

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325388]What are you talking about? In the first instance, you brought up time frame to attack my example. I dismissed that objection as irrelevant. LATER, and dealing with a SEPARATE issue, time frame became critical to my argument. Time frame is not the basis of my "entire" point, but has only affected my arguments recently.[/QUOTE] read my edit: The examples are the same. You say time doesn't matter for and matters for the other? You are right, it is affecting your argument, your changing it, again.

[QUOTE=billy79;46325396]read my edit: The examples are the same.[/QUOTE] Read my edit lol. Those aren't my examples. We already went through this...

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325400]Read my edit lol. Those aren't my examples. We already went through this...[/QUOTE] OMFG.

[QUOTE=billy79;46325403]OMFG.[/QUOTE] Yeah, scroll up, I already explained it.

[QUOTE]Those aren't my examples[/QUOTE] verbatim: [QUOTE]"If Rust satisfies me in the sense that it causes me to be happy or pleased, then i[B]t has satisfied me (past tense)[/B], regardless of other needs or desires. That is an acceptable way to use those words."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"It satisfied me" is past tense...[/QUOTE] They are your examples liar.

[QUOTE=billy79;46325415]verbatim: They are examples.[/QUOTE] The first is. The second is not. That was correcting a mistake on your part and certainly not an example of anything.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325424]The first is. The second is not. That was correcting a mistake on your part and certainly not an example of anything.[/QUOTE] then you lied when you said time period did not matter....

[QUOTE=billy79;46325439]then you lied.[/QUOTE] I lied about what? I certainly never said that '"It satisfied me" is past tense..."' was an example. [editline]25th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=billy79;46325439]then you lied when you said time period did not matter....[/QUOTE] No, I didn't. You claimed that a time frame needed to be specified. Establishing a time frame did not matter in the first example.

that your example below doesn't have to do with establishing a specific time frame. [QUOTE]"If Rust satisfies me in the sense that it causes me to be happy or pleased, then it has satisfied me (past tense), regardless of other needs or desires. That is an acceptable way to use those words."[/QUOTE] or when you discussed the time frame in reference to your position, you were talking about of your ass. I can only be on of those two things. I personally think you are a liar.

[QUOTE=billy79;46322836]If the mods want me to shut up, I will shut up about, otherwise you can post in another one of the several threads created on this topic if you are not interested in following our childish antics. FYI: majority of the post in this thread is only a few guys and despite it not being seemingly obvious we are into the nitty gritty of some specfiic dialouge in regards to the prints dicussion.[/QUOTE] Why should I have to post in another one of the several threads created on this topic because of your childish antics? Please also explain how is this still about the blueprints? You really believe that despite it not being seemingly obvious you are into the nitty gritty of some specific dialogue in regards to the prints discussion. I believe you both are in the nitty gritty of some specific dialogue in regards to who knows best about being satisfied or whatever…… How can either one of you really prove your right without trolling each other or this thread? Now I didn’t want to get invold in your nitty gritty of specific dialogue but only your self can know how satisfied you are …..and there in no way to prove otherwise…….. That’s it no more from me but I dam well sure there will be plenty more from you two.

[QUOTE=billy79;46325456]that your example below doesn't have to do with establishing a specific time frame. or when you discussed the time frame in reference to your position, you were talking about of your ass.[/QUOTE] No...the example itself does not rely on establishing a specific time frame for anything. The language itself makes the example clear. Personally, I don't think I am a liar, since we seem to be commenting on that for some reason.

[QUOTE=Homerrocks87;46325464]Why should I have to post in another one of the several threads created on this topic because of your childish antics? Please also explain how is this still about the blueprints? You really believe that despite it not being seemingly obvious you are into the nitty gritty of some specific dialogue in regards to the prints discussion. I believe you both are in the nitty gritty of some specific dialogue in regards to who knows best about being satisfied or whatever…… How can either one of you really prove your right without trolling each other or this thread? Now I didn’t want to get invold in your nitty gritty of specific dialogue but only your self can know how satisfied you are …..and there in no way to prove otherwise…….. That’s it no more from me but I dam well sure there will be plenty more from you two.[/QUOTE] well, what do you want to talk about? [editline]24th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325470]No...the example itself does not rely on establishing a specific time frame for anything. The language itself makes the example clear. Personally, I don't think I am a liar, since we seem to be commenting on that for some reason.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]My example is not affect by any of those. It doesn't have to do with establishing a specific time frame either.[/QUOTE] Yet, your argument states it does, in fact, rely on specifying a time period.

[QUOTE=billy79;46325475]Yet, your argument states it does, in fact, rely on specifying a time period.[/QUOTE] No. One small part of my argument, or if you would prefer, an argument separate from my main argument and that first example, relies on specifying a time period. There is still no contradiction to be found.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46325505]No. One small part of my argument, or if you would prefer, an argument separate from my main argument, relies on specifying a time period. There is still no contradiction to be found.[/QUOTE] Do you honestly believe when you say "It doesn't have to do with establishing a specific time frame either." indicates it could in fact have something to do with establishing a time frame? "It" obviously being your example despite your deceitful efforts to label "it" the contents or context of my post, which you quickly gave up on. Its a contradiction. Just like this one: [QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46324198][U]Changing circumstances [/U]in the form of other needs or desires [B][I][U]can change[/U][/I] whether you are satisfied, or it might not[/B].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46322691]Just because you might end up being more satisfied later, does NOT mean that you were not satisfied to begin with. Again, if Rust caused me to feel happy or pleased, then it satisfied me. It doesn't have to be partial, it can just be 'satisfied.' [B][U]Anything[/U] that happens later [I][U]will not change[/U] [/I]that fact[/b].[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=billy79;46325535]Do you honestly believe when you say "It doesn't have to do with establishing a specific time frame either." indicates it could in fact have something to do with establishing a time frame? "It" obviously being your example despite your deceitful efforts to label "it" the contents or context of my post, which you quickly gave up on. Its a contradiction.[/QUOTE] I didn't change "it" at all. My example is what didn't have to do with a specific time frame. Overall, my comment about it not having to do with a time frame was only relevant in the context of your objection to my example. I had to clarify that because you were quoting it alone, out of context. So, you see, it is in fact the case that both of those things are simultaneously true. No contradiction exists there or in the statements that you are incessantly quoting.

Thread Failed! Out of range of topic C++ return the cheese #getaroom Wow a good debate thread taken over and turned into a farce, this should have been taken to PM boys. now shake hands and agree to disagree, I think a couple of people have Sheldon Cooper syndrome "how can i be wrong i know stuff" Eristic :(

Go to a fucking chat or something, keep this thread to the topic already. 99 new posts, your brains are fucked. I guess I dont have to explain why this unrelated discussion is disrespectful to the community, and a unbelievable waste of time to you.

[URL="http://playrust.com/devblog-31/"]GARRY SPEAKS ON BLUEPRINTS:[/URL] [QUOTE]So given the overwhelming positive response to last week’s post about trading I feel like I should probably clarify some stuff. I know you guys love microtransactions, I know you love the pay2win model, I know you love paying for a game and then paying a bit extra so you don’t have to bother playing it.. but I really think we need to slow down and think about things before you rush to conclusions. I should clarify again that the game is in development. Everything is likely to change. Especially concept features we mention in these blogs that don’t yet exist. I guess I wasn’t careful enough when explaining how it would work, I assumed too much. I assumed you knew we weren’t going to fuck you over. I guess you’ve been fucked over too many times to trust anyone in this area. The Steam Inventory stuff isn’t about microtransactions, it’s a persistent inventory. Being able to sell/buy/trade is optional. We can allow or disallow sell/buy/trade on a per blueprint basis. This is why the system works for us and our intentions. We can let you sell/buy/trade specific blueprints. We can allow you to trade specific blueprints with other players. We can restrict trading to work via an in-game mechanic – it doesn’t have to be done in the steam overlay. If you can trust us that should be enough to allay all of your fears with this system.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46329282][URL="http://playrust.com/devblog-31/"]GARRY SPEAKS ON BLUEPRINTS:[/URL][/QUOTE] Its funny how people are arguing about the idea and garry takes it as "overwhelming positive".