Maelstrom Battlegroup

[Krazed]

To clear all this up, Screenor's right. Joe: What I meant is that in Naxx, theres 15 bosses, you have to down the first 13 to unlock Sapphiron, and then down him to get to Kel'Thuzad, D&T was the first (and they have a video of the fight), to down the 13, then get to Sapphiron. I think they got him to like.. 93%.  :P

[Sidoh]

That's what I'm talking about, consider actually thinking before you decide to reply. They're on the boss called Sapphiron, you know, the 2nd to last boss in Naxxrammas? As I said before, not Kel'Thuzad.

Perhaps you shouldn't use ambiguous wording, then.  It's not my fault I immediately interpreted "D&T is <on> <name>" as them being on a server other than one I didn't bother to mention. ;)

To clear all this up, Screenor's right. Joe: What I meant is that in Naxx, theres 15 bosses, you have to down the first 13 to unlock Sapphiron, and then down him to get to Kel'Thuzad, D&T was the first (and they have a video of the fight), to down the 13, then get to Sapphiron. I think they got him to like.. 93%.  :P

::)

Replace "Kel'Thuzad" with "Sapphiron" in my long, wordy post and I'll be right.  The same principle applies. :P

[Screenor]

Perhaps you shouldn't use ambiguous wording, then.  It's not my fault I immediately interpreted "D&T is <on> <name>" as them being on a server other than one I didn't bother to mention. Wink

Try using your brain then before trying to prove me wrong, idiot.

Replace "Kel'Thuzad" with "Sapphiron" in my long, wordy post and I'll be right.  The same principle applies. Tongue

Atleast try to get your facts straight, there's a huge difference between the two bosses.

[Krazed]

What's the difference? Ones a big blue dragon, and idk what Kel is.  :P

[Screenor]

What's the difference? Ones a big blue dragon, and idk what Kel is.  :P

One's the hardest boss in the game, the other isn't.

[Sidoh]

Try using your brain then before trying to prove me wrong, idiot.

Perhaps you should consider adopting your own advice -- I used my brain.

As I said, your wording was ambiguous to the point it could be validly interpreted as at least two absolute separate meanings.  You obviously left the context of your sentence to vanquish the ambiguity, but since it had no explicit context, there's no validity in accusing anyone of interpreting it in an alternative way.

Please, tell me how it is invalid to interpret your sentence as I did.

Atleast try to get your facts straight, there's a huge difference between the two bosses.

Hmm... this goes back to my advice in the post that started this whole mess: do not reply to a post unless you've thorougly read it.  Scanning it just doesn't do.

My post included a general principle which applies to all higher-end bosses in World of Warcraft: skill, gear or reputation cannot compensate for strategy.  Strategy is a vital, game-breaking constituent of successfully defeating a boss.  This is exactly why I said replacing the name of the boss (or even removing it to make a general statement) would remove any invalidities of what I'd said.

In essence, there isn't a difference between the two bosses when you're purely referring to my statement: they both require strategy to beat.  So, no.  There isn't a huge difference between these two bosses in this context.

[Screenor]

You were the only one who didn't understand, anyone else who replied to that post knew what I meant, as I said before, think a little.

[Krazed]

Jesus fucking christ, will you two fucking stop already? Sheesh.

[Screenor]

Jesus fucking christ, will you two fucking stop already? Sheesh.

Sorry he tries to be a fucking prick every time I post?

[Sidoh]

You were the only one who didn't understand, anyone else who replied to that post knew what I meant, as I said before, think a little.

Proof by example when your pool of people consists of three readers doesn't work, screenor.

Also, I completely understood it.  I simply interpreted your ambiguous statement in another (totally valid) way. :P

[Screenor]

You were the only one who didn't understand, anyone else who replied to that post knew what I meant, as I said before, think a little.

Proof by example when your pool of people consists of three readers doesn't work, screenor.

Also, I completely understood it.  I simply interpreted your ambiguous statement in another (totally valid) way. :P

That's fine if you did, what isn't fine is when you go and try to be a complete ass about something you didn't even grasp, and then turn it around on me as if I did something wrong.

[Sidoh]

That's fine if you did, what isn't fine is when you go and try to be a complete ass about something you didn't even grasp, and then turn it around on me as if I did something wrong.

There seems to be a misunderstanding.

What you said: I grasped it, I understood it, I interpreted it all with no problem.  You did do something.  You left the ambiguity of your wording to the context of your sentence, which wasn't at all clear.

[Screenor]

That's fine if you did, what isn't fine is when you go and try to be a complete ass about something you didn't even grasp, and then turn it around on me as if I did something wrong.

There seems to be a misunderstanding.

What you said: I grasped it, I understood it, I interpreted it all with no problem.  You did do something.  You left the ambiguity of your wording to the context of your sentence, which wasn't at all clear.

You obviously didn't understand it, because we're arguing about how you didn't use common sense to put two and two together.

[Sidoh]

You obviously didn't understand it, because we're arguing about how you didn't use common sense to put two and two together.

Look up the word ambiguous and come back when you have a firm understanding of its definition.  I'm done arguing with you; you're stupid to the point you either: 1) Ignore everything I say 2) Don't understand portions of the English language I used.

[Screenor]

You obviously didn't understand it, because we're arguing about how you didn't use common sense to put two and two together.

Look up the word ambiguous and come back when you have a firm understanding of its definition.  I'm done arguing with you; you're stupid to the point you either: 1) Ignore everything I say 2) Don't understand portions of the English language I used.

I understand its definition perfectly fine, the only idiot is the one trying to start worthless fights, that he's obviously wrong about, namely you. You're done arguing? Good, I win.