Cpt Kernow Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Look you closed my thread (my opinions of this game the prequal). Ok someones was giving it a bad smell but its frustrating to have some one say: "But ofcourse no one can explain sneaking over open terrain torwards HMG-positions when cover is close and therefore i guess BTS is avoiding the discussion about it and useful idiots like you are welcome to distract from the complaints." OK someone calls me a usefull idiot (the stooge of BFC! thats Cpt Kernow) Now I am unable to respond which I feel is my right as an english gentleman.I would slap Schrsophfso (name purposefully misspelt to protect the innocent) in the face with a glove but your forum isnt that advnced yet (pleaze fix or do something). During that thread a certian person (Schcduxh) was directly rude to me on several occasions calling me both a liar, an idiot and an "eel" amongst other things equally heinous and foul. This is of course no way for a gentleman to conduct himself and I demand satisfaction. Please reopen said thread to allow me (and only me) one last rapier like post. Schrojusdori is a useless fencer (see no direct insults, just carefully framed aspersions, that SChdofcih is the way of a civilised man) leaving himself wide open everytime he opens his mouth or pen or fingers or whatever, you catch my drift. So as one gentleman to another I know you will allow me this, it is your duty. P.s. I checked my bank account and the payment for last week hasnt come through yet. Diverting the attention of posters away from the fantastic amount of flaws in CMBB is of course a full time occupation, I even had to play the game (Eurgh) to find out what some posters were talking about, so of course the extra fee we discused will apply for the remainder of my contract. However I do like the bit when you get Beta testers to interject into a thread (Beta testers LOL they cost money)and this is making my job easier (not easy enough to make up for actually having to play CMBB, I have showered several times and somehow I still feal dirty) Yours The Usefull Idiot [ November 19, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 No, beta testers did not cost BFC any money. At least not this one. The only physical "compensation" I recieved was a copy of the game. That probably works out to 5 cents an hour or so. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Kernow Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 wwb_99 does in fact exist. This game was fully beta tested. We did really go to the moon. [ November 19, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akdavis Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Cpt Kernow: wwb_99 does in fact exist. This game was fully beta tested. We did really go to the moon.Wow, I wonder why your thread was closed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Kernow Posted November 20, 2002 Author Share Posted November 20, 2002 akdavis Wow! what assumptions you make. In the post that was closed I was refered to as a usefull idiot for BFC because I was supporting it. I was accused of diverting attention away from the flaws of CMBB. I was attempting to draw humour from this (see my post from P.S) by sarcasticaly attempting to infer that I had some secret contract with Steve (Battlefront) to do just that. As part of this I infered in a totally humourous manner that the beta testa's didnt exist. My other post was shut down due to the posts of others over which I obvioulsy have no controll. Are you German or Welsh? See ya. [ November 19, 2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 You got the answers you deserved. You started a thread for flaming and provoking people. You kept several times stating that the "whiners" have bad tactics. Then you hide behind Steve but kept the tendency. I just said, what i think about such a behaviour. And, yes - i prefer clear words, over being a false "gentlemen", or what your imagination about being a "gentlemen" is. BTW: in the meanwhile i checked your Blitzladder stats. If i were you, i wouldn't accuse others of having bad tactics. But maybe you'll do better in CMBB [ November 19, 2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Kernow Posted November 20, 2002 Author Share Posted November 20, 2002 Above is why the topic I started got closed. Schroener you accusing people of flaming is perhaps the most gargantuan act of hypocrisay I have ever seen. You flame and insult like no one else on this board and allways claim in total arrogance that your victim "deserves it". You are so so aggresive . Cant believe I am still having to say things like this to you. Cant you reply to my posts some wit or repost. I dont think you can. Go on rather than ranting in response to this and making more completly unfounded accusations and insults and flames try something a little more subtle like humour. Also please demonstrate how I was hiding behind steve. If he decided to enter a discusion by posting a post that supports my arguements I cant help that can I. It merely suggests that my points had some merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akdavis Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Originally posted by Cpt Kernow: akdavis Wow! what assumptions you make. In the post that was closed I was refered to as a usefull idiot for BFC because I was supporting it. I was accused of diverting attention away from the flaws of CMBB. I was attempting to draw humour from this (see my post from P.S) by sarcasticaly attempting to infer that I had some secret contract with Steve (Battlefront) to do just that. As part of this I infered in a totally humourous manner that the beta testa's didnt exist. My other post was shut down due to the posts of others over which I obvioulsy have no controll.I meant that the thread had clearly degenerated into pointless flaming and irrelevant debate (existence or non-existence of Beta-testers). This may or may not have been your fault, but I don't see why you're complaining. Your original thoughts and ideas are still there for everyone to see. [QB}Are you German or Welsh? See ya.[/QB]Are there Germans with the name Davis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Schoerner, Kernow - piece of advice: since this is getting personal between the two of you, it should probably be continued in private, and not on a public forum. Locking up this thread. Should the personal attacks continue, both of you will be banned, regardless of who's wrong or right. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Everyone can read the thread itself and get an impression how i patiently tried to explain the disadvantages until a certain point. You ignored the reason of complaining and kept talking about tactics. Steve replied and also did in no way answer the discussed disadvantages. Instead he compared the complaining about strange sneak-routes or not-firing-troops with complaints like "Sherman killed my Tiger. This game sucks." I explained in detail what i discovered. Still the same tactics-BS from you. I suggest you, as a "gentleman" stand to your opinion and tell in the new thread that the "whiners" should shut up, 'cause they have no clue about tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Kernow Posted November 20, 2002 Author Share Posted November 20, 2002 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE everyone read the post MY OPINIONS ON THIS GAME THE PREQUAL Make your own judgements. There can be only one conclusion. P.S. Moon what follows are not personal insults. (Mine have been tame compared to his) Schroener. I talked about tactics because that was what the post was about. Why should i start talking about something different just because you post. If you go through that thread you will notice that I was in lenghty dialogue with someone called doodlebug, my posts were often in repsonse to his. A thread is not a sattelite that revolves around your post at the expense ao all others. You even extend this criticsm to steve, who again was having a discusion with all the posters in that thread, try to comprehend that when someone posts they may be replying to any number of posts in that thread not just yours. Your posts are no more or no less importnat than anyone elses. [ November 19, 2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGMB Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Uhm... shouldn't this be locked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Wrong. The post was AGAINST PEOPLE complaining about certain aspects of CMBB. You had a dialogue with Doodlebug and i added my experiences, 'cause i saw you were not understanding or willing to understand what i.e. Doodlebug meant - and what showed into the same direction why i had stopped playing CMBB. BTW: you have in the new thread one picture showing very well the sometimes strange and completely unrealistical sneak-directions. And you also can find in this thread the problem of units not shooting back. Go there and explain them, this only happens due to their faulty tactics with the same attitude you did in the closed thread. It's a matter of tactics, if you win or lose, and IF units get under certain circumstances, but it's NOT a matter of tactics, HOW units are treated by the AI WHEN they already are under certain circumstances. Or do you call sneaking 30m torwards HMG-foxholes over open terrain, when (commands torwards cover exists and the unit is NOT panicked, too) cover is only a few meters away, realistically? Your answer was like from a parrot always: faulty tactics. [ November 19, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Good Golly Miss Molly! I closed up that thread and started a new one specifically to get the debate back to a debate instead of a bunch of name calling. That thread is still open so this one is no longer. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts