He thinks he needs to spend money to get doffs (you don't)
you think a person who is a VA out ranks captains (he doesn't)
all VA's are desk officers
i play more active than a year ago...
with only 3 char slots per account, you are limited to only a certain amount of recruitment dailys.
so, yes...he needs to buy DOFF's to advance his fleet base.
you of course have 30+ toons...you have DOFF's in abundance. 30x100=3000...i guess you never run short on DOFF's for fleet assignments.
you think a person who is a VA out ranks captains (he doesn't)
you made that up, or understood it wrong...
in this game NO Vice Admiral is a desk officer...deal with it. It is the maximum level in a computer game...not some retirement rank...i don't know why you have such difficultys to understand that.
with only 3 char slots per account, you are limited to only a certain amount of recruitment dailys.
so buy more slots (go alt or go home)
so, yes...he needs to buy DOFF's to advance his fleet base.
you of course have 30+ toons...you have DOFF's in abundance. 30x100=3000...i guess you never run short on DOFF's for fleet assignments.
correct I can haul in 12 doff packs a day without any problem at all
Quote:
you think a person who is a VA out ranks captains (he doesn't)
you made that up, or understood it wrong...
as soon as you start thinking in terms of "wait til your a VA" you have resigned and hold no status
a member of Starfleet takes orders only within his own chain of command
in this game NO Vice Admiral is a desk officer...deal with it. It is the maximum level in a computer game...not some retirement rank...i don't know why you have such difficultys to understand that.
but you make it so clear that it is
half the VA's out there are borg you know (ie assimilated)
i have 6, more than enough my freetime allows me to have. the recruitment missions i do with all of them, regularely. But i play only 2 with dedication. But all are VA, naturaly!
Since you can create accounts indefinately it's easier to just create 10 accounts with 3 chars on each account. If you just want to generate DOFF's.
(with all your ghost accounts, you postet on this forum already i'm sure you know about that)
as soon as you start thinking in terms of "wait til your a VA" you have resigned and hold no status
a member of Starfleet takes orders only within his own chain of command
it's your opinion...because you ignore all endgame content, as you said yourself.
Most other players only play on VA level, remember that. And they don't care about leveling another toon.
half the VA's out there are borg you know (ie assimilated)
i let this stand here for itself...typical senseless answer you are used to give.
there are no ghost accounts (and please stop accusing me of being a small army of posters)
theres just me
all 30+ of me
see id rather pay for alt slots than "grind"
playing the same missions 30+ times is grinding...reguardless of rank.
only purpose to grind to build a fleetbase to have access to the best ships and gear ingame. If you have no need for that kind of VA gear why build one, alone, in the first place?
the base only provides stuff for VA's, what use does a lowlvl char have from the fleetbase?
i'm asking you that, because you don't like to play VA, yet you are bussy building a fleetbase for all your chars, with all your chars. Only 2 of your chars are VA, and you say you don't play with them, yet those are the only ones that profit from the fleetbase.
but logic changes with situation data and racial attitudes
"one for all and all for one" is logical (to a french musketeer) but so is " the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one " (to a vulcan) and "never leave a man behind" to a marine.
Barely any belief, opinion, value, or principle we hold is Logical. None of those you mentioned qualifies.
I quote the begining of Wikipedia's article on the subject of logic: "Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid and which are fallacious)[2] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms that arguments may take. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[4]"
Logic studies and formalizes the processes governing proper reasoning. Mathematics is the simplest form of Logic. Does "1 + 1 = 2" stops being true if we switch the observer for a different one? No, it does not. It follows it is not subjective.
I will also quote Merriam-Webster online's primary definition: "1
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge"
For a given argument to be logical it must follow the formal guidelines and satisfy the criteria that separates valid reasoning from fallacious reasoning. These guidelines and criteria exist independently from the observer even when the elements being studied do not.
It is not my intention to insult you, but before trying to discuss the nature of Logic you should educate yourself on the topic. Logic being subjective is one of the most ludicrous things I have read in my life.
But to go further down this road would lead us away from the point. You did claim what he said was not Logical, I did claim it was and did explain why. You can:
1. Correctly demonstrate what he said was not logical.
2. Surrender the point.
And let me add one more thing: If your claim of Logic being subjective had not been wrong it would actually defeat your own point, as the only condition to it being "logical" would be one of us considering it so.
stealth usually COSTS the mission
I have run this many times with teams in the low range we average 25 marks and a total clean sheet on the corner sabs
largely because we don't stealth or spread out a bunch of drones and blow the end mission
You must not know how to play stealth or have very good ground gear. My tac in Mk XII Omega and a Mk XII very rare Pulsewave has no problem stealthing to the saboteur and quickly taking it out with ambush, then escaping with the extra stealth from Omega which lasts long enough for my kit stealth to be ready again. I usually can quickly take out 3 saboteurs this way, and I can get the 4th if my group sucks but we will be short on time in the third round. Its fastest if everyone is equiped this way then we each split up and stealth and take 1 saboteur out.
If you are wasting your time fighting through the enemies to get the sabotuer you are wrong. Even when I am on a eng or sci I still ignore the other enemies and just rely on survivng long enough to take the saboteur out, then using Omega stealth to help escape.
dont need that one person that gets mobbed if if me and one or 2 others are able to take the saboteurs out quickly enough with stealth. you waste too much time fighting your way through the mobs if you don't stealth past them or tank and run past them as an eng or sci.
and we have one person who states his opinions as facts, despite being proven wrong over and over again, refuses to give any proof to his claims and did not contribute any usefull thing to the topic.
all you are waiting for is another idiotic troll posting. After reading through 2 threads about the same subject i found one point he was actually right. And that was the concern that if lower levels are restricted to their tier, that they have to wait forever to join a fleet event.
he is known for his postings already, i tried to ignore his postings, but sometimes it's just soo damn obvious that he has no idea of anything in this world that i feel the need to correct that.
But since he is either a troll or a lost cause, or both...i think it is the smart move to just ignore his postings alltogether.
you definitions are limited and a thousand years too modern/500 years out of date
The burden of proof is on you.
Your opinions on all three matters have been noted, yet they remain irrelevant when I have asked for formal arguments backed by evidence. Are you unable to provide anything but arbitrary declarations, baseless claims, and your own opinions?
You have presented no proper arguments backing your declaration of marc8219's actions being illogical nor have you presented a proper counter to my defense of it. Moreover, you have shown once and again a complete lack of education and understanding on all matters pertaining formal logic.
Demonstrating your claim as invalid being what I embarked to do this discussion is now over. Have a nice day.
nope getting a team mate killed is being incompetent
there is NO situation where its ok
Quote:
Originally Posted by sollvax
only living minds think (computers are inherently illogical as they obey only the commands given and thus will NEVER be capable of logic)
The burden of proof is on you.
Turing already proved it
Quote:
Originally Posted by sollvax
you definitions are limited and a thousand years too modern/500 years out of date
The burden of proof is on you.
I spoke its proven
case closed
Your opinions on all three matters have been noted, yet they remain irrelevant when I have asked for formal arguments backed by evidence. Are you unable to provide anything but arbitrary declarations, baseless claims, and your own opinions?
you provided only someone elses opinions
At least i gave you mine
You have presented no proper arguments backing your declaration of marc8219's actions being illogical nor have you presented a proper counter to my defense of it. Moreover, you have shown once and again a complete lack of education and understanding on all matters pertaining formal logic.
no you have shown your mind is locked in the wrong century
logic only exists in PEOPLE
Demonstrating your claim as invalid being what I embarked to do this discussion is now over. Have a nice day
nope getting a team mate killed is being incompetent
there is NO situation where its ok
Turing already proved it
Quote:
I spoke its proven
case closed
you provided only someone elses opinions
At least i gave you mine
no you have shown your mind is locked in the wrong century
logic only exists in PEOPLE
I accept your surrender
have a mediocre decade
he didn't surrender, he simply ignores your comments until you come up with some proof to your ridiculous claims.
As we both know, there can't be no proof to your claims outside of your limited mind. So i guess the discussion ends here.
you should really by now have learned to use the quote button right...but you didn't. you may want to improve that. Also you should spend less time in STO and more time informing yourself properly before bringing them up on the forums.
but you and he combined carry less weight than a wet paper hanky
Turing proved AI was impossible
how? i want to know, really. can you give me a name of a book or something where i can read about it? Sure you must have read about it somewhere, so you must have some evidence for this.
Comments
the point is you were retired a long time ago
He thinks he needs to spend money to get doffs (you don't)
you think a person who is a VA out ranks captains (he doesn't)
all VA's are desk officers
i play more active than a year ago...
with only 3 char slots per account, you are limited to only a certain amount of recruitment dailys.
so, yes...he needs to buy DOFF's to advance his fleet base.
you of course have 30+ toons...you have DOFF's in abundance. 30x100=3000...i guess you never run short on DOFF's for fleet assignments.
you made that up, or understood it wrong...
in this game NO Vice Admiral is a desk officer...deal with it. It is the maximum level in a computer game...not some retirement rank...i don't know why you have such difficultys to understand that.
so buy more slots (go alt or go home)
correct I can haul in 12 doff packs a day without any problem at all
as soon as you start thinking in terms of "wait til your a VA" you have resigned and hold no status
a member of Starfleet takes orders only within his own chain of command
but you make it so clear that it is
half the VA's out there are borg you know (ie assimilated)
i have 6, more than enough my freetime allows me to have. the recruitment missions i do with all of them, regularely. But i play only 2 with dedication. But all are VA, naturaly!
Since you can create accounts indefinately it's easier to just create 10 accounts with 3 chars on each account. If you just want to generate DOFF's.
(with all your ghost accounts, you postet on this forum already i'm sure you know about that)
it's your opinion...because you ignore all endgame content, as you said yourself.
Most other players only play on VA level, remember that. And they don't care about leveling another toon.
i let this stand here for itself...typical senseless answer you are used to give.
theres just me
all 30+ of me
see id rather pay for alt slots than "grind"
playing the same missions 30+ times is grinding...reguardless of rank.
only purpose to grind to build a fleetbase to have access to the best ships and gear ingame. If you have no need for that kind of VA gear why build one, alone, in the first place?
the base only provides stuff for VA's, what use does a lowlvl char have from the fleetbase?
i'm asking you that, because you don't like to play VA, yet you are bussy building a fleetbase for all your chars, with all your chars. Only 2 of your chars are VA, and you say you don't play with them, yet those are the only ones that profit from the fleetbase.
I have already shown a dictionary's definition of the word. The burden of proof is on you for any claim of "true meaning" you want to give.
Barely any belief, opinion, value, or principle we hold is Logical. None of those you mentioned qualifies.
I quote the begining of Wikipedia's article on the subject of logic: "Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid and which are fallacious)[2] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms that arguments may take. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[4]"
Logic studies and formalizes the processes governing proper reasoning. Mathematics is the simplest form of Logic. Does "1 + 1 = 2" stops being true if we switch the observer for a different one? No, it does not. It follows it is not subjective.
I will also quote Merriam-Webster online's primary definition: "1
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge"
For a given argument to be logical it must follow the formal guidelines and satisfy the criteria that separates valid reasoning from fallacious reasoning. These guidelines and criteria exist independently from the observer even when the elements being studied do not.
It is not my intention to insult you, but before trying to discuss the nature of Logic you should educate yourself on the topic. Logic being subjective is one of the most ludicrous things I have read in my life.
But to go further down this road would lead us away from the point. You did claim what he said was not Logical, I did claim it was and did explain why. You can:
1. Correctly demonstrate what he said was not logical.
2. Surrender the point.
And let me add one more thing: If your claim of Logic being subjective had not been wrong it would actually defeat your own point, as the only condition to it being "logical" would be one of us considering it so.
You'll make me blush.
theres a difference
logic is any sequence that can be logically arrived at
as only living minds think all logic is flawed
sense...it makes absolutely none.
just out of curiousity, what is a non-living mind? and examples taken from the real world...not science fiction.
My argument was backed by the proper definition of Logic.
The burden of proof is on you.
What you want Logic to be is irrelevant to the topic of what Logic is. The proper definition was already given.
The burden of proof is on you. Please demonstrate the way in which "all logic is flawed."
You must not know how to play stealth or have very good ground gear. My tac in Mk XII Omega and a Mk XII very rare Pulsewave has no problem stealthing to the saboteur and quickly taking it out with ambush, then escaping with the extra stealth from Omega which lasts long enough for my kit stealth to be ready again. I usually can quickly take out 3 saboteurs this way, and I can get the 4th if my group sucks but we will be short on time in the third round. Its fastest if everyone is equiped this way then we each split up and stealth and take 1 saboteur out.
If you are wasting your time fighting through the enemies to get the sabotuer you are wrong. Even when I am on a eng or sci I still ignore the other enemies and just rely on survivng long enough to take the saboteur out, then using Omega stealth to help escape.
is that your final answer to the question "what is a non-living mind? and examples taken from the real world...not science fiction. "?
my response is this little clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0
another who does not get that a human mind(living) is the only one capable of real logic
and another who thinks its the best option to let over 100 angry orions converge on the one person in your team who CAN'T stealth
Was a weak Ad Hominem attempt the best you could muster? Please.
You have been invited to present proper arguments backed by proper evidence. You have not done so. Are you unable to do so?
More so, I will invite you now to provide proper arguments backed by proper evidence that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that:
1. The definitions I presented are invalid.
2. Nothing but a human mind is capable of logic.
3. Leaving the person who can't stealth to be slaughtered by angry Orions isn't the best option in at least one case.
I will be waiting.
he is known for his postings already, i tried to ignore his postings, but sometimes it's just soo damn obvious that he has no idea of anything in this world that i feel the need to correct that.
But since he is either a troll or a lost cause, or both...i think it is the smart move to just ignore his postings alltogether.
(its considered incompetence)
only living minds think (computers are inherently illogical as they obey only the commands given and thus will NEVER be capable of logic)
you definitions are limited and a thousand years too modern/500 years out of date
We saved 20 of 21.
Really, I've seen far worse players in Kar'fis and such.
IKS Korrasami (Fleet B'rel Bird of Prey Retrofit T5-U)
The burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is on you.
Your opinions on all three matters have been noted, yet they remain irrelevant when I have asked for formal arguments backed by evidence. Are you unable to provide anything but arbitrary declarations, baseless claims, and your own opinions?
You have presented no proper arguments backing your declaration of marc8219's actions being illogical nor have you presented a proper counter to my defense of it. Moreover, you have shown once and again a complete lack of education and understanding on all matters pertaining formal logic.
Demonstrating your claim as invalid being what I embarked to do this discussion is now over. Have a nice day.
nope getting a team mate killed is being incompetent
there is NO situation where its ok
Turing already proved it
Quote:
I spoke its proven
case closed
you provided only someone elses opinions
At least i gave you mine
no you have shown your mind is locked in the wrong century
logic only exists in PEOPLE
I accept your surrender
have a mediocre decade
he didn't surrender, he simply ignores your comments until you come up with some proof to your ridiculous claims.
As we both know, there can't be no proof to your claims outside of your limited mind. So i guess the discussion ends here.
you should really by now have learned to use the quote button right...but you didn't. you may want to improve that. Also you should spend less time in STO and more time informing yourself properly before bringing them up on the forums.
Turing proved AI was impossible
how? i want to know, really. can you give me a name of a book or something where i can read about it? Sure you must have read about it somewhere, so you must have some evidence for this.
the Turing test proves the non existance of artificial intelligence (to date)
no thanks..."internet sources are by definition false" your own words:D remember?
so you can't look it up in an encylopedia