Originally posted by no1marauderLMAO! Your reply is so predictable as is your tactic of always attempting to change the focus of the discussion when it might give you cause to have to repudiate your own bogus claims.
Not bad; but it took you 15 extra weeks to get 184 less points than I got for my victory (as sole major) in gwg. And that's with my non-existent diplomacy!
Regardless of how long it took me to win (and of course you don't know under what circumstances I had to play, each game being completely different with differing temperaments among players and arising conditions unique to each game) the point I'm taking you to task on is that I indeed did win, and most definitely played to win, two things you claimed me incapable of.
See, we were both wrong; we can each win despite our respective shortcomings. 😉
2 edits
Originally posted by eagles54Of course, I claimed no such thing. You need to take a reading comprehension course.
LMAO! Your reply is so predictable as is your tactic of always attempting to change the focus of the discussion when it might give you cause to have to repudiate your own bogus claims.
Regardless of how long it took me to win (and of course you don't know under what circumstances I had to play, each game being completely different with differing temperam pable of.
See, we were both wrong; we can each win despite our respective shortcomings. 😉
Eagles: No wonder you don't win - your critical assessment is on a par with your diplomacy skills.
no1: I already have won a game (NE) and am in the process of winning another (GW). That's a bit better than your "strategy" has accomplished - 100% loser.
Nowhere did I claim that you were "not capable" of playing to win or winning. I did say that the "strategy" you employed in the MD and Shogunate games that I saw was a certain loser.
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom page two of this thread, your response to me:
Of course, I claimed no such thing. You need to take a reading comprehension course.
Eagles: No wonder you don't win - your critical assessment is on a par with your diplomacy skills.
no1: I already have won a game (NE) and am in the process of winning another (GW). That's a bit better than your "strategy" has accomplished - 100% loser.
Originally posted by eagles54
Hmmm....I lasted longer than you did in that game so what does that say about the strategy you employed?
And to think I kindly offered to bail you out with gold help.
No1:
That I play to win while you're content not to try.
You're so transparent and the pathetic part is that you're the only one that you're fooling.
1 edit
Originally posted by eagles54That says you're "not capable" of playing to win?? Maybe you should read your own crap.
From page two of this thread, your response to me:
Originally posted by eagles54
Hmmm....I lasted longer than you did in that game so what does that say about the strategy you employed?
And to think I kindly offered to bail you out with gold help.
No1:
That I play to win while you're content not to try.
You're so transparent and the pathetic part is that you're the only one that you're fooling.
Dumbo: the point I'm taking you to task on is that I indeed did win, and most definitely played to win, two things you claimed me incapable of.
Wrong, dimwit.
Originally posted by no1marauderGeez, you had to do an edit earlier to add that I'm a "dumbo" and a "dimwit." You're not too quick on the draw when you have to go back and add your schoolyard taunts, are you, pardner?
Stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue, Junior; but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong again.
Look no1, let's call it good a make a truce, after all we've both in the Hall of Supreme Victors together, right? 😉
