30 coaches online • Server time: 09:46
* * * Did you know? The best rusher is debog with 8789 rushing yards.
Recent Forum Topics  7s for fummbl? | Exempt teams | Secret League Americ... |
2013-07-21 00:03:58
18 votes, rating 1.6
18 votes, rating 1.6
15 More DE games to go.
Until I become the most prolific DE player on FUMBBL (google it before you comment). So, four games played.
My magnificient WE Sacker, died to a GFI in my Coriolanus game, she never got to leap only pick up the ball, failed RR, then one GFI to avoid surfing, and DEATH. So, its time to play 10-20 more games I guess.
I revived an old experimental DE team, and stabbed, stabbed, stabbed. And lost big. Managed one Assassin TD, and accrued some more cash (cash rich team).
Anyone know if we can embed youtube with BBcode? My player and team descriptions with html is defunct. As can be seen: Bowl and Chain - Assassin Change was a year ago or some such I think. Cambodia is what you´re supposed to be seeing.
My magnificient WE Sacker, died to a GFI in my Coriolanus game, she never got to leap only pick up the ball, failed RR, then one GFI to avoid surfing, and DEATH. So, its time to play 10-20 more games I guess.
I revived an old experimental DE team, and stabbed, stabbed, stabbed. And lost big. Managed one Assassin TD, and accrued some more cash (cash rich team).
Anyone know if we can embed youtube with BBcode? My player and team descriptions with html is defunct. As can be seen: Bowl and Chain - Assassin Change was a year ago or some such I think. Cambodia is what you´re supposed to be seeing.
Comments
Posted by xnoelx on 2013-07-21 00:12:33
No, you can't embed youtube any more.
Posted by Azure on 2013-07-21 00:33:22
10th blog in 16 days? Maybe spread it out a bit more.
Posted by latulike on 2013-07-21 00:39:52
Yep. Have a life.
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-07-21 00:44:42
I´m an underdog fighting for the people Azure.
Posted by Elliott_the_Lame on 2013-07-21 00:57:57
You're a picker, and everyone hates you.
Posted by robocoyote on 2013-07-21 01:03:38
^^^^
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-07-21 01:33:25
[R] Coriolanus C3I2 1-0 Elliott_the_Lame Black Reign
:-9
:-9
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-07-21 01:49:36
you are not an underdog. you are not fighting for the people. you are playing a tier 1 race, and not playing against the teams most suited to beating you. you complain that it's hard to find matches... because no one who meets your criteria survives to your tv. You CAN play against bash races without taking lots of damage to key players - if EVERY player on the pitch is a key player, you WILL take damage to key players even when not playing bash teams.
You are not ever going to be a prolific dark elf player. You do not produce foliage, fruit or offspring with dark elves. You are not a composer or an author, and due to your ridiculous restrictions, you are not what I would ever consider an artist.
You are not ever going to be a prolific dark elf player. You do not produce foliage, fruit or offspring with dark elves. You are not a composer or an author, and due to your ridiculous restrictions, you are not what I would ever consider an artist.
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-07-21 01:54:48
You do not understand the word, if you mix in authors, composers and offspring. Does FUMBBL really stop people from learning? How hard can it be to read a dictionary definition and understand it?
Also, Azure claims his Tiny Steel Hammers was underdogs in a bunch of boardposts, before he won the whole GLT... Keep up.
Also, Azure claims his Tiny Steel Hammers was underdogs in a bunch of boardposts, before he won the whole GLT... Keep up.
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-07-21 02:00:29
In fact, I did exactly what you said:
I googled 'definition, prolific', and I got:
(of a plant, animal, or person) Producing much fruit or foliage or many offspring.
(of an artist, author, or composer) Producing many works.
Don't even have to click a link, it simply shows up at the top of the google search. If YOU want to use a different definition, do not give incorrect information on how to find that definition.
And no, there isn't any more definitions shown beyond the two I listed. (Note that I am not saying there are not other definitions, but you specifically said to 'google it', which is what I did, so that I could be sure I had the same definition you were using. And apparently that still isn't right.)
I googled 'definition, prolific', and I got:
(of a plant, animal, or person) Producing much fruit or foliage or many offspring.
(of an artist, author, or composer) Producing many works.
Don't even have to click a link, it simply shows up at the top of the google search. If YOU want to use a different definition, do not give incorrect information on how to find that definition.
And no, there isn't any more definitions shown beyond the two I listed. (Note that I am not saying there are not other definitions, but you specifically said to 'google it', which is what I did, so that I could be sure I had the same definition you were using. And apparently that still isn't right.)
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-07-21 02:01:06
and of course Azure did that - metagaming in a prediction thread SHOULD be that way.
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-07-21 02:17:36
Its really, really, really, simple. A prolific author have written MANY books. The key is the amount, even if its games, music, research-papers, or something completely different.
French Canadian?
As a philosophy major, if I say that to Azure after he posted multiple time about being an underdog and when I picked him to win from the first round (as he later did), what do you think I´m doing?
French Canadian?
As a philosophy major, if I say that to Azure after he posted multiple time about being an underdog and when I picked him to win from the first round (as he later did), what do you think I´m doing?
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-07-21 02:23:33
First off: yes a prolific author will have written many books. Unfortunately, prolific, from that definition (or any other other half dozen I skimmed after googling it) restricts it's definitions to certain types of pluralities - of which 'playing games' is not one of them.
Second:
If you were saying it in a thread that had anything to do with predictions, or if Azure had tried to imply that he was somehow good enough to write blogs, but not you, and that he was the underdog for doing so, then you would be using some sort of tongue in cheek come back. However, Azure had not said anything of the sort. There is nothing to do with predictions here. And several people are unhappy with your team, and your blogs about the playstyle of that team. Thus, instead of coming across as witty, it comes across as trying to make yourself somehow justified for doing these blogs, but, it seems to me, you fail completely in doing so.
Second:
If you were saying it in a thread that had anything to do with predictions, or if Azure had tried to imply that he was somehow good enough to write blogs, but not you, and that he was the underdog for doing so, then you would be using some sort of tongue in cheek come back. However, Azure had not said anything of the sort. There is nothing to do with predictions here. And several people are unhappy with your team, and your blogs about the playstyle of that team. Thus, instead of coming across as witty, it comes across as trying to make yourself somehow justified for doing these blogs, but, it seems to me, you fail completely in doing so.
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-07-21 02:31:12
Where on earth would you get it to be restricted to certain items?
You obviously lack some information, like this thread for example:
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=23897&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
But alas, that is the net for you. The overlap even in a community as this, is surprisingly small. But the key words in that comment were Azure&Underdog.
You obviously lack some information, like this thread for example:
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=23897&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
But alas, that is the net for you. The overlap even in a community as this, is surprisingly small. But the key words in that comment were Azure&Underdog.
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-07-21 02:41:21
I got it to be restricted from the definition I quoted:
'(of an artist, author, or composer)'
Every definition I saw on my google search similarly had such restrictions. If you know of a definition that doesn't, by all means, use that one, but make sure you reference it, or I'll continue to disagree with you.
On the subject of underdogs, I've had my say, and will take my leave. I don't think you were warranted in saying it, but, that is simply an opinion.
'(of an artist, author, or composer)'
Every definition I saw on my google search similarly had such restrictions. If you know of a definition that doesn't, by all means, use that one, but make sure you reference it, or I'll continue to disagree with you.
On the subject of underdogs, I've had my say, and will take my leave. I don't think you were warranted in saying it, but, that is simply an opinion.
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-07-21 02:50:18
Oh, so, I only need to give an example that is something else, then what you listed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_inventors
or:
"Though he may be the most prolific serial killer of the 20th century, he was released in 1998. Current whereabouts unknown."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_inventors
or:
"Though he may be the most prolific serial killer of the 20th century, he was released in 1998. Current whereabouts unknown."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-07-21 02:53:25
No, you need to give a definition that is different than what I listed. Simply because wikipedia uses it incorrectly, doesn't mean you can.
Although I would consider inventors to be artists, I would agree that serial killers, by the definition I have found (through your direction), are not prolific.
Although I would consider inventors to be artists, I would agree that serial killers, by the definition I have found (through your direction), are not prolific.
Posted by Elliott_the_Lame on 2013-07-21 03:44:59
Thank you for pointing out that you did defeat my team. Though, I noticed you left out the fact that you had a 620TV advantage, or a link to the post-match write up where you whine about how unfair the die were, and about how your team was "ruined."
Man up, Princess.
Man up, Princess.
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-07-21 03:49:43
Well, I guess I really should have beat you more then 1-0, since you broke down at halftime after you SI´d your ghoul doing a GFI to reduce your SPP pass one difficulty step at turn 8. Doing that without RRs by the way.
You just did not play the same, or indeed chat the same the second half....
You just did not play the same, or indeed chat the same the second half....
Posted by Elliott_the_Lame on 2013-07-21 15:13:22
Care for a rematch?
Posted by Elliott_the_Lame on 2013-07-22 17:38:56
I guess not, since you just ducked my challenge on Gamefinder, and followed it up by sending me a PM. I'm just trying to help you become the most prolific dark elf coach here on Fumbbl. That's what friends do, they help one another.
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-07-22 20:00:35
And I offered to play you with:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=704236
am I to assume you think you can not win Sandbox, so it would be picking on an inferior coach from my side?
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=704236
am I to assume you think you can not win Sandbox, so it would be picking on an inferior coach from my side?