Author |
Message |
 06/01/2008 11:08:18
|
Jacked Out
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Messages: 6256
Location: The Real World This is how MxO ends: Not with a bang but a whimper
Offline
|
I think it's clear he meant that to be non constructive...
Message edited by Croesis on 06/01/2008 11:14:29.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:10:40
|
Vindicator
Joined: Oct 22, 2005
Messages: 8296
Location: Ye Olde Hole Ine The Tree
Online
|
odj wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Clearly, people cannot tell the difference between the Assassin Mask and the Assassin's Mask. Therefore, I propose we change the Assassin Mask to the Assassin's Mask and the Assassin's Mask to the Assassin Mask so that people can tell them apart.
O_O
Ok now I am confused.
How can you be confused? It's so simple!
The Assassin's Mask is the Assassin's Mask that the Assassin wore as a mask, and the Assassin Mask is the Assassin's Mask any Assassin can mask. My proposal is to make the Assassin's Mask the Assassin Mask so that the Assassin Mask is clearly distinguished as the Assassin's Mask and the Assassin's Mask just as easy to tell to be simply the Assassin's Mask.
Vinia wrote:
I think it's clear he meant that to be non constructive...
I'm a constructive non-destructive construction construction.
Message edited by ZippyTheSquirrel on 06/01/2008 11:11:30.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:13:08
|
Jacked Out
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Messages: 6256
Location: The Real World This is how MxO ends: Not with a bang but a whimper
Offline
|
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
I'm a constructive non-destructive construction construction.
Now I'm confused....
At least it was on topic though...
Message edited by Croesis on 06/01/2008 11:15:49.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:16:29
|
Vindicator
Joined: Oct 5, 2006
Messages: 2254
Location: UK - Wales
Offline
|
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
odj wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Clearly, people cannot tell the difference between the Assassin Mask and the Assassin's Mask. Therefore, I propose we change the Assassin Mask to the Assassin's Mask and the Assassin's Mask to the Assassin Mask so that people can tell them apart.
O_O
Ok now I am confused.
How can you be confused? It's so simple!
The Assassin's Mask is the Assassin's Mask that the Assassin wore as a mask, and the Assassin Mask is the Assassin's Mask any Assassin can mask. My proposal is to make the Assassin's Mask the Assassin Mask so that the Assassin Mask is clearly distinguished as the Assassin's Mask and the Assassin's Mask just as easy to tell to be simply the Assassin's Mask.

|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:17:53
|
Vindicator
Joined: Oct 22, 2005
Messages: 8296
Location: Ye Olde Hole Ine The Tree
Online
|
Vinia wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
I'm a constructive non-destructive construction construction.
Now I'm confused....
I'm constructive in that I am able to post my point. (The point is that it's ridiculous to force an item name change [edit: based on a possible one-time event at any rate])
I am non-destructive in that I don't attempt to de-rail the thread with off-topic posts.
I build my posts out of laughter.
I am a being.
:D
But for a more serious attempt... Iunno, Halloween Assassin Mask is too long. Why not "Mask of the Assassin" for the uber item and keep the Halloween item's name? I vote for not changing it, but if needs be, Mask of the Assassin '08!
Message edited by ZippyTheSquirrel on 06/01/2008 11:18:50.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:22:44
|
Jacked Out
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Messages: 6256
Location: The Real World This is how MxO ends: Not with a bang but a whimper
Offline
|
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
I'm constructive in that I am able to post my point. (The point is that it's ridiculous to force an item name change)
I am non-destructive in that I don't attempt to de-rail the thread with off-topic posts.
I build my posts out of laughter.
I am a being.

But for a more serious attempt... Iunno, Halloween Assassin Mask is too long. Why not "Mask of the Assassin" for the uber item and keep the Halloween item's name? I vote for not changing it, but if needs be, Mask of the Assassin '08!
Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?
I like that name and I agree that the name really shouldn't be changed but its obviously far too easy for people to mistake one for the other, especially on forums where spelling and grammar mistakes are plentiful...
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:25:02
|
Vindicator
Joined: Oct 22, 2005
Messages: 8296
Location: Ye Olde Hole Ine The Tree
Online
|
Vinia wrote:
Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?
No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.
...okay, now I'm off topic. ;)
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:27:15
|
Jacked Out
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Messages: 6256
Location: The Real World This is how MxO ends: Not with a bang but a whimper
Offline
|
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Vinia wrote:
Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?
No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.
...okay, now I'm off topic. 
So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess 
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:48:30
|
Vindicator
Joined: Oct 22, 2005
Messages: 8296
Location: Ye Olde Hole Ine The Tree
Online
|
Vinia wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Vinia wrote:
Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?
No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.
...okay, now I'm off topic. " />
So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess " />
No, now I'm a non-constructive destructive construction obstruction.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 11:59:34
|
Vindicator
Joined: Aug 21, 2006
Messages: 3158
Location: ALL YOUR AVATARS ARE BELONG TO ME
Offline
|
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Vinia wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Vinia wrote:
Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?
No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.
...okay, now I'm off topic. ">
So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess ">
No, now I'm a non-constructive destructive construction obstruction.
Stop. Just, stop.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 12:37:07
|
Femme Fatale
Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Messages: 1144
Offline
|
Ballak wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Vinia wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Vinia wrote:
Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?
No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.
...okay, now I'm off topic. ">
So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess ">
No, now I'm a non-constructive destructive construction obstruction.
Stop. Just, stop.
No wai..he was about to become a non-constructive ,destructive ,construction ,obstruction , reconstructed
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 12:41:51
|
Vindicator
Joined: Aug 21, 2006
Messages: 3158
Location: ALL YOUR AVATARS ARE BELONG TO ME
Offline
|
Lezel wrote:
Ballak wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Vinia wrote:
ZippyTheSquirrel wrote:
Vinia wrote:
Shouldn't it then be: I'm a constructive non-destructive construction constructor?
No, the second construction implies that I am a solid being built for a purpose. I applaud your attempt though; you would make a fine Squirrel Logictician given enough practice.
...okay, now I'm off topic. ">
So you're last post would make you a "constructive destructive construction construction"? And myself too I guess ">
No, now I'm a non-constructive destructive construction obstruction.
Stop. Just, stop.
No wai..he was about to become a non-constructive ,destructive ,construction ,obstruction , reconstructed And this pertains to the original poster's intentions.. how? Oh wait, it doesn't.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 15:27:10
|
Jacked Out
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Messages: 1173
Offline
|
Anome Mask = Anome Disguise. Assassin Mask = Assassin Disguise. What Vinia wrote regarding misconceptions due to grammar and whatnot is a valid point, however that does not "justify" what happened with the participants who expected to receive the Assassin's Mask. Perhaps from now on this will encourage people to read more carefully, or even serve as the catalyst for people learning the difference, and not put such blind faith in such a simple circle-jerk. If this event does encourage a renaming of either item, which may be uneccessary, perhaps it should change the item itself so the Assassin Mask does not become ostracized from the other Halloween masks. On a side note: Assassin's mask luggable. EDIT: Forgot the 's on my side note... hehe.
Message edited by TheShickle on 06/01/2008 15:28:18.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 17:59:02
|
Ascendent Logic
Joined: Sep 14, 2005
Messages: 830
Location: Vessel of Suffering
Offline
|
I think its fine the way it is. People really just need to learn to type them correctly.
|
|
 |
 06/01/2008 18:34:51
|
Vindicator
Joined: Aug 15, 2005
Messages: 2955
Location: HvCft Nuria
Offline
|
TheShickle wrote:
Anome Mask = Anome Disguise. Assassin Mask = Assassin Disguise.
This. It's the easiest way to change it and it make sense.
On a side note: Assassin's mask luggable. Yes! There could even be sidestory with it.
"One of the operatives that defeated the Assassin has lost the mask! Those that find it can wear it but are susceptible to PVP while wearing it"
I think that's a novel idea Shickle.
|
|
 |
|