Mr Briggs, look what you started

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:51 am

Graham, intentional or not, dave_r has taken a quote from one of your posts 'Dave is correct' and made it his signature. Now I recognise that you can't be held responsible for a quote taken out of context but as far as I was aware, there was no FoG subject on which anyone called 'Dave' was correct... :)

david53 · Post by **david53** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:36 am

Are you sure

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:33 am

Surely the amount of posts Dave "River" Ruddock churns out it had to happen once by accident; monkeys, Shakespeare.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:24 am

grahambriggs wrote:Surely the amount of posts Dave "River" Ruddock churns out it had to happen once by accident; monkeys, Shakespeare.

Except that so far no amount of monkeys have in fact reproduced any of the works of Shakespeare, which rather supports Tim's point.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:26 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:Surely the amount of posts Dave "River" Ruddock churns out it had to happen once by accident; monkeys, Shakespeare.
Except that so far no amount of monkeys have in fact reproduced any of the works of Shakespeare, which rather supports Tim's point.

But to be fair to the monkeys, so far their rules interpretations have been generally better than Dave's ...

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:34 am

The solution is simple Graham, just add "Never believe anything I say" to your signature on the forum...

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:26 pm

Ha. Read it and weep I am afraid

The full quote was taken from the "Charging Impact Foot already in combat" Thread.

There was nothing taken out of context - you will notice the full stop after the "Dave is correct" part. Here is the full paragraph in all it's glory.

"Dave is correct. Rather than think of it as 'they are charging' think of it as 'it is an impact combat', and use impact POAs. It usually doesn't matter who's bases actually moved (the guys who didn't are assumed to countercharge where appropriate, you just don't move them). So in this case they would both be on a +2; no net advantage."

This was posted on 14 Jul 2010 at 16:26.

Bwa ha ha ha ha

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:35 pm

Amusing that Dave should be quite so excited about someone having agreed with him. I guess it doesn't happen very often. Perhaps this is the first and only time.

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:12 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: Except that so far no amount of monkeys have in fact reproduced any of the works of Shakespeare, which rather supports Tim's point.

I believe they're still working on producing an infinite number of monkeys...

spike · Post by **spike** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:36 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:Perhaps this is the first and only time.

Richard
From first hand knowledge it occasionally happens. Its like his dice rolling- all random dumb luck

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:02 am

dave_r wrote:Ha. Read it and weep I am afraid

The full quote was taken from the "Charging Impact Foot already in combat" Thread.

There was nothing taken out of context - you will notice the full stop after the "Dave is correct" part. Here is the full paragraph in all it's glory.

"Dave is correct. Rather than think of it as 'they are charging' think of it as 'it is an impact combat', and use impact POAs. It usually doesn't matter who's bases actually moved (the guys who didn't are assumed to countercharge where appropriate, you just don't move them). So in this case they would both be on a +2; no net advantage."

This was posted on 14 Jul 2010 at 16:26.

Bwa ha ha ha ha

No "emoticons" so I assume it was not an ironic post.

The fact that you have now quoted the context proves that it WAS quoted out of context.