Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:11 pm
I understand your flawed perspective. You find one line and take it out of context and run with it. You argue based on what you think makes sense in English and not based on what the rules actually say. You also take my words out of context to argue against snippets of my statements instead of against my position. You make up things that I supposedly said and then argue against that.
We will have peace, when you and all your works have perished.
I suspect that some jurisdictions would classify your parting line as a "veiled death threat". Would you like to clarify your intent?
You are very good at taking things out of context, yet even then, you are not the "dark master." My quoted text was certainly not a "veil death threat," or anything of the sort, neither when I said nor when Theoden King said it to Saruman.
You're taking my statement out of context. You quoted from Saruman's speech to Theoden and I quoted from Theoden's speech to Saruman.
And you're here pretending like I'm making character attacks when your quote in context is a character attack itself.
Here is the context of my quote:
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:11 pm
Theo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:42 pm
I offered you [perspective] beyond... your wit. I have offered it again, so that those whom you mislead may clearly see the choice of roads. You give me brag and abuse. So be it.
I understand your flawed perspective. You find one line and take it out of context and run with it. You argue based on what you think makes sense in English and not based on what the rules actually say. You also take my words out of context to argue against snippets of my statements instead of against my position. You make up things that I supposedly said and then argue against that.
We will have peace, when you and all your works have perished.
'We will have peace,' said Théoden at last thickly and with an effort. Several of the Riders cried out gladly.... 'Yes...' he said, now in a clear voice, 'we will have peace, when you and all your works have perished — and the works of your dark master to whom you would deliver us. You are a liar, Saruman, and a corrupter of men's hearts. You hold out your hand to me, and I perceive only a finger of the claw of Mordor.... Even if your war on me was just as it was not... even so, what will you say of your torches in Westfold and the children that lie dead there? And they hewed Háma's body before the gates of the Hornburg, after he was dead. When you hang from a gibbet at your window for the sport of your own crows, I will have peace with you and Orthanc.... A lesser son of great sires am I, but I do not need to lick your fingers. Turn elsewhither. But I fear your voice has lost its charm.'
The Riders gazed up at Théoden like men startled out of a dream. Harsh as an old raven's their master's voice sounded in their ears after the music of Saruman. But Saruman for a while was beside himself with wrath. He leaned over the rail as if he would smite the King with his staff. To some suddenly it seemed that they saw a snake coiling itself to strike.
'Gibbets and crows!' he hissed, and they shuddered at the hideous change. 'Dotard! What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among the dogs?'.... Now his voice changed, as he slowly mastered himself. 'I know not why I have had the patience to speak to you. For I need you not, nor your little band of gallopers, as swift to fly as to advance, Théoden Horsemaster. Long ago I offered you a state beyond your merit and your wit. I have offered it again, so that those whom you mislead may clearly see the choice of roads. You give me brag and abuse. So be it. Go back to your huts!
----------
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
2) It is impossible for someone to know your position when you cannot articulate it.
This is a character attack.
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
If you make statements that contradict your position, a potential outcome that would not be surprising to me is that others misunderstand your position.
If I make a statement, and then I make secondary statement a follow up to the original statement, you should take my secondary statement in the context of my original statement instead of trying to make believe contradictions with something else I have said.
You constantly take one thing I said and try to twist it as an argument against something that is not even my position. Like in the previous discussion, you were hell-bent on arguing that "company" is not plural even though I never argued or suggested that it was, and I agreed that it was not.
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
3) In a similar vein, if the rules/rulings make general statements without explicit context, one cannot differentiate between the possibilities that those statements were intended to be general and that those statements were intended to have some specific unspecified context.
ALL of the statements in the rules and rulings are made in context. It is always explict.
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
when you fail to convey your interpretation...
This is another character attack
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
I apologize if your own insignificance in such cases troubles you...
And another one.
--------
Going back to the original concept, there is a ruling in the CRF "Turn Sequence Rulings" under "Organization Phase" and then "Organizing Companies." This is explictly the context. This ruling describes what to do about resource permanent events on a company when that company becomes 2 companies. This ruling was given to explain the MEDM rule labeled as "permanent-events (clarification)." The ruling is obviously a ruling on permanenent-events and there is no suggestion or need to apply it to the "history" of the company as far as facing attacks or having defeated certain attacks. I literally explained this in the very first post I made in "How do hazard creatures which create persistent effects work?"
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:13 pm
A "company" is just a group of characters. That's all. An effect on a group of characters can only affect one group of characters. When a group of characters faces an attack, any subgroups of characters have also faced that same attack.
An "effect" that is "on" a company "targets" the company. There can only be 1 target of the effect. The rule on resource permanent-events also applies to resource or character effects on a company. Meaning that when a company is split, the resource player chooses which company gets the effect and which doesn't.
On the other hand, a company having "faced an attack" is not an "effect" that targets the company. Having faced an attack is not limited to 1 particular company. So if a company faces an attack and is later split, all resulting companies are considered to have faced the attack regardless of the new companies being different companies.
----------
Here is some help on determining context:
--------
The bottom line Theo, many of your rule/card interpretations go against ICE's rulings. Those interpretations are not invalid according to English, but they are according to MECCG.