Heh, I didn't say BoS... :whistling:

I've never used Van Buren lore in my arguments in a discussion.

So there you go again.
Just cause Legion has Van Buren lore apparently "all" of it's lore is Van Buren lore in your opinion and cannot be used.

"Edit: You had our convo removed before because you lost the argument. Is your forum rep more important than the game?"
It's "conversation" and what conversation was that?
I hardly believe I lost an argument either, I probably found it tiring to post more and more arguments with you discrediting them with false facts all the time or just discrediting them with flawed logic or gameplay perspective.

Perhaps if you actually distinguished between actual lore and stuff from VB you'd make more sense. You don't though, you just throw out links that mix actual lore with fake lore. You don't describe which points you're actually referring to, this makes people unclear on what is actual Legion lore and what isn't. This strengthens the Legion lore artificially. Hence me, calling your 'lore', BS.

Edit: MY flawed logic?? Hahaha thats a laugh..

Oh, well then you said BS. That's like bypassing the censored bars, and is against forum rules.

In any case, I do believe this thread had become derailed. What I would like is an intelligent conversation about the Legion, like many of the Enclave ones I see, but whatever.

Hey! Less of the snarky remarks and back on topic everyone please. My forum rep doesn't need increasing - OK? <_<

*sigh*
You said "They have very little lore" which was why I posted the links, all of which had real lore in them.
And it's not my lore.
It's "the" lore.

[edit]
Kay Rohugh.

Believe it or not, so would I. All I seem to see though are false claims using vb data to 'bloat' legion lore and capabilities. But whatever..

Some of the information in some of the links you posted were ok. I also aknowledged them, but, quite a lot of that information is taken from vb lore and despite it being in a fan-made wikia. It's not lore.

Another faction I could think of Joining would probably be Tops, it'd be nice to just chill around in a casino all day throwing out people that misbehave.


Most of the lore I've ever used is lore I've collected from the game by playing the game.
I've never used Van Buren lore.

f course you have, you actually tried to do it a little while ago with that list of links.
To anyone new to the franchise, reading them would give them a massively false representation of the Legion, which is very deceitful.

*twitch*

For crying out loud you said there wasn't much Legion lore and I provided the links to show that there is a lot of legion lore.
And Look here: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Grand_Canyon
See the history section?

"The following is based on Van Buren and has not been confirmed by canon sources"
:stare:
It clearly states when it's official lore and when it's Van Buren lore.

So when I provided the links I provided Legion lore.
If you can't tell what's Van Buren and what's not then it's your fault but don't try to say I did something I did not do.
Even if the links provided contain Van Buren lore it does NOT mean I've used it in any of my arguments.
All lore I've used about Legion and NCR and anything else in any Legion vs discussion has been official lore and NEVER Van Buren lore.
So just because I provide links towards Legion lore, which was a one time thing to prove you wrong, real official Legion lore, I've used Van Buren lore in my arguments because there is some in those links?
Stop twisting around the meaning of my posts to suit your ideal that we Legion supporters use Van Buren lore.
Bruce [censored] Willis I'm done here.

You used this link

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Four_States_Commonwealth

Perhaps you might want to have another look at it?
Using a wikia source that is 90% VB data?
Yeah, thats the type of thing I'm referring to..

Back when I referred to the legion as not having much 'lore' I was of course putting them in comparison with other, much more established factions in the FO universe.
Unless you count some vb 'lore' which regardless of what you say, a lot of people do.
Hell, a guy a few pages back tried to claim vb was lore.

YOU yourself also claimed vb was lore, just not canon lore.. So don't lie.

So one link discredits everything I've ever said?
You're hung up over "one" link?

"YOU yourself also claimed vb was lore, just not canon lore.. So don't lie."
I won't. It is lore. Just not canon lore and neither lore that I've ever used.

Name one time I've used Van Buren lore in my arguments.
And don't bring up the damn links cause you're taking them out of context.
And don't bring up that damn "Van Buren isn't lore" crap again, I didn't "use" VB lore there either.
So when have I used Van Buren lore?
When have Elvis or Body Massage used VB lore?
What discussion and context was it used?

:facepalm: You're a walking contradiction man.

I've seen you use vb lore to prove points.
I just took a look at your forum history and you post far too much for me to bother trying to find the posts..

You should take a look at your own posts.

Yeah, like I said I'm not wasting my time looking through your history. I never thought I was going to need to use them to prove you wrong so I didn't take notes... :whistling:

I always think about my posts carefully thanks, although if I am wrong I'm always more than happy to admit it. I guess thats were we are different?

Oh if I'm wrong I can admit it.
I'm not though.

No you see, where we're different is that I use real arguments based on lore and logic while you do the same until you're backed up in a corner and try to hold your ground by twisting our arguments in your favor or by simply discrediting them for the slightest technicality.

Well in that case might I suggest we end this 'conversation' as neither of us are ever going to concede.
As long as I don't witness you trying to claim Legion dominance using vb lore we aren't going to have a problem, are we?

Edit: Ahh there you go again you see... You haven't backed me into a corner and I haven't twisted your words at all. I simply pointed out what you can and can't use to support your case. Seeing as you consider yourself a forum elitist you can't handle that and go on a tyrade. It's all good though, you're more than welcome to think what you like.

It seems I would would join the aliens, cause there you know. Aliens. Uber laser guns for the win. Might get probed though..... :cryvaultboy:
On a note don't go turning this into a nrc vs legion thread. its kinda like when the thread goes to "you svck" "no you svck"
its never fun.

I think as a 'baddie' choice for a faction to join (my goodie choice would have been House)

I think I'd join the van graffs. They have a pretty good supply of some nice weapons. A cool place in the middle of freeside, plenty of work and plenty of contacts.
I'd get them to hire a maid though, the silver rush is a MESS!

You discredited Legion lore and said that they don't have a lot, I provide links and you say we use VB lore.
And I've said that I don't think Van Buren lore can be used in arguments.
Don't you get it?
I agree with you there.
Van Buren lore cannot be used in factual arguments.
But none of us has used VB lore in Legion discussions.

Oh and here:

This is not just about this thread but in another thread where we had a Legion discussion going on.
I state that when we provide factual lore to prove you wrong you dismiss it since it shatters your idea of NCR (which you have actually done.) or your idea of how Legion actually is portrayed in the lore. (which is >gameplay)
And you also from that time, during the Lanius discussion, said that we bend facts or used VB lore to get our will through when it was you that ignore and dismiss the facts we brought up.

To which you retorted that we used VB data in our arguments, which we, do, not, use.

I would have to agree here, I think the Legion would win by default. My algorithms confirm it. Yay for Courier Intervention!

I just wish the Followers/Legion/Yes Man had a little more meat to them gamewise, it seems the bulk of it all is in the NCR.

Look, Gabriel, read back to the the early posts. This entire argument started because TWITCH stated that according to vb Legion were badass. Now, you couldn't resist puttig your 2 cents in and jumped in saying that vb lore did exist but couldn't be used as factual evidence.

so yes, you haven't used vb lore in this thread. Vb lore isn't canon. We agree on this. What we don't agree on is vb being 'any kind' of lore at all.
We never will agree more than likely.
Because it makes the Legion sit better with you in your minds-eye picture of them., you are always going to claim VB 'lore' has a place in FO.
Thats fine, Roleplay that they have all of this nonsense history. Perhaps one day the ideas will enter the proper 'lore' history.

I appreciate you like to have your voice heard above all else, I also understand your need to get the last word in. You know what, thats fine too. I can be the bigger man and ignore your inevitable reply.

:shrug: