Sorry for these questions if they are a bit simple. But my players
want to know for sure.
Q1) When the acting minion plays Kiss of Ra, does the blocking minion
go into torpor tapped or untapped?
Q2) Is the recruit ally action a restricted to once a round action? I
know a vamp can't recruit the same ally (unless due to card text) more
than once in a round, but differently named allies? Like say Vamp A
with FOR recruits Ossian, the Freak drives and recruits Walks-with-
might or something like that. That's all right, right?
Thanks
JJeff wrote:
> Sorry for these questions if they are a bit simple. But my players
> want to know for sure.
>
> Q1) When the acting minion plays Kiss of Ra, does the blocking minion
> go into torpor tapped or untapped?
In whatever state xe was in. Typically untapped, unless xe was using a Wake or
something to attempt to block as if untapped.
> Q2) Is the recruit ally action a restricted to once a round action? I
No. Neither is it restricted to once per turn.
> know a vamp can't recruit the same ally (unless due to card text) more
> than once in a round, but differently named allies? Like say Vamp A
> with FOR recruits Ossian, the Freak drives and recruits Walks-with-
> might or something like that. That's all right, right?
Yes.
On Apr 27, 9:05 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> In whatever state xe was in. Typically untapped, unless xe was using a Wake or
> something to attempt to block as if untapped.
I recently read an article somewhere that indicated that "yo" is the
way to go instead of "he/she". Strikes me as slightly less awkward in
the grand scheme than "xe", personally.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
I guess it depends on whether you want to sound out-of-date hip or not. :-).
But seriously, yo sounds more like 2nd person than 3rd. xe is unmistakably 3rd.
How is yo less awkward?
On Apr 28, 6:46 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> But seriously, yo sounds more like 2nd person than 3rd. xe is unmistakably 3rd.
> How is yo less awkward?
I guess the "y" makes it seem more like an actual word, where who uses
"x" for anything? Man. What a useless letter...
-Peter
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:07527cdb-63ce-4580...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
What do you mean? X-ray, X-factor, opposing the evil 'O's in tic tac toe...
X is a GREAT letter! Just not in actual words. :-)
Jadasc wrote:
> On Apr 28, 12:01 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:>> On Apr 28, 6:46 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>>> But seriously, yo sounds more like 2nd person than 3rd. xe is unmistakably 3rd.
>>> How is yo less awkward?>> I guess the "y" makes it seem more like an actual word, where who uses
>> "x" for anything? Man. What a useless letter...>
> It's "less awkward" because it seems to have arisen naturally, rather
> than imposed by well-meaning linguists.
Neither "naturally occurring" nor "spontaneous" are antonyms for "awkward". See
also: sloths or puberty.
(And "imposed" and "designed" are not synonyms for "awkward". See also: zen
garden or the wheel.)
In article <vqnRj.921$152...@newsfe12.phx>,
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> What do you mean? X-ray, X-factor, opposing the evil 'O's in tic tac toe...
> X is a GREAT letter! Just not in actual words. :-)
True, true. X is actually a fantastic letter, in and of itself. Or with
a hyphen after in. But not so much as a replacement for "Ex" (see:
Xtreme). And one of the best American rock bands. But for words? Yeah,
not so good. Suck on that, xylephone!
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
On Apr 28, 5:44 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> In article <vqnRj.921$152....@newsfe12.phx>,> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you mean? X-ray, X-factor, opposing the evil 'O's in tic tac toe...
> > X is a GREAT letter! Just not in actual words. :-)
>
> True, true. X is actually a fantastic letter, in and of itself. Or with
> a hyphen after in. But not so much as a replacement for "Ex" (see:
> Xtreme). And one of the best American rock bands. But for words? Yeah,
> not so good. Suck on that, xylephone!
>
> Peter D Bakija> p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff
Sex
<mat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c2e4a4a-3461-4006...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 5:44 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> > In article <vqnRj.921$152....@newsfe12.phx>,
> > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > > X is a GREAT letter! Just not in actual words. :-)
> >
> > True, true. X is actually a fantastic letter, in and of itself. Or with
> > a hyphen after in.> ...> > But for words? Yeah, not so good. Suck on that, xylephone!
>> Sex
YEA, WELL.....
...um.... (scratches head)
OK, once in a while. But come up with another one, buster!
On Apr 28, 6:46 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
In context. "What are xe doing tonight?" sounds less like 3rd than
2nd or even 1st plural, IMO.
> How is yo less awkward?
It has an obvious pronunciation. But I'll stick with "he or she" or
"they" (yes, "they") for third-person neuter singular in English.
Just like "thou", "thee", "ye", and "you" all collapsed into
"you" (ostensibly the plural objective), "he or she" and "they" could
collapse into "they" (ostensibly the plural nominative).
--
J. Hunter Johnson
http://www.hunterandlori.com
Hunter Johnson wrote:
> > But seriously, yo sounds more like 2nd person than 3rd. xe is unmistakably 3rd.
>
> In context. "What are xe doing tonight?" sounds less like 3rd than
> 2nd or even 1st plural, IMO.
"Xe" just sounds dorky, like saying "frak" or "frell".
> > How is yo less awkward?
>
> It has an obvious pronunciation. But I'll stick with "he or she" or
> "they" (yes, "they") for third-person neuter singular in English.
> Just like "thou", "thee", "ye", and "you" all collapsed into
> "you" (ostensibly the plural objective), "he or she" and "they" could
> collapse into "they" (ostensibly the plural nominative).
That's what I tend to use ("he or she", "they", "them", etc).
- Ben Peal
J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
> On Apr 28, 6:46 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> But seriously, yo sounds more like 2nd person than 3rd. xe is unmistakably 3rd.>
> In context. "What are xe doing tonight?" sounds less like 3rd than
> 2nd or even 1st plural, IMO.
Sure, if you use it improperly, it can imply something else.
Matching grammatical number gives a better result:
"What is xe doing tonight?"
>> How is yo less awkward?>
> It has an obvious pronunciation.
So does xe.
> But I'll stick with "he or she" or
> "they" (yes, "they") for third-person neuter singular in English.
> Just like "thou", "thee", "ye", and "you" all collapsed into
> "you" (ostensibly the plural objective), "he or she" and "they" could
> collapse into "they" (ostensibly the plural nominative).
Sure, it could be.
Likewise, "he or she" could be collapsed into "xe".
On Apr 29, 12:10 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> <matt...@gmail.com> wrote in message[ quoted text not captured ]
Xenophobic seems a good word in these times.
Matt
[ quoted text not captured ]
Certainly could do, but why invent new phrasings when we already have
a perfectly good set in they/their/them? And what would be the xe
equivalents for him/her and his/hers? Xim? Xirs?
The whole 'yo' thing seems to be more a laziness in speech than
anything, collapsing anything not I or me into one word, as I'm sure
the yo developed from the more common use of 'yo' for 'you' and
'your'. Worse still, the new use of 'yo' encompasses he/she, him/her
and likely his/hers as well.
Having to make a choice, I'd prefer the Xe hierarchy, as it at least
bears some resemblence to the he/she predecessors. Yo would just be
more confusing than not, as your mind would have to do a double think
to differentiate from 'you' or 'he/she', especially when spoken, as we
tend to speak fairly ungrammatically.
"Yo speak to Bob lately?"
"Yeah, yo is doin' fine."
"Cool. Haven't spoken to yo in a while. Hey, yo goin' to the game
tonight?"
Even in context with both speakers, it's not clear at all just who
'yo' is in the last quote. Is it Bob, or is it the other speaker? Even
if we 'fixed' the last quote grammatically, the first yo would still
be ambiguous. "Cool. I haven't spoken to yo in a while. Hey, are yo
going to the game tonight?"
Oh well, the dark times of English Gehenna are nigh!
Chris, Thrall of Arika
On Apr 29, 11:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 6:46 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> But seriously, yo sounds more like 2nd person than 3rd. xe is unmistakably 3rd.
>
> > In context. "What are xe doing tonight?" sounds less like 3rd than
> > 2nd or even 1st plural, IMO.
>
> Sure, if you use it improperly, it can imply something else.
Its use at all is improper, since it's being made up by some
population without usage to stand on. If I want to make up "are xe"
as a parallel, it's no more or less improper.
> Matching grammatical number gives a better result:
>
> "What is xe doing tonight?"
In that case "Yo is" does not sound like 2nd person. It's sounds like
3rd person: "Yo is a character in Beetle Bailey."
> >> How is yo less awkward?
>
> > It has an obvious pronunciation.
>
> So does xe.
No, it doesn't. Print up some cards, take them downtown (off campus),
and ask passersby to pronounce it. Time them. Compare with a similar
experiment with "yo" on a card.
zeh? zee? kseh? ksee? sheh? shee? cheh? chee? Most, maybe all,
will settle on "zee", but non-obviously. Chinese Americans would more
likely land on "shee" or "sheh".
> > But I'll stick with "he or she" or
> > "they" (yes, "they") for third-person neuter singular in English.
> > Just like "thou", "thee", "ye", and "you" all collapsed into
> > "you" (ostensibly the plural objective), "he or she" and "they" could
> > collapse into "they" (ostensibly the plural nominative).
>
> Sure, it could be.
>
> Likewise, "he or she" could be collapsed into "xe".
There's no existing "xe" for it to be collapsed into. The observation
for "they" has the advantage of being evidenced in common speech.
Hunter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thrall of Arika wrote:
> On Apr 29, 8:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Likewise, "he or she" could be collapsed into "xe".>
> Certainly could do, but why invent new phrasings when we already have
> a perfectly good set in they/their/them?
If that were a perfectly good set, we wouldn't be here now.
> And what would be the xe
> equivalents for him/her and his/hers? Xim? Xirs?
Probably xer and xers. But that would be secondary. Let whatever comes into
usage be "right".
On Apr 29, 2:32 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Thrall of Arika wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 8:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Likewise, "he or she" could be collapsed into "xe".
>
> > Certainly could do, but why invent new phrasings when we already have
> > a perfectly good set in they/their/them?
>
> If that were a perfectly good set, we wouldn't be here now.
We'll always have pedants.
> > And what would be the xe
> > equivalents for him/her and his/hers? Xim? Xirs?
>
> Probably xer and xers. But that would be secondary. Let whatever comes into
> usage be "right".
xyr and xyrs, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gender-neutral_pronoun#New_pronouns_in_English).
Or their and theirs, if whatever comes (came) into usage is right.
--
J. Hunter Johnson
http://www.hunterandlori.com/
J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
> Its use at all is improper, since it's being made up by some
> population without usage to stand on. If I want to make up "are xe"
> as a parallel, it's no more or less improper.
Wow. Enjoy yourself.
The whole exercise is based on *avoiding* that wrong number.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Zounds. Thou hast the wrong number there. Thou meanest "Enjoy
thyself".
The whole exercise is based on the questionable desire that "they" be
used only for the plural. Thou claimed that "xe" is obviously
singular. I showed thee that it is not obviously singular without the
accompanying verb -- which necessitated using it in the other number
for illustration.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorry you misunderstood. I was addressing those following along in context.
Plan A: "xe" to be used as a singular third person gender indeterminate pronoun.
Plan B: "yo" similarly
Assertion[PDB6]: "yo" (in context of plan B) is less awkward than "xe" (in
context of plan A).
Assertion[LSJ]: "yo" (in context) sounds more like 2nd person. "xe" is obviously
third (not "obviously singular", as your spin above gives).
Example:
The student should use both sides of yo paper. Yo is expected to finish the task
in one hour.
verses
The student should use both sides of xer paper. Xe is expected to finish the
task in one hour.
verses
The student should use both sides of xer paper. Xe are expected to finish the
task in one hour.
(Now you see why PDB6 and I were not discussing your plan C. Or at least, I hope
you see)
J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No, it doesn't. Print up some cards, take them downtown (off campus),
>and ask passersby to pronounce it. Time them. Compare with a similar
>experiment with "yo" on a card.
>
>zeh? zee? kseh? ksee? sheh? shee? cheh? chee? Most, maybe all,
>will settle on "zee", but non-obviously. Chinese Americans would more
>likely land on "shee" or "sheh".
When I first noticed LSJ using the word "xe", and not being a regular
reader of this group or player of VTES, I thought "xe" was the informal
shorthand name for some specific vampire or other minion. I figured it
was pronounced something like "shee". It wasn't until several of his
posts later, when one these threads errupted, that I finally realized
what he ment.
Ironically, by using this made up word that only a miniscule fraction
of the population understands, LSJ's attempt at politically correct
inclusive language only serves to exclude people.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> When I first noticed LSJ using the word "xe", and not being a regular
> reader of this group or player of VTES, I thought "xe" was the
> informal shorthand name for some specific vampire or other minion.
> I figured it was pronounced something like "shee". It wasn't until
> several of his posts later, when one these threads errupted, that
> I finally realized what he ment.
>
> Ironically, by using this made up word that only a miniscule fraction
> of the population understands, LSJ's attempt at politically correct
> inclusive language only serves to exclude people.
As long as LSJ doesn't attempt to use "xe" or like words on the VTES cards
he designs, I think his rare use of it in written conversation is, at
worst, harmless.
And as LSJ has no power to force any usage of "xe", I am confused as to
your assertion that he is somehow excluding people. If: LSJ =\= Power,
then: He includes himself =\= He excludes others.
Kevin M.
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Ironically, by using this made up word that only a miniscule fraction
> of the population understands, LSJ's attempt at politically correct
> inclusive language only serves to exclude people.
Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>As long as LSJ doesn't attempt to use "xe" or like words on the VTES cards
>he designs, I think his rare use of it in written conversation is, at
>worst, harmless.
At worst it leads to people misunderstanding what he's trying to say,
and I don't think that's entirely harmless. Mostly harmless, sure,
there aren't that many outsiders like me to confuse.
...
>And as LSJ has no power to force any usage of "xe", I am confused as to
>your assertion that he is somehow excluding people. If: LSJ =\= Power,
>then: He includes himself =\= He excludes others.
LSJ's attempt at politically correct inclusive language is ment to
"include" others into the converstation here, not himself. However,
by using a made up word that few people would understand, he in fact
does more to exclude people from the conversation.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
news:mpORj.2144$iu3....@newsfe11.phx...
> Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:>> Ironically, by using this made up word that only a miniscule fraction
>> of the population understands, LSJ's attempt at politically correct
>> inclusive language only serves to exclude people.>
> As long as LSJ doesn't attempt to use "xe" or like words on the VTES cards
> he designs, I think his rare use of it in written conversation is, at
> worst, harmless.
It sows confusion, arguable where it's necessary or not. OTOH, in its
defense, it doesn't strike me as politically correct. Using 'xe' instead
of 'he or she' is fewer keystrokes, thus is ultimately easier to type.
And after seeing it a couple of times, we all know what xe means. :-)
Fred
On Apr 29, 8:47 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:
> LSJ's attempt at politically correct inclusive language
Yeah, I'm pretty dubious as to the claims of "political correctness"
here. Whatever wacky pronoun is used ("they", "xe", "yo"), it is a
result to avoid saying "he or she", which is done so in the name of
brevity, and as an attempt to keep "they" as a plural.
Politics and correctness have nothing to do with this discussion.
> is ment to "include" others into the converstation here, not himself.
Well, no, I don't think it is meant to "include" others into the
conversation. It is meant to be an attempt to use what could be a good
solution to a regular gramatical conundrum. Yeah, I personally think
"xe" is not the best solution (I like "yo" better, primarily 'cause
"yo" seems much more like a real word than "xe" does. And as noted,
the pronunciation issue...), but that the attempt is being made
strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
> However,
> by using a made up word that few people would understand, he in fact
> does more to exclude people from the conversation.
This whole forum is nothing *but* using made up words that few people
would understand. It is excluding people from the conversation when I
refer to "pillowfacing" someone? It is a made up term. That probably
not a lot of folks would understand, unless they hang out here a lot.
The solution is to try and figure it out through context or by
following the discussion. Like all the other forum specific pieces of
lingo.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> (I like "yo" better, primarily 'cause
> "yo" seems much more like a real word than "xe" does. And as noted,
> the pronunciation issue...),
OK, what pronunciation issue?
xe: zee
What alternatives are you contemplating?
zuh
k'see
?
Seems like a spurious problem. One that vanishes when you look directly at it.
For example, "yo" could have similar spurious pronunciations:
yuh
yow
But, as soon as you look at it, "yoe" is the only one that remains, yo.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:XAQRj.12075$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Peter D Bakija wrote:>> (I like "yo" better, primarily 'cause
>> "yo" seems much more like a real word than "xe" does. And as noted,
>> the pronunciation issue...),>
> OK, what pronunciation issue?
I expect he's referring to the fact that when one sees 'xe' in print,
one is very uncertain how to pronounce.
> xe: zee
Is that the correct pronunciation? I wasn't sure, myself.
> Seems like a spurious problem. One that vanishes when you look directly at it.
I think it's more accurate to say, it vanishes once you know the answer.
Until then, well, not knowing tended to make me slightly uncomfortable
with it. Whether that's a common reaction, I don't know.
Fred
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> LSJ's attempt at politically correct inclusive language
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I'm pretty dubious as to the claims of "political correctness"
>here. Whatever wacky pronoun is used ("they", "xe", "yo"), it is a
>result to avoid saying "he or she", which is done so in the name of
>brevity, and as an attempt to keep "they" as a plural.
Those are all examples of inclusive langauge.
>Politics and correctness have nothing to do with this discussion.
>>> is ment to "include" others into the converstation here, not himself.>
>Well, no, I don't think it is meant to "include" others into the
>conversation. It is meant to be an attempt to use what could be a good
>solution to a regular gramatical conundrum.
A gramatical conundrum that doesn't exist unless you're unwilling to
use the word "he" to refer to someone of an unspecified sex.
>This whole forum is nothing *but* using made up words that few people
>would understand. It is excluding people from the conversation when I
>refer to "pillowfacing" someone?
Yes.
>It is a made up term. That probably not a lot of folks would understand,
>unless they hang out here a lot. The solution is to try and figure it
>out through context or by following the discussion. Like all the other
>forum specific pieces of lingo.
Sure. I just find this one particular case, the use of the word "xe",
to be ironic. I have no complaint about all the lingo being used here,
and I say that despite the fact that there are plenty of words in use
here, like "pillowfacing", that I don't understand.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:fv8of8$a8j$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> A gramatical conundrum that doesn't exist unless you're unwilling to
> use the word "he" to refer to someone of an unspecified sex.
I think a lot of folks don't consider the use of "he" to be accurate
in reference to someone of an unspecified sex.
Fred
Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:>> A gramatical conundrum that doesn't exist unless you're unwilling to
>> use the word "he" to refer to someone of an unspecified sex.>
> I think a lot of folks don't consider the use of "he" to be accurate
> in reference to someone of an unspecified sex.
Definition of "a lot"?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
news:3ORRj.179170$nr1....@newsfe13.phx...
> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>> "Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:>>> A gramatical conundrum that doesn't exist unless you're unwilling to
>>> use the word "he" to refer to someone of an unspecified sex.>>
>> I think a lot of folks don't consider the use of "he" to be accurate
>> in reference to someone of an unspecified sex.>
> Definition of "a lot"?
Me and all my imaginary friends. (*pssst*pssst*pssst* What's that,
Mr. Frogmorton? *pssst*pssst*pssst*)
Oh, and Mr. Frogmorton says you're a poopiehead, Kevin! :-)
Also please note: the definition of "I think...". You may substitute,
"IMHO, most people...", as in more than half. Or, failing that, "a
significant percentage of average people...". This all strikes me as
a useless diversion but whatever.
Fred
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> A gramatical conundrum that doesn't exist unless you're unwilling to
> use the word "he" to refer to someone of an unspecified sex.
Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>I think a lot of folks don't consider the use of "he" to be accurate
>in reference to someone of an unspecified sex.
My dictionary says it would be an acceptable use of the word. Most
people that have a problem with that think that using "he" would either
explicitly or implicity exclude members of the female sex.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:fv8r23$rgt$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> "Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:>>> A gramatical conundrum that doesn't exist unless you're unwilling to
>>> use the word "he" to refer to someone of an unspecified sex.>
> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>>I think a lot of folks don't consider the use of "he" to be accurate
>>in reference to someone of an unspecified sex.>
> My dictionary says it would be an acceptable use of the word.
Maybe. But sometimes dictionaries don't reflect the intuitive
sensibilities of the population. It's a gray area, certainly. But
there's a reason languages evolve over time. Dictionaries have no
inherent claim to correctness other than the judgment of the particular
author who, hopefully, reflects the prevalent condition in society.
When that condition changes, ideally the dictionaries should also
change. So maybe I erred when I told Kevin I thought "most people" don't
consider "he" to be correct to use for a person of unspecified sex.
(If it were truly "most people", presumedly dictionaries would have
already begun to reflect that.) Still, subsituting "he or she" for
those situations is a choice often made. I don't think it's because
people are being politically correct. I think it's because using a
word that also applies to one particular sex probably strikes a lot
of people as inaccuate when they use it to refer to a person of
unspecified sex. And whether dictionaries agree or not is ultimately
beside the point.
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]
Verses - Shakespeare and Lennon were very good at them.
Versus - a channel that shows Hockey, UFC, and the Tour de France.
> The student should use both sides of xer paper. Xe are expected to
> finish the task in one hour.
>
> (Now you see why PDB6 and I were not discussing your plan C. Or at
> least, I hope you see)
Dinner at the Johnson household must have been a real yukfest...
:-)
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!*
auct...@superfuncards.com
mat...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:44 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:>> In article <vqnRj.921$152....@newsfe12.phx>,
>> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>>>>> What do you mean? X-ray, X-factor, opposing the evil 'O's in tic tac toe...>>> X is a GREAT letter! Just not in actual words. :-)>> True, true. X is actually a fantastic letter, in and of itself. Or with>> a hyphen after in. But not so much as a replacement for "Ex" (see:
>> Xtreme). And one of the best American rock bands. But for words? Yeah,>> not so good. Suck on that, xylephone!
>>>> Peter D Bakija
>> p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
>>
>> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
>> -Gaff>
> Sex
Yeah, I like "xe" because it's like sex spelled backwards, without the "s".
And since you need a he and she to have sex (or a he and he, with no
"s", or a she and she, with bonus "s"), seems like the "s" in sex is
important, just like it's lack in "xe" is important.
Or not.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:XAQRj.12075$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...>> Peter D Bakija wrote:>>> (I like "yo" better, primarily 'cause
>>> "yo" seems much more like a real word than "xe" does. And as noted,
>>> the pronunciation issue...),>> OK, what pronunciation issue?>
> I expect he's referring to the fact that when one sees 'xe' in print,
> one is very uncertain how to pronounce.
>>> xe: zee>
> Is that the correct pronunciation? I wasn't sure, myself.
Oh? What alternatives were you entertaining?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct.
If you want to see how many of your friends think "he" is accurate, try asking
them this riddle:
A father and son are in a car accident. The father is killed. The son is taken
to the hospital for emergency surgery. When the doctor comes in, he says that he
cannot operate because the boy is his son. How can this be?
See how many of your friends, upon hearing the answer, object and point out that
you said "he".
On Apr 29, 10:12 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> OK, what pronunciation issue?
>
> xe: zee
As noted above, it could be read in any number of ways:
-zee
-zhee
-shee
-sheh
-zuh
Not a huge issue, no. But something else to make "yo" seem more
attractive, for my money.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Apr 29, 10:12 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> OK, what pronunciation issue?
>>
>> xe: zee>
> As noted above, it could be read in any number of ways:
The only "above" in your post is my question.
Link to where you described the other "likely" pronunciations, please?
> -zee
> -zhee> -shee
> -sheh
How's that? Are there any other words that start with x making the sh sound?
Anyway, these would be dismissed "when looking directly at it" by the obvious
avoidance of sounding like S-H-E.
> -zuh
Noted in my post which you snipped, yes. This could be dismissed when looking
directly by anyone who remembers that H-E is not pronounced "huh" and S-H-E is
not pronounced "shuh".
> Not a huge issue, no. But something else to make "yo" seem more
> attractive, for my money.
Again addressed in my post which you snipped.
Yo does no better job of self-describing its pronunciation than xe does.
If you want to seriously add "sh" to the list of plausible ways to pronounce "x"
at the beginning of "xe", then the parallel would be to add "w" or "j" to the
ways to pronounce "y" at the beginning of "yo". I'd consider all of these
similarly spurious, though.
To see, grab a physical English dictionary and flip to the X's, and note the
pronunciations given. Are there any words in common usage that don't pronounce
the x as "z" (or as the name of the letter itself, as in X-ray)?
Indeed, I see only Xhosa (not exactly common), which has the "xh" making the "k"
sound.
On Apr 30, 9:09 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> The only "above" in your post is my question.
> Link to where you described the other "likely" pronunciations, please?
Above in the discussion. Someone pointed out that it is easy to
misunderstand how to pronounce "xe". Which I agree that it is.
> How's that? Are there any other words that start with x making the sh sound?
Lots of them, if they are originally Chinese.
> Anyway, these would be dismissed "when looking directly at it" by the obvious
> avoidance of sounding like S-H-E.
S-H-E and Z-H-E are different sounds. And "zhe" is a not unreasonable
reading of "xe".
> Yo does no better job of self-describing its pronunciation than xe does.
I disagree. But that is me.
And if the intention is that "xe" is pronounced "ze", why not just
spell it "ze"?
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Kse, is the correct pronunciation, and is a very common sound in the
languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
On Apr 30, 9:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Jozxyqk wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]
There are some that don't make the z sound. From the Scrabble
dictionary:
xu (soo)
xi (ksee, sigh (UK), zee (US))
x is the representation of "sh" sound in some transliteration
schemes. Since "xe" isn't an English word and doesn't resemble an
English word (it resembles the Chinese xie more, and that's "shee-ehr"
or so), there can be some expectation that some readers may assume
it's a loan word.
English words that start with x for the z sound have some reason for
doing so (roots in Vietnamese or Greek, for example); when there's no
such reason to do so, we'd make 'em up with the letter z to represent
the z sound instead.
For the clue-deficient:
That you have to explain how one possible pronunciation is obvious is
a good indication that it isn't.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Apr 30, 9:09 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> The only "above" in your post is my question.
>> Link to where you described the other "likely" pronunciations, please?>
> Above in the discussion. Someone pointed out that it is easy to
> misunderstand how to pronounce "xe". Which I agree that it is.
Yes. But. I. Was. Asking. For. Examples. In. Response. To. The. Repeated. Claim.
Not unreasonable, since it is not easy to misunderstand how to pronounce "xe".
Since examples were not "above", referring to "above" doesn't help.
>> How's that? Are there any other words that start with x making the sh sound?>
> Lots of them, if they are originally Chinese.
Re-again, for the context-impaired:
Are there any English words that start with x making the sh sound?
>> Anyway, these would be dismissed "when looking directly at it" by the obvious
>> avoidance of sounding like S-H-E.>
> S-H-E and Z-H-E are different sounds. And "zhe" is a not unreasonable
> reading of "xe".
Sure, if you say so (again, the current English words that start with x
pronounce it as "z" to the exclusion of all others), but non-Sequitur, since the
part you're responding to was a response to the "sh" claim.
>> Yo does no better job of self-describing its pronunciation than xe does.>
> I disagree. But that is me.
>
> And if the intention is that "xe" is pronounced "ze", why not just
> spell it "ze"?
Sure, that's a valid option.
The pro for using x is that it (x) is already used for variables and wildcards
(the x-factor, algebra, e.g.), so using it in "xe" helps associate it to its
meaning (instead of looking like a transliteration of a French accent).
J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
> On Apr 30, 9:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Are there any English words that start with x making the sh sound?>
> There are some that don't make the z sound. From the Scrabble
> dictionary:
>
> xu (soo)
> xi (ksee, sigh (UK), zee (US))
Ah good. Another exception to prove the rule. Thanks.
Good thing Americans use all these exotic words enough that they'll confuse 'em
about "xe".
Nice that xi actually isn't an exception, though. One wonders why you included it.
> Since "xe" isn't an English word...
Eh?
The proposal is for English. Sorry you've missed the context again.
> That you have to explain how one possible pronunciation is obvious is
> a good indication that it isn't.
No dice. I've been explaining obvious things for too long.
On Apr 30, 11:37 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Yes. But. I. Was. Asking. For. Examples. In. Response. To. The. Repeated. Claim.
I. Gave. You. Examples. Of. How. Xe. Could. Be. Thought. To. Be.
Pronounced. Even. If. The. Thought. Is. Wrong.
Dude. You are completely unfun to discuss things with. This is a
totally irrelevant sidebar discussion. Why are you being such a
pedantic prig?
-Peter
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:37 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Yes. But. I. Was. Asking. For. Examples. In. Response. To. The. Repeated. Claim.>
> I. Gave. You. Examples. Of. How. Xe. Could. Be. Thought. To. Be.
> Pronounced. Even. If. The. Thought. Is. Wrong.
Um, right. After I asked. Not "above". That was why I had asked.
> Dude. You are completely unfun to discuss things with. This is a
> totally irrelevant sidebar discussion. Why are you being such a
> pedantic prig?
Just following suit.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Shouldn't he and she be spelt "hee" and "shee"? Why isn't tough spelt
tuff? There are many, many words we can go on about spelling versus
pronounciation. Also, the assertion that mispronounciations will occur
due to foreign cultures is self-evident, we do it enough as it is with
the borrowed words used in VTES. Is it bru-hah, or bru-jah (original
word derived from Spanish)? Sam-di or sa-mee-di (original word derived
from French)? I hear both versions on a regular occasion.
But considering that xe is not borrowed from another culture, there is
no impetus to borrow pronunciations from other cultures. And really,
if any mispronunciation is to occur, it would be making it a 'hard' x,
due to the popularity of turning ex- words into x- words (xtreme, for
example). Personally, I've pronounced is 'zee' from the first I saw
it, since that seems follow best from he/she pronunciations, which the
word is attempting to replace, and virtually all normal x words have a
soft zed sound.
Yo may be easier to look at and pronounce, but I've already shown that
it can be far to ambiguous. One thing that can't be overlooked is that
the development of new terms cannot take place in a vacuum. Yo already
has a foothold in the pronoun game, it seems silly to accept it for
replacing yet more pronouns, when it seems the desire is to get away
from already existing terms that are too encompassing (they/their/
them).
If xe is to take hold, the pronounciation would follow as it entered
verbal vocabulary. The difficulty is that it's main use now is in
writing to replace the cumbersome he/she or s/he text. So no
pronunciation is evident, since it's a new word, and we haven't grown
up with it or have much use of it orally.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
On Apr 30, 11:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 9:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Are there any English words that start with x making the sh sound?
>
> > There are some that don't make the z sound. From the Scrabble
> > dictionary:
>
> > xu (soo)
> > xi (ksee, sigh (UK), zee (US))
>
> Ah good. Another exception to prove the rule. Thanks.
>
> Good thing Americans use all these exotic words enough that they'll confuse 'em
> about "xe".
Please note the "any English words" above, not the "any words
Americans use enough to satisfy my unstated criteria."
Either you are assuming that "xe" is a common English word, or you are
demanding that only common English words be used to compare this
uncommon, non-English word.
But it doesn't matter. Americans don't use (or know how to pronounce)
xu or xi, and Americans don't use (or know how to pronounce) xe. QED.
> Nice that xi actually isn't an exception, though. One wonders why you included it.
Xi is an exception, since it has a pronunciation (or two) other than
the one you say should be its only one, obviously. One could read
instead of wondering.
> > Since "xe" isn't an English word...
>
> Eh?
>
> The proposal is for English. Sorry you've missed the context again.
Sorry you don't understand the difference between "lousy choice for a
proposed English word" and "English word". To be clear: "xe" is a
lousy choice for a proposed English word, not only because it does not
look like it could be an English word, but also because it does not
have an obvious pronunciation, and even more because it fills a non-
existent void.
> > That you have to explain how one possible pronunciation is obvious is
> > a good indication that it isn't.
>
> No dice. I've been explaining obvious things for too long.
Which is fine for situations where you're the expert doling out
education to non-experts. Doesn't work as well when you're talking
about communication in general, where "obvious" only works if both
parties to the communication find it obvious.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Apr 29, 11:06 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message[ quoted text not captured ]
I am willing to bet that if you asked a random group of males about
the use of the word "he" and asked a random group of females about the
use of the word "he" you would get very different results.
Later,
~Rehlow
Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>Still, subsituting "he or she" for those situations is a choice often
>made. I don't think it's because people are being politically correct.
While I do agree with you, inclusive language like "he or she" is exactly
the sort of thing that the term politically correct in its perjoritive
modern sense was ment to critisize. I don't think the perjoritive
applies in this case because I think it's a reasonable use of inclusive
language and overall probably a good thning. On the other hand, I
don't think LSJ's use of "xe" is reasonable or a good thing, even if it
is of little consequence. It's a classic case political correctness.
Look at his dogmatic defence of the word, his adamant insistance that
both its pronounciation and meaning are obvious. He's ignoring anything
anyone has to say to the contrary. He cares more about avoiding the use
of sexist language than communicating in a way people will understand.
If that's not political correctness, nothing is.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Apr 30, 12:50 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 11:37 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Yes. But. I. Was. Asking. For. Examples. In. Response. To. The. Repeated. Claim.
>
> > I. Gave. You. Examples. Of. How. Xe. Could. Be. Thought. To. Be.
> > Pronounced. Even. If. The. Thought. Is. Wrong.
>
> Um, right. After I asked. Not "above". That was why I had asked.
I also gave the examples "above", before you asked, but you snipped
them when you replied.
> > Dude. You are completely unfun to discuss things with. This is a
> > totally irrelevant sidebar discussion. Why are you being such a
> > pedantic prig?
>
> Just following suit.
Who started using one-word sentences? Who started using "Sorry you're
______"? Or "for the _____-impaired"? Other than those, the other
points for and against xe and/or yo were just points for and against
xe and/or yo. Off-topic and possibly pedantic, but nothing
priggish.
[ quoted text not captured ]
J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> J. Hunter Johnson wrote:>>> On Apr 30, 9:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>>> Are there any English words that start with x making the sh sound?>>> There are some that don't make the z sound. From the Scrabble
>>> dictionary:
>>> xu (soo)
>>> xi (ksee, sigh (UK), zee (US))>> Ah good. Another exception to prove the rule. Thanks.
>>
>> Good thing Americans use all these exotic words enough that they'll confuse 'em
>> about "xe".>
> Please note the "any English words" above, not the "any words
> Americans use enough to satisfy my unstated criteria."
Heh. Not the point. I already listed one such word (which also is imported, not
a word that uses "English" pronunciation).
xi is Greek, but even so, when used in English, the Greek pronunciation has
fallen to the American one (you know, the standard "z" sound for the leading x),
at least according to my printed dictionary (Webster's II).
xu isn't in my printed dictionary. But m-w.com identifies it as a Vietnamese
word. I'm guessing it hasn't been used enough in English for the English
pronunciation to have overridden its native pronunciation yet.
> Either you are assuming that "xe" is a common English word, or you are
> demanding that only common English words be used to compare this
> uncommon, non-English word.
>
> But it doesn't matter. Americans don't use (or know how to pronounce)
> xu or xi, and Americans don't use (or know how to pronounce) xe. QED.
Yes, people don't "know" how to pronounce a word they've never seen before. Even
a word like "kat" or "deef" (which some could claim could be pronounced "shot"
or "dig", respectively, I'm sure).
In such cases, though, a rational person can make a rational guess as to the
pronunciation based on the letters use.
>> Nice that xi actually isn't an exception, though. One wonders why you included it.>
> Xi is an exception, since it has a pronunciation (or two) other than
> the one you say should be its only one, obviously. One could read
> instead of wondering.
It has its native Greek pronunciation, sure. But in English, it's more often
pronounced with the English pronunciation. Which is why I noted that it isn't
really an exception.
> To be clear: "xe" is a
> lousy choice for a proposed English word, not only because it does not
> look like it could be an English word, but also because it does not
> have an obvious pronunciation, and even more because it fills a non-
> existent void.
It looks like it could be an English word. cf. xi (among others, like xenography
or xenia or xenophobe).
Or are you now arguing that xi is not an English word?
The void that it fills is described in the wiki article you linked.
Ross Ridge wrote:
> Look at his dogmatic defence of the word, his adamant insistance that
> both its pronounciation and meaning are obvious.
I don't think I've claimed its meaning is obvious.
Link?
Anyway, I don't intend to be a dogmatic defender of the word. Although I don't
have a large tolerance for spurious arguments, that's not the same thing.
Indeed, I care little for it vs. other similar alternatives. It works better
than using a plural pronoun to represent a singular noun, IMO, YMMV, &c. But so
does "he or she" on that score. A single word would do better than "he or she",
IMO, YMMV, &c. So "xe" is a suitable choice for that word. "Xe" is slightly more
suitable than some of the other alternative ("hu", "yo", &c.), IMO, YMMV, &c.
> He's ignoring anything
> anyone has to say to the contrary.
Hardly. Ignoring doesn't involve responding directly.
I do call spurious arguments on being spurious, though.
> He cares more about avoiding the use
> of sexist language than communicating in a way people will understand.
Uh, my position is not based on avoiding sexist language.
Avoiding cumbersome or clumsy language, yes. Avoiding sexist, well, if it
happens as part of the main, then fine.
> If that's not political correctness, nothing is.
Perhaps, but since that isn't my position, perhaps we can let this "PC" label drop.
On Apr 30, 10:59 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
> >> Ah good. Another exception to prove the rule. Thanks.
>
> >> Good thing Americans use all these exotic words enough that they'll confuse 'em
> >> about "xe".
>
> > Please note the "any English words" above, not the "any words
> > Americans use enough to satisfy my unstated criteria."
>
> Heh. Not the point. I already listed one such word (which also is imported, not
> a word that uses "English" pronunciation).
Ah. Dueling Johnsons. (A cock fight you might say?)
It must have been hell growing up in the same household. Your poor
parents must have been driven mad. :-)
-Robert
On Apr 30, 12:50 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Um, right. After I asked. Not "above". That was why I had asked.
I figured you were following the same discussion I was.
> Just following suit.
Sigh. I started this discussion completely as a "Hey! This is kind of
funny" response. Totally a throw away comment about how I saw that
folks suggested "yo" as the thing you use "xe" for. And then you went
off on some tangent about how my use of the word "awkward" was
inappropriate (which was +5 pedantic priggishness). And then started
arguing with people. Over what is, essentially, a silly sidebar
discussion. And. Then. Writing. Responses. Like. This. (which is +8
pedantic priggishness).
Really. This isn't something worth responding to like this. It is just
a silly discussion. That could have remained silly.
Sigh.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Apr 30, 12:50 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Um, right. After I asked. Not "above". That was why I had asked.>
> I figured you were following the same discussion I was.
Ah. That explains the absence of a link when I requested one when first directed
to an "above" I couldn't find. Thanks for your understanding help.
On Apr 30, 7:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> If you want to see how many of your friends think "he" is accurate, try asking
> them this riddle:
>
> A father and son are in a car accident. The father is killed. The son is taken
> to the hospital for emergency surgery. When the doctor comes in, he says that he
> cannot operate because the boy is his son. How can this be?
>
> See how many of your friends, upon hearing the answer, object and point out that
> you said "he".
Pity about the priest. I would also like to sign the petition to
reprint Shroud of Absence. That and Charisma.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
In message <d6a1dbc6-9611-43d0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroup
s.com>, "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes:
>Pity about the priest. I would also like to sign the petition to
>reprint Shroud of Absence. That and Charisma.
When we last had this conversation on #vtes, my personal top 5, in no
particular order, was:
- Charisma
- Shroud of Absence
- Sensory Deprivation
- Jake Washington
- Spiritual Intervention
Camarilla Vitae Slave is probably at #6.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Definitely.
Shroud of Absence. Charisma too, but not as much.
It's not just a Boston thing (although I'm from Boston)...
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!*
auct...@superfuncards.com
Ross Ridge wrote:
> Look at his dogmatic defence of the word, his adamant insistance that
> both its pronounciation and meaning are obvious.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>I don't think I've claimed its meaning is obvious.
>Link?
In message <mWhRj.3584$I55...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> you wrote
the following:
But seriously, yo sounds more like 2nd person than 3rd. xe is
unmistakably 3rd.
In message <tCLRj.3116$1b7...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> you repeated
that claim:
Assertion[LSJ]: "yo" (in context) sounds more like 2nd
person. "xe" is obviously third (not "obviously singular",
as your spin above gives).
>> He cares more about avoiding the use
>> of sexist language than communicating in a way people will understand.>
>Uh, my position is not based on avoiding sexist language.
>
>Avoiding cumbersome or clumsy language, yes. Avoiding sexist, well, if it
>happens as part of the main, then fine.
If your position weren't based on avoiding sexist language the word "he"
would be the perfect solution to your problem. It avoids both cumbersome
and clumsy language. It's well understood, much more than "xe".
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article
<5357c5f6-dbc3-4af7...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
ben...@gmail.com wrote:
> Shouldn't this discussion be taken to alt.language.startrek or
> something, instead of continuing on rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad?
You are correct.
I would like to formally retract all statements I have made in this
discussion:
A. I do not think it is interesting that I read an article that
suggested "yo" as an alternative to what "xe" is being used for.
B. I do not think "yo" is in any way less awkward than "xe".
C. I do not think that "xe" is in any way something that could be
mispronounced.
D. I do not think LSJ is being a pedantic prig.
Strike: My Participation In This Discussion Ends.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:7PXRj.7859$iK6....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message>>> xe: zee>>
>> Is that the correct pronunciation? I wasn't sure, myself.>
> Oh? What alternatives were you entertaining?
Um, none really. I saw it and thought, "that unpronounceable-
looking word".
OK, I sort of suspected 'zee' sounded right. I just wasn't
sure.
Fred
Ross Ridge wrote:
> Ross Ridge wrote:>> Look at his dogmatic defence of the word, his adamant insistance that
>> both its pronounciation and meaning are obvious.>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> I don't think I've claimed its meaning is obvious.
>> Link?>
> In message <mWhRj.3584$I55...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> you wrote
> the following:
>
> But seriously, yo sounds more like 2nd person than 3rd. xe is
> unmistakably 3rd.
Ah. As a pronoun (assuming the reader gets that far), xe doesn't seem like 2nd
person to the reader. Nor 1st person. Although 3rd person is conceivable. So...
unmistakably third (having exhausted the options available).
That isn't an assertion that the letters x-e are some sort of inescapable
pictogram that makes the ready think only of a 3rd-person singular pronoun.
But thanks for the link so I could clear that up.
> In message <tCLRj.3116$1b7...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> you repeated
> that claim:
>
> Assertion[LSJ]: "yo" (in context) sounds more like 2nd
> person. "xe" is obviously third (not "obviously singular",
> as your spin above gives).
Likewise.
>>> He cares more about avoiding the use
>>> of sexist language than communicating in a way people will understand.>> Uh, my position is not based on avoiding sexist language.
>>
>> Avoiding cumbersome or clumsy language, yes. Avoiding sexist, well, if it
>> happens as part of the main, then fine.>
> If your position weren't based on avoiding sexist language the word "he"
> would be the perfect solution to your problem. It avoids both cumbersome
> and clumsy language. It's well understood, much more than "xe".
Except that it doesn't offer a solution, since it indicates gender in English.
See the example about a doctor and "his" son and the son's deceased father.
Avoiding error isn't the same as avoiding sexism.
LSJ wrote:
> That isn't an assertion that the letters x-e are some sort of
> inescapable pictogram that makes the ready think only of a 3rd-person
> singular pronoun.
Reader, that is. Darned fingers trained on VTES terms.
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message news:fvabfm$862$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>>Still, subsituting "he or she" for those situations is a choice often
>>made. I don't think it's because people are being politically correct.>
> While I do agree with you, inclusive language like "he or she" is exactly
> the sort of thing that the term politically correct in its perjoritive
> modern sense was ment to critisize. I don't think the perjoritive
> applies in this case because I think it's a reasonable use of inclusive
> language and overall probably a good thning. On the other hand, I
> don't think LSJ's use of "xe" is reasonable or a good thing, even if it
> is of little consequence.
Hmmm. The above comments are somewhat unspecific about the issue I raised
in the previous post or not. But I don't see how you're managing to
conclude that "he or she" is _not_ politically correct in this context but
"xe" is. It's one or the other - can't be both. Let's review:
1) It is OK, gramatically, to use "he" as a third-person singular pronoun
when referring to a person of non-specific gender.
2) But, because "he" is ALSO used as a third-person singular pronoun when
referring to a person of strictly male gender, it is therefore ambiguous.
3) Some people don't like being ambiguous in this way. They wish to write
comments they can be confident are understood correctly by the readers.
4) The desire to be understood correctly has nothing to do with political
correctness, per se. Granted, excess sensitivity to the issue may have
its roots in political correctness but since you can't read minds,
making such an accusation on that basis alone is inherently baseless.
(You seem to have conceded as much above.)
5) Rather than use the clunky "he or she" to fix the problem, it would be
better to have a single-word substitute which was not ambiguous. The
desire to use a more streamlined alternative is not, AFAICS, politically
correct either.
6) Hence, "xe". You say it's somehow politically correct. I say WTF?!?
> Look at his dogmatic defence of the word, his adamant insistance that
> both its pronounciation and meaning are obvious. He's ignoring anything
> anyone has to say to the contrary. He cares more about avoiding the use
> of sexist language than communicating in a way people will understand.
> If that's not political correctness, nothing is.
Um, sorry. No. That's just stubborness. If stubbornly holding to one's
position equated to political correctness than I need to go sell all my
guns and join the Brady Campaign 'cause I'm FAR worse about that than LSJ
ever was. (OUCH!)
Fred
Ross Ridge wrote:
> If your position weren't based on avoiding sexist language the word "he"
> would be the perfect solution to your problem. It avoids both cumbersome
> and clumsy language. It's well understood, much more than "xe".
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Except that it doesn't offer a solution, since it indicates gender
>in English.
My dictionary disagrees with you, and I'm afraid I consider it a better
authority on the English language.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ross Ridge wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Except that it [using "he" as a genderless pronoun] doesn't offer a solution, since it indicates gender>> in English.>
> My dictionary disagrees with you, and I'm afraid I consider it a better
> authority on the English language.
I'm guessing that, in fact, your dictionary lists the gendered usage of "he"
first, before the genderless entry. (Since entries are ordered according to
prevalence of usage.)
And, again, try the doctor/son/deceased father riddle on people you know if you
still need verification that "he" connotes gender in real world usage.
Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>Still, subsituting "he or she" for those situations is a choice often
>made. I don't think it's because people are being politically correct.
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> writes:
> While I do agree with you, inclusive language like "he or she" is exactly
> the sort of thing that the term politically correct in its perjoritive
> modern sense was ment to critisize. I don't think the perjoritive
> applies in this case because I think it's a reasonable use of inclusive
> language and overall probably a good thning. On the other hand, I
> don't think LSJ's use of "xe" is reasonable or a good thing, even if it
> is of little consequence.
Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>Hmmm. The above comments are somewhat unspecific about the issue I raised
>in the previous post or not. But I don't see how you're managing to
>conclude that "he or she" is _not_ politically correct in this context but
>"xe" is. It's one or the other - can't be both.
If the term "politically correct" wasn't a pejoritive then you'd
be correct. However, it is a pejoritive and so its use implies that
that thing being described as being politically correct is wrong or
bad in some way. If I said using inclusive langauge like "he or she"
was politically correct then I'd be implying I have a problem with it,
but I don't. I only have a problem with made up gender neutral pronouns
like "xe", for the reasons already expressed in the this thread, and so
I describe it as being politically correct inclusive langauge.
I'm neither conservative enough to think that all forms and uses of
inclusive language are wrong, nor liberal enough to think that need to
use inclusive language trumps the need to communicate in a way people
understand.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Apr 30, 3:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Ross Ridge wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]
Dude, drop that he/she stuff and just use "bitches" because that can
be male or female. :)
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <d6a1dbc6-9611-43d0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroup
> s.com>, "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes:>>Pity about the priest. I would also like to sign the petition to
>>reprint Shroud of Absence. That and Charisma.>
> When we last had this conversation on #vtes, my personal top 5, in no
> particular order, was:
>
> - Charisma
> - Shroud of Absence
> - Sensory Deprivation
> - Jake Washington
> - Spiritual Intervention
>
> Camarilla Vitae Slave is probably at #6.
Goth band!
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:fvaqjr$c5j$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> If the term "politically correct" wasn't a pejoritive then you'd
> be correct. However, it is a pejoritive and so its use implies that
> that thing being described as being politically correct is wrong or
> bad in some way. If I said using inclusive langauge like "he or she"
> was politically correct then I'd be implying I have a problem with it,
> but I don't. I only have a problem with made up gender neutral pronouns
> like "xe", for the reasons already expressed in the this thread, and so
> I describe it as being politically correct inclusive langauge.
Erm, it all sounds completely arbitrary to me. But it seems like we've
lost the momentum here so just say I disagree and leave it at that.
Fred
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> It is just a silly discussion. That could have remained silly. Sigh.
FWIW I haven't seen any indication that the "xe" issue here on r.g.t-c.j
has *ever* been one of silliness. Perhaps your mistakenly defining this
as, or wishing that it was, a silly discussion that could have remained
silly, and then continuing it in an obviously non-silly manner (sans
smileys, fr.ex.) is where your problem lies. :)
Kevin M.
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> When we last had this conversation on #vtes, my personal top 5,
> in no particular order, was:
>
> - Charisma
> - Shroud of Absence
> - Sensory Deprivation
> - Jake Washington
> - Spiritual Intervention
>
> Camarilla Vitae Slave is probably at #6.
I would like to see cards reprinted, also, but CVS seems to be usable only
in tricky decks, versus the more generic usability of your other five. If
that is reasonable (but perhaps it isn't relevant here) then I'm curious
as to why do you have it so high.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <Ct7Sj.3595$iu3....@newsfe11.phx>, Kevin M.
<you...@imaspammer.org> writes:
>James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
<snip - reprint wish lists>
>> Camarilla Vitae Slave is probably at #6.>
>I would like to see cards reprinted, also, but CVS seems to be usable only
>in tricky decks, versus the more generic usability of your other five. If
>that is reasonable (but perhaps it isn't relevant here) then I'm curious
>as to why do you have it so high.
Oh, I can understand why LSJ might have dropped it from Sabbat War to
make space for other things - it's not the most necessary of cards.
However, I'd prefer to see it available again. I don't see that such
trick decks should only be available to oldbies with deep pockets - a
Rare from Sabbat is tricky to own lots and lots of.
It's also not a card that's only useful to tricky decks - you can just
use it as a slightly off-beat discipline master card replacement, or
similar.
Also, I just think it's a fun card.
Also also, it's a card that - on and off - I've heard players say "Man,
I wish it had been reprinted" a few times.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 30 Apr, 20:15, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <d6a1dbc6-9611-43d0-b04e-7c4525387...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroup>
> s.com>, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Pity about the priest. I would also like to sign the petition to
> >reprint Shroud of Absence. That and Charisma.
>
> When we last had this conversation on #vtes, my personal top 5, in no
> particular order, was:
>
> - Charisma
> - Shroud of Absence
> - Sensory Deprivation
> - Jake Washington
> - Spiritual Intervention
>
> Camarilla Vitae Slave is probably at #6.
>
> --
> James Coupe
> PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
> EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
> 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
*ahem*
Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape.
GreenO
mgre...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> *ahem*
>
> Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape.
i've got about 6 or 8 lying around doing nothing.
Anyone got any good deck ideas?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 29 Apr, 01:44, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
>Suck on that, xylephone!
>
That's xylOphone.
Origin: Gr. Xylon = wood
Also, as in 'xylophagous' meaning wood-eating. Admittedly a word more
important to me than most other people. Even so, xylo- is ceratinly
one of my top 5 prefixes.
GreenO
On Apr 30, 2:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Indeed, I care little for it vs. other similar alternatives. It works better
> than using a plural pronoun to represent a singular noun, IMO, YMMV, &c. But so
> does "he or she" on that score. A single word would do better than "he or she",
> IMO, YMMV, &c. So "xe" is a suitable choice for that word. "Xe" is slightly more
> suitable than some of the other alternative ("hu", "yo", &c.), IMO, YMMV, &c.
I know I'm jumping in late, here... And this isn't solely addressed
at you, LSJ.
Don't we already have, in English, a non-gendered third-person
singular pronoun? Seems to me we could use It. Folks already know
what It is, how to pronounce It, etc. It even already has the
appropriate possessives, object cases, etc, and people know how to
pronounce those, too. Sure, It currently gets used only for non-
person genderless stuff, but I can't see any reason, grammatically,
that adapting It to also cover gender-indeterminate situations would
be somehow problematic, especially compared to the burden of
introducing new words.
I know there's got to be a reason why this has been rejected in the
past, but I don't know what that would be.
- D.J.
Meej wrote:
> Don't we already have, in English, a non-gendered third-person
> singular pronoun? Seems to me we could use It. Folks already know
> what It is, how to pronounce It, etc. It even already has the
> appropriate possessives, object cases, etc, and people know how to
> pronounce those, too. Sure, It currently gets used only for non-
> person genderless stuff, but I can't see any reason, grammatically,
> that adapting It to also cover gender-indeterminate situations would
> be somehow problematic, especially compared to the burden of
> introducing new words.
>
> I know there's got to be a reason why this has been rejected in the
> past, but I don't know what that would be.
"It" is used for things that are genderless (or somehow inhumane or otherwise
worthy of the contempt of the speaker).
"It" is not used for things with gender but whose gender is not determined for
the pronoun.
See Silence of the Lambs, where "it" is used to refer to a person as a
non-person. Not nice. Overcoming that insulting aspect of "it" would be far more
difficult than using a new word.
On May 1, 10:09 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Meej wrote:
> > Don't we already have, in English, a non-gendered third-person
> > singular pronoun? Seems to me we could use It. Folks already know
> > what It is, how to pronounce It, etc. It even already has the
> > appropriate possessives, object cases, etc, and people know how to
> > pronounce those, too. Sure, It currently gets used only for non-
> > person genderless stuff, but I can't see any reason, grammatically,
> > that adapting It to also cover gender-indeterminate situations would
> > be somehow problematic, especially compared to the burden of
> > introducing new words.
>
> > I know there's got to be a reason why this has been rejected in the
> > past, but I don't know what that would be.
>
> "It" is used for things that are genderless (or somehow inhumane or otherwise
> worthy of the contempt of the speaker).
>
> "It" is not used for things with gender but whose gender is not determined for
> the pronoun.
Yes, I'm aware of the current usage pattern. (See also "he" as gender-
indeterminate.)
> See Silence of the Lambs, where "it" is used to refer to a person as a
> non-person. Not nice.
As would be referring to someone whose gender is known, in direct
conversation (ie, where second-person would be appropriate, like in
the referenced scene) or in conversation with a third party (ie, where
either he or she would correctly be usable), with "xe" or any other.
The dehumanizing isn't the use of "it" particularly, but the use of
third-person non-gendered (whatever that happens to be) when the
gender is clear and the person is there to be addressed.
If the intent is to insult, "it" and "xe/yo/whatever" are
interchangeable (provided something were settled upon for the latter,
and known.
If the intent is to communicate "this third person, whatever gender,"
"it" seems rational. ("Yo" has potential confusion with second-
person, and is made up. "They" has confusion over plural - which,
despite the loss of thou seeming to function just fine in English,
I'll accept as a problem. "Xe" is made up, uses an unfamiliar initial
letter with no clear pronunciation, and is clearly artificial. "It"
has, um, possible use as insult?)
> Overcoming that insulting aspect of "it" would be far more
> difficult than using a new word.
That's certainly your opinion, and you're entitled to that. But it's
far from clear, in my opinion, that that's the case. Especially
since, whatever gender-indeterminate third-person is concocted, the
same insult would appear.
No, I was wondering if there's some grammatical reason.
- D.J.
On Apr 30, 11:54 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <Ct7Sj.3595$iu3.1...@newsfe11.phx>, Kevin M.<youw...@imaspammer.org> writes:
> >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip - reprint wish lists>
>
> >> Camarilla Vitae Slave is probably at #6.
>
> >I would like to see cards reprinted, also, but CVS seems to be usable only
> >in tricky decks, versus the more generic usability of your other five. If
> >that is reasonable (but perhaps it isn't relevant here) then I'm curious
> >as to why do you have it so high.
>
> Oh, I can understand why LSJ might have dropped it from Sabbat War to
> make space for other things - it's not the most necessary of cards.
> However, I'd prefer to see it available again. I don't see that such
> trick decks should only be available to oldbies with deep pockets - a
> Rare from Sabbat is tricky to own lots and lots of.
>
> It's also not a card that's only useful to tricky decks - you can just
> use it as a slightly off-beat discipline master card replacement, or
> similar.
>
> Also, I just think it's a fun card.
I think it's fun when I go to a tournament and get everyone's
attention when I light my Camarilla Vitae Slave on FIRE, then explain
to everyone how it is only a 15 cent piece of cardboard.
....and then I run for my life.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Meej wrote:
> "Xe" is made up, uses an unfamiliar initial
> letter with no clear pronunciation,
That's certainly your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it far from clear
that xe has no clear pronunciation.
And I think most people are familiar with X as an initial letter. Even if they
don't know about xylophages or xenophobia, they do know about xylophones and
Xerox machines. IMO, YMMV, &c.
>> Overcoming that insulting aspect of "it" would be far more
>> difficult than using a new word.>
> That's certainly your opinion, and you're entitled to that. But it's
> far from clear, in my opinion, that that's the case. Especially
> since, whatever gender-indeterminate third-person is concocted, the
> same insult would appear.
>
> No, I was wondering if there's some grammatical reason.
No. Just like there's no grammatical reason not to use "he". Just the baggage
problem. And no grammatical reaason not to use "xe". Just the novelty problem.
On 1 May, 13:00, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I've got these two together at the moment and exactly 0 chance to play
them:
Reckless Endangerment (v1.0)
3 Raphaela Giovanni 6
3 Don Michael Antonio Giovanni 7
2 Luna Giovanni 10
2 Lady Constancia10
2 Carmine Giovanni 10
3 Legendary Vampire
4 Dreams of the Sphinx
5 Vessel
2 Minion tap
2 The Mausoleum, Venice
3 Heidelberg Castle
1 Pentex Subversion
6 Mind Rape
4 Govern the Unaligned
4 Deflection
6 Bonding
2 Kine Dominance
6 Spectral Divination
8 Call the Hungry Dead
2 Helicopter
1 Repo Man
2 Mylan Horseed
1 Charrigger the Axe
1 Tye Cooper
1 Ambrosius the Ferryman
1 Carlton van Wyk
5 Reckless Agitation
2 Kine Resources Contested
2 Consanguinous Boon
1 Political Stranglehold
1 Ancient Influence
1 Reins of Power
2 WwEF
1 On the QV
Untested. The idea is to inflict big damage in a single turn with
bleeds and Agitations. Mind Rape taps down a blocker, gets you a vote
lock the following turn should you need it or bleeds them agressively.
All pretty flexible stuff.
Snakes with a Chain (v3.0)
Crypt:
2 Count Ormonde
2 Hesha
2 Kehina the Sorceress
3 Khay'tall
3 Nefertiti
Library: (80 cards)
Master (16 cards)
5 The Elders of Sirius
3 Heidelberg Castle, Germany
1 Khobar Towers
3 Minion Tap
2 Vessel
2 Opium Den
Minion (62 cards)
6 Enticement
2 Kine Dominance
6 Mind Rape
4 Form of Corruption
2 Mylan Horseed
8 Deflection
6 Wake with Evening's Freshness
6 Lost in Crowds
4 Elder Impersonation
4 Swallowed by the Night
4 Spying Mission
4 Truth of 1K lies
8 Majesty
I've played iterations of this deck for years. Mind Rape/Heidelburg
Castle is far and away the best way to ream vampires in order to pick
them up with Form of Corruption. Elders of Sirius should speed up the
shenanigans.
GreenO
I just had to reply to this. In Finnish spoken language (at least
where I live in south west) this is how it goes. We have a very good
3rd person singular pronoun "hän" (engl. "he/she/it"), but in the
local spoken language it's gotten a kind of derogatory meaning.
Usually when we use it, we are making a between the lines remark that
the person we are speaking about thinks that he's more important than
he really is. Instead of the 3rd person pronoun we use the 3rd
demonstrative pronoun "se" (engl. "it/that") when speaking without
between the lines meanings. So... if you english speaking think that
using a pronoun normally used for inhumane things is derogatory, we
finns think that using a pronoun normally used for humans derogatory :)
In message <f7e84423-b8bd-4093...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups
.com>, mgre...@googlemail.com writes:
>Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape.
I hear and I must obey.
Okay, so top eight:
- Charisma
- Shroud of Absence
- Jake Washington
- Spiritual Intervention
- Sensory Deprivation
- Mind Rape
- Camarilla Vitae Slave
- Goth Band
How about we add two more so I can have a top ten?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:8btvzxPG...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <f7e84423-b8bd-4093...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups
> .com>, mgre...@googlemail.com writes:>>Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape.>
> I hear and I must obey.
>
> Okay, so top eight:
>
> - Charisma
> - Shroud of Absence
> - Jake Washington
> - Spiritual Intervention
> - Sensory Deprivation
> - Mind Rape
> - Camarilla Vitae Slave
> - Goth Band
>
> How about we add two more so I can have a top ten?
Sure. Hanging out on EBAY and buying singles just screams out about which
cards people desperately want more of, and therefore should be reprinted.
- The Unmasking
- Heart of Nizchetus
There you go, an even 10. Cool!
Oh, yea and don't forget
- Preternatural Evasion.
DAMN!
XZealot wrote:
> The word to use is "entity". It is both devoid of gender and
> connotation.
?
The student opens entity's textbook. Entity is expected to finish the assignment
in one hour.
Meh.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Problem I have with the use of the word "it" is that it wouldn't be
clear in some cases if you are talking about the player, or perhaps the
card, or the "action" or something else.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!*
auct...@superfuncards.com
On Apr 30, 7:38 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> > When we last had this conversation on #vtes, my personal top 5,
> > in no particular order, was:
>
> > - Charisma
> > - Shroud of Absence
> > - Sensory Deprivation
> > - Jake Washington
> > - Spiritual Intervention
>
> > Camarilla Vitae Slave is probably at #6.
>
> I would like to see cards reprinted, also, but CVS seems to be usable only
> in tricky decks, versus the more generic usability of your other five. If
> that is reasonable (but perhaps it isn't relevant here) then I'm curious
> as to why do you have it so high.
>
I'd like to own one someday. I wouldn't mind waiting until the next
tin to do so, however.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
In message <6fnSj.7549$DG....@newsfe10.phx>, Frederick Scott
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>Sure. Hanging out on EBAY and buying singles just screams out about which
>cards people desperately want more of, and therefore should be reprinted.
>
>- The Unmasking
>- Heart of Nizchetus
The Unmasking I could *just* stretch to, maybe. The Heart is too
recent, based on my entirely arbitrary whims. People can still go out
and buy boosters with it in. (Starters would also be acceptable.)
Anyone else?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MhsDtFcC...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <6fnSj.7549$DG....@newsfe10.phx>, Frederick Scott
> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:>>Sure. Hanging out on EBAY and buying singles just screams out about which
>>cards people desperately want more of, and therefore should be reprinted.
>>
>>- The Unmasking
>>- Heart of Nizchetus>
> The Unmasking I could *just* stretch to, maybe. The Heart is too
> recent, based on my entirely arbitrary whims. People can still go out
> and buy boosters with it in. (Starters would also be acceptable.)
You can say that fairly about Preternatural Strength, I suppose. The Heart
is unquestionably a special case. Not only is it a 1-100 rare, as opposed
to a 1-in-50 rare, but it's a one of a small number of new cards in a
reprint set, which makes it great deal "rarer' than normal. It was
extremely unfortunate to print such an extraordinary card in that context.
//OK, rant coming....
And "stretching" to print the Unmasking?!? Bull shit that! It should be on
the top of the list! Comparing cards like Camarilla Vitae Slave to The
Unmasking or HoN is a joke! OK, sorry your Lasombra deck can't get a
specialized corner-case card but every hunter deck in creation is wanting
an Unmasking (or two) and HoN is a card that should be as common in the game
as Dreams of the Sphinx, and only isn't because of when and how it was printed.
You might "stretch" to reprint CVS, definitely NOT The Unmasking. IMHO.
//Bleh, close rant.
Unless, of course, this is all just arbitrary and has nothing to do with
cards that would allow the most people to build the decks they want to build.
I should think such a consideration would come into play as some point.
LSJ wrote:
> Meej wrote:
> > "Xe" is made up, uses an unfamiliar initial
> > letter with no clear pronunciation,
>
> That's certainly your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it far from clear
> that xe has no clear pronunciation.
>
> And I think most people are familiar with X as an initial letter. Even if they
> don't know about xylophages or xenophobia, they do know about xylophones and
> Xerox machines. IMO, YMMV, &c.
Does this have anything to do with V:TES? I clicked on the "About
this group" link in groups.google.com, and found a list of related
groups, one of which was alt.pets.rabbits. This conversation you're
having doesn't seem to be about rabbits, either.
- Ben Peal
In message <ACpSj.7639$DG....@newsfe10.phx>, Frederick Scott
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>And "stretching" to print the Unmasking?!? Bull shit that!
If you want to start yelling pointlessly in an otherwise fairly pleasant
and civilised discussion, please go do it somewhere else.
I have different priorities to you. As was potentially obvious from my
response to Kevin, and a cursory examination of my list, most of the
cards I listed haven't been reprinted since Final Nights.
- Charisma - Final Nights
- Jake Washington - Final Nights
- Sensory Deprivation - Dark Sovereigns and Final Nights
- Mind Rape - Sabbat, Sabbat War
- Goth Band - Sabbat
- Camarilla Vitae Slave - Sabbat
Shroud of Absence is in Bloodlines, and Spiritual Intervention was
reprinted in a Tenth Anniversary Tin, but that makes it hard to get
copies.
So, can we see a pattern to the cards I want to see reprinted?
1) None of them have been reprinted in a LONG time. None of them are
wallpaper, and several of them are very good cards - Jake, Mind Rape,
Shroud are very strong, Spiritual Intervention and Charisma are solid if
unexciting, Sensory Deprivation is expensive but powerful, Goth Band and
Camarilla Vitae Slave are a bit more fun/freaky but they certainly have
come up in various conversations I've had with people.
2) Being so old, none of them are really available to new players *at
all*. That's one reason I care slightly less about Heart - it's the
same for old players and new players, it's a rare in a recent set,
everyone has the same "problem".
3) Because none of these cards are available in a recent set, people
won't think "Oh, I won't buy a few Third Edition to see if I can get a
Heart...", helping the sales of those sets. For Third Edition in
particular, I don't particularly want to reprint great cards from it
right now because I want people to buy Third so it stays in stores, gets
reprinted, gets re-ordered, etc. That's why for my list, I'm open to
the possibility of including The Unmasking - the Gehenna set is somewhat
older.
4) A minor point, but important to some - aesthetically, all but one of
these cards predates Camarilla Edition.
But yes, if you just want to yell bullshit because during a casual
discussion I had a different set of priorities to you and, out of
thousands of cards in the game, picked some that are different to yours,
please direct your abuse to alt.dev.null
If you fancy a constructive discussion, try again.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:UsqVOIja...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <ACpSj.7639$DG....@newsfe10.phx>, Frederick Scott
> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:>>And "stretching" to print the Unmasking?!? Bull shit that!>
> If you want to start yelling pointlessly in an otherwise fairly pleasant
> and civilised discussion, please go do it somewhere else.
Oh, come on James. This is all subjective opinion stuff anyway.
It's not serious. Don't people raise their voices and flail their
hands around a bit where you come from? I mean just because they're
passionate about their opinions, not because they're taking themselves
seriously. That's all I meant. No disrespect was intended.
> So, can we see a pattern to the cards I want to see reprinted?
>
> 1) None of them have been reprinted in a LONG time. None of them are
> wallpaper, and several of them are very good cards - Jake, Mind Rape,
> Shroud are very strong, Spiritual Intervention and Charisma are solid if
> unexciting, Sensory Deprivation is expensive but powerful, Goth Band and
> Camarilla Vitae Slave are a bit more fun/freaky but they certainly have
> come up in various conversations I've had with people.
Well, OK, sure. I get it. But here's my thing: if a card was last
printed 5 years ago but is a corner case card, I think traders and
buyers can ultimately find it somewhere and not pay - or trade - an
arm and a leg for it. If was first printed last Tuesday but only two
dozen were printed and it's incredibly useful, that's going to be a
lot harder to find than your Goth Band. Camarilla Vitae Slave may
really be a bad example - truth is, I agree that it should be reprinted
because it was last printed SO long ago and is not (in truth, I admit)
a completely corner case card.
> 2) Being so old, none of them are really available to new players *at
> all*. That's one reason I care slightly less about Heart - it's the
> same for old players and new players, it's a rare in a recent set,
> everyone has the same "problem".
OK, sure. You're attracted by the idea of "democratizing" the problem of
finding in-demand cards. I can't find fault with that.
> 3) Because none of these cards are available in a recent set, people
> won't think "Oh, I won't buy a few Third Edition to see if I can get a
> Heart...", helping the sales of those sets. For Third Edition in
> particular, I don't particularly want to reprint great cards from it
> right now because I want people to buy Third so it stays in stores, gets
> reprinted, gets re-ordered, etc. That's why for my list, I'm open to
> the possibility of including The Unmasking - the Gehenna set is somewhat
> older.
Oh, man, I really see that issue differently. The thing is, I really
don't like the concept of salting a set of low-demand cards with a few
VERY high-demand cards to create sales. Every time this has been tried,
it's caused problems. As I alluded to in my prior post, in practise it
has the effect of "super-rarizing" the rare cards. That is, the high
demand cards become even rarer because the overall demand for the set
is low - so sales are low, so the actual number of rare cards in
circulation because VERY low. In the case of 3E, the set having most
all reprint library cards means that older players have much less
reason to buy it except for the tiny handful of new library cards and
the vampires. The same thing happened in Camarilla Edition. What was
the result? To alleviate customer demand in the end, White Wolf had to
make a special project of reprinting all the vampires by themselves in
their own special single box. Will 3E be the same a few years down the
road? I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I can't see any reason why
it won't.
Fortunately, the were no super-useful rare cards among the non-reprint
library cards in CE. No one really missed out on Brothers Grimm or
Abandoning the Flesh. Some of them, like Gregory Winter and Tension in
the Ranks were useful, but nothing like on the order of HoN. Even
these don't really please me but the game didn't seem to suffer
appreciably. I think it does when a truly useful card is excessively
hard to get.
> 4) A minor point, but important to some - aesthetically, all but one of
> these cards predates Camarilla Edition.
On that one, I certainly agree with you. I'd like to see all the old print
style cards - or least all the remotely useful ones - to get reprinted
in the post-CE format at least once.
> But yes, if you just want to yell bullshit because during a casual
> discussion I had a different set of priorities to you
OK, sorry. It was intended as a sort of good-natured 'bullshit', but
these things don't come across the internet well.
Fred
<ben...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff159c0c-d4bb-4347...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:>> Meej wrote:
>> > "Xe" is made up, uses an unfamiliar initial
>> > letter with no clear pronunciation,
>>
>> That's certainly your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it far from clear
>> that xe has no clear pronunciation.
>>
>> And I think most people are familiar with X as an initial letter. Even if they
>> don't know about xylophages or xenophobia, they do know about xylophones and
>> Xerox machines. IMO, YMMV, &c.>
> Does this have anything to do with V:TES?
Arguably, yes - gender specificity vis-a-vis vampires and players (methuselahs)
is a legitimate matter of concern when wording cards, rulings, or when trying
to attempting to clarify languaging during discussions of either. So it
therefore reasonably falls into the r.g.t-c.jyhad group charter. Easily so,
IMHO.
Granted, the relationship gets a lot more strained when the discussion mutates
into things like whether the motivations for choosing said method of specificity
are polically correct or not. But most net.cops have found over the years that
it's ultimately better to let such mutations burn themselves out of their own
accord than bother to actively quash them. Otherwsie, you get start to get
flame wars about the flame wars and *nobody* wants that!
Fred