Dear fellow VTES Usenet Posters!
I would like to have a polite request towards you.
Please refrain from namecalling, arguing for arguing's sake and other
immature behaviour. Let's focus on the game we all love instead of
trying to use the newsgroup as a means to bully, aggravate or
discredit other people.
Thank you very much,
Daneel
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> kirjoitti viestissä
news:a23a105e.04031...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Admirable.
But not gonna happen.
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote
> Please refrain from namecalling, arguing for arguing's sake and other
> immature behaviour. Let's focus on the game we all love instead of
> trying to use the newsgroup as a means to bully, aggravate or
> discredit other people.
You must be new. Welcome to the Internet.
-Mongrel
In message <a23a105e.04031...@posting.google.com>,
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>Please refrain from namecalling, arguing for arguing's sake and other
>immature behaviour. Let's focus on the game we all love instead of
>trying to use the newsgroup as a means to bully, aggravate or
>discredit other people.
So Vermillian shouldn't have posted his spoilers, because he knew it
would aggravate a bunch of people. Right?
As someone else noted, welcome to the Internet. I'm hardly the only
person who wades in and says what he thinks; it's been around for a long
time. Look at Stefan, for example; he's in there slugging it out with
me toe-to-toe, and yet wants to take the "oh, i am a model of reasoned
discourse" position? Please. Five minutes for fighting, both of us.
However, I'm going to point out that the Internet also makes it possible
for one side of a discussion to be deliberately ignorant. There's no
tone of voice, there's no facial expressions, and most importantly, it's
much more difficult to carry on a debate... because you can't
immediately clarify your points when someone misreads or misunderstands
them, and you can always just snip out the parts you didn't agree with.
Over the past six years, I've found that certain people consistently are
not capable of reading English. This isn't a slam at Europeans, because
most of the people I refer to are native English speakers. But they
simply can't read what's being said, and can't understand it. I don't
know if it's a flaw in the much-maligned American educational system, or
what, but you can say "X is true", and someone will say "no, Y is
false!" I've brought this up before; it's an example of the "My dog has
four legs, all cats have four legs, my cat is a dog" chain of logic...
and you see it a LOT here.
This leads to irritation on everyone's part, and where in a face-to-face
discussion this would only lead to a raised voice and a cessation of all
other topics until the X/Y issue was resolved, the Internet doesn't have
a natural outflow for this. Someone is free to write on and on, drawing
elaborate conclusions from "Y is false!", whether or not Y had anything
to do with the topic at hand... and further disrupting and confusing the
discussion. I've also noticed that if you try to say "Y isn't relevant
to the issue", the person will immediately respond with an entire post
explaining why Y is false, completely derailing the topic. Good luck
trying to recover.
The only EFFECTIVE solution is not to try to debate anything over the
Internet. That won't happen and isn't a realistic solution, so as an
alternative to raised voices, you end up with people punctuating with
insults. Some people are relatively calm, but you may notice they also
back out of discussions as soon as the "Y is false" problem comes up;
they're taking the second approach, which is to not even bother trying
to convince people who aren't willing to listen. I'm not sure I agree
with that approach; not the sort of person to give up easily, you know.
But it does improve the signal-to-noise ratio, at the cost of allowing
incorrect information to be disseminated.
Which is worth more to you?
-- Derek
a host is a host from coast to coast
and no one will talk to a host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead
Daneel wrote:
> Please refrain from namecalling, arguing for arguing's sake and other
> immature behaviour. Let's focus on the game we all love instead of
> trying to use the newsgroup as a means to bully, aggravate or
> discredit other people.
Heh heh. I hear there are some folks in Israel who could use some helpful
advice too...
:-)
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give
back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush
administration."
-Fat Mike, http://www.punkvoter.com
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.04031...@posting.google.com>...
> Dear fellow VTES Usenet Posters!
>
> I would like to have a polite request towards you.
>
> Please refrain from namecalling, arguing for arguing's sake
Heh, I remember that in the earlier years, this newsgroup had more
discussion of decks, strategy etc. interesting things. Nowadays this
newsgroup seems to be all arguing, hostilities, threatening w/physical
violence etc. Why is that?
a) Nothing new to say of strategies, decktypes and stuff.
b) Certain fanatics were right: World of Darkness is/was from Hell. It
corrupts people and the evil begins to be seen.
c) It was like this before but memories are golden (or how the saying
went?).
-Antero
"AL" <nom...@jippii.fi> wrote in message
news:ea6a080a.04031...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I wasn't on this newsgroup "back in the day," but I would bet that the
answer is "c". :)
Pat
AL wrote:
> c) It was like this before but memories are golden (or how the saying
> went?).
Having been here since, like, 1994 or something, I can tell you that the
group is just like it always has been.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> As someone else noted, welcome to the Internet. I'm hardly the only
> person who wades in and says what he thinks; it's been around for a long
> time.
Oh now *there* is a ringing defense if ever one was heard.
-L
>> c) It was like this before but memories are golden (or how the saying
>> went?).>
>Having been here since, like, 1994 or something, I can tell you that the
>group is just like it always has been.
I don't know. I've been around since '97/'98 and recent times certainly *feel*
different. At least for me...
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2 wrote:
> I don't know. I've been around since '97/'98 and recent times certainly *feel*
> different. At least for me...
I dunno--I recall that there were just as many brutal flame wars and what
not as there are now--just they were usually restricted to card limit
discussions. Now that card limit discussions seem to have thankfully
vanished, the flaming/insults/internet brutality has sort of been
disseminated into other discussion areas, and as such, people are more
surprised when they come up. I guess that the CL discussions were a great
outlet for the people who like a good flame war, and without them, they end
up getting in arguments somewhere else, and it seems like the ugliness is
more prevelant, although I don't think it is.
Of the real sketchy discussions of late, PTO is probably the one most likely
to go awry, but even then, they usually got too long to follow well before
they got ugly.
Man. It makes me miss Coupe. Where'd he go?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <fb4469c.04031...@posting.google.com>,
mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about:
[ quoted text not captured ]
You assume I'm even trying to defend something.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BC7A1A85.14822%pd...@lightlink.com...
[snip]
> I dunno--I recall that there were just as many brutal flame wars and what
> not as there are now--just they were usually restricted to card limit
> discussions. Now that card limit discussions seem to have thankfully
> vanished, the flaming/insults/internet brutality has sort of been
> disseminated into other discussion areas, and as such, people are more
> surprised when they come up. I guess that the CL discussions were a great
> outlet for the people who like a good flame war, and without them, they
end
> up getting in arguments somewhere else, and it seems like the ugliness is
> more prevelant, although I don't think it is.
Seems to be a bit more about the latest card to ban/errata these days to me.
Sure, those discussions/demands were around back in the day and there is
some semi-valid reasons why they may be a bit more prevalent (more cards =
more potential abuse etc) but it just *seems* a bit more prolific <shrug>
something I'm really not a fan of so I guess I'm bias.
A lot more players seem to me to be after a vanilla/uniform/whatever you
call it experience these days that's for sure.
> Of the real sketchy discussions of late, PTO is probably the one most
likely
> to go awry, but even then, they usually got too long to follow well before
> they got ugly.
Amen to that. Maybe a bit more sub-threads and stuff would help? Dunno. PTO
though - jeez what next?
> Man. It makes me miss Coupe. Where'd he go?
Last time I spoke to him he was totally snowed under with higher studies
coursework and real life issues. I also think he might have felt a touch of
the UK apathy? A lot of the regular contributors and players/groups
disbanded around the same time and I know some also felt the game was
perhaps going in directions they were not happy with.
Personally I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, I thought the 5th, Taste,
Hostile etc. errata and the CE was the start of something very bad but I
think the current design shows some amazing thought and insight. With the
exception of the Anarch mechanic I think we have seen and will hopefully
continue to see some real quality material coming into the game.
Rob.
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:24:47 +0000, Rob Treasure wrote:
> Amen to that. Maybe a bit more sub-threads and stuff would help? Dunno. PTO
> though - jeez what next?
Not anything else, necessarily. I really don't think the people who want
PTO banned are just picking the top of the power curve, intent on
targeting whatever else bubbles up into that slot. I won't slide into
"PTO Rant #549" since I think it's been covered exhaustively. But I do
not think fear of some slippery slope is sufficient reason to let that
particular abortion continue to run loose in the game.
-
David Cherryholmes
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.04031...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I agree with this. When I first came here, I came from RPG-forums like
White Wolf Online and ELN. They were monitored, and people who cursed
and flamed were banned (or a least warned). I didn´t know better, so I
thought this group too was monitored in some way. Imagine my surprise
when I was flamed the first time! Anyway, I will continue to try to
not directly "jump" people, even though I know there are individuals
here who like doing that, and after defend their behaivor with
arguments like "I can say that to you here, because I would say that
to you in real life too!" and "This is my logic - if you don´t agree
with me you should not post here."
I think most posts are OK. Sure, it pops up topics from time to time
that I do not like, but I solve this by simply _not reading them_. I
recommend that. And if someone "messes" up a thread with irrelevant
stuff and flaming - try to start a new thread, starting with
clarification of the topic (ie, explain what questions are discussed
and which are not.)
Henrik Klippstr?m wrote:
> I agree with this. When I first came here, I came from RPG-forums like
> White Wolf Online and ELN. They were monitored, and people who cursed
> and flamed were banned (or a least warned). I didn´t know better, so I
> thought this group too was monitored in some way.
This kinda cracks me up, as I tend to loathe forums like the WW BBS and what
not, simply because they aren't usenet--people tend not to know the "rules"
of how to behave on the internet, and I tend to see just as much flaming
(and certainly more totally random, irrelevant flaming, as opposed to
flaming that comes out of a particularly heated discussion of something
valid, like we tend to here). Usent flaming tends to revolve around:
<long discussion of mostly salient points, followed by>
"...see, you clearly don't understand, 'cause you are an idiot!"
<at which point madness ensues>
as opposed to web based BBS flame wars the generally tend to revolve around:
<short, badly spelled idiotic ramble with very limited grammar, followed by>
"you're MaMa! ASSSSSSSSSSSSSS!"
I spent a lot of time recently on the Heroclix BBS, which is a wasteland of
idiocy, flaming, and dumbness, for the most part (although I did learn to
appreciate Andrew as an ally :-), moderators or no.
Suffice to say, usenet strikes me as a oasis of good manners and intelligent
discussion compared to most of the web based BBS's I've been on (with the
SFB BBS a notable exception, probably due to the iron fist of the moderators
and the "old school" attitudes of most of the contributors).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<eed950d9v60ubpaqi...@4ax.com>...
> In message <fb4469c.04031...@posting.google.com>,
> mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about:
>
> >> As someone else noted, welcome to the Internet. I'm hardly the only
> >> person who wades in and says what he thinks; it's been around for a long
> >> time.
> >
> >Oh now *there* is a ringing defense if ever one was heard.
>
> You assume I'm even trying to defend something.
Aha! But YOU'RE assuming that he was even assuming anything in the
first place! Booya!
~SV
Sorry, couldn't help myself... I love assumptions, that make an ass
out of you.
In message <f987c6cd.04031...@posting.google.com>,
vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<eed950d9v60ubpaqi...@4ax.com>...>> In message <fb4469c.04031...@posting.google.com>,
>> mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about:
>>
>> >> As someone else noted, welcome to the Internet. I'm hardly the only
>> >> person who wades in and says what he thinks; it's been around for a long
>> >> time.
>> >
>> >Oh now *there* is a ringing defense if ever one was heard.
>>
>> You assume I'm even trying to defend something.>
>Aha! But YOU'RE assuming that he was even assuming anything in the
>first place! Booya!
Are you ever going to respond to:
Message-ID: <p8f6501cl5b78ince...@4ax.com>
...any part from my line reading "For the sake of the game?" forward?
I notice you snipped all that in your initial reply, and just wanted to
call your attention to it again.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<l4gc50p9tdvmre6lv...@4ax.com>...
> In message <f987c6cd.04031...@posting.google.com>,
> vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>
> >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<eed950d9v60ubpaqi...@4ax.com>...
> >> In message <fb4469c.04031...@posting.google.com>,
> >> mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about:
> >>
> >> >> As someone else noted, welcome to the Internet. I'm hardly the only
> >> >> person who wades in and says what he thinks; it's been around for a long
> >> >> time.
> >> >
> >> >Oh now *there* is a ringing defense if ever one was heard.
> >>
> >> You assume I'm even trying to defend something.
> >
> >Aha! But YOU'RE assuming that he was even assuming anything in the
> >first place! Booya!
>
> Are you ever going to respond to:
>
> Message-ID: <p8f6501cl5b78ince...@4ax.com>
>
> ...any part from my line reading "For the sake of the game?" forward?
No, I really wasn't planning on it. To be honest I didn't read it, I
was being typically lazy that day. Besides I hate the "he who talks
the most must be 'right'" kind of justice online comunities tend to
have, so I tend to ignore most posts longer than 3 paragraphs during
flamewars. I tend to ignore most flamewars period, really... They're
kind of boring... this one in particular.
> I notice you snipped all that in your initial reply, and just wanted to
> call your attention to it again.
Um... yeah, I usually snip irrelevant stuff (sometimes I forget
though). Thankyou for calling my attention to it. Was anything really
pertinent said? Perhaps you could paraphrase it for me, if it was so
important.
~SV
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.04031...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, I can't promise anything. I like to argue sometimes. I try to
keep it tasteful.
nom...@jippii.fi (AL) wrote in message news:<ea6a080a.04031...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I suggest that it is the following:
1) As time passes society does what is often referred to as advance.
More people have access to computers and the internet.
2) More people are active of the forums (I hope this is true - it is
the crux of my argument).
3) The comments that provoke the most response are inappropriate ones.
Even the lurkers will crawl out of hiding to declare someone anathma.
4) These responses are often as tasteless as the impetus for them.
5) Go back to 3)
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ces850perbddsm220...@4ax.com>...
> In message <a23a105e.04031...@posting.google.com>,
> dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>
> >Please refrain from namecalling, arguing for arguing's sake and other
> >immature behaviour. Let's focus on the game we all love instead of
> >trying to use the newsgroup as a means to bully, aggravate or
> >discredit other people.
>
> So Vermillian shouldn't have posted his spoilers, because he knew it
> would aggravate a bunch of people. Right?
>
You know that isn't what he is trying to say.
> However, I'm going to point out that the Internet also makes it possible
> for one side of a discussion to be deliberately ignorant. There's no
> tone of voice, there's no facial expressions, and most importantly, it's
> much more difficult to carry on a debate... because you can't
> immediately clarify your points when someone misreads or misunderstands
> them, and you can always just snip out the parts you didn't agree with.
>
I don't think the ignorance is deliberate in all cases. Crisp, clean
essays are not what we are producing here.
> Over the past six years, I've found that certain people consistently are
> not capable of reading English. This isn't a slam at Europeans, because
> most of the people I refer to are native English speakers. But they
> simply can't read what's being said, and can't understand it. I don't
> know if it's a flaw in the much-maligned American educational system, or
> what, but you can say "X is true", and someone will say "no, Y is
> false!" I've brought this up before; it's an example of the "My dog has
> four legs, all cats have four legs, my cat is a dog" chain of logic...
> and you see it a LOT here.
>
It is the problem with humanity. We are not suited to live in the
manner we currently live and, as such, suck royally at it. I think we
would have no problems with small groups even on the internet. I sure
can't connect with thousands of people I have never met.
Let it stand for the record that I cut portions of Derek's reply. I
hate it when the posts run over the text limit and are only view-able
by themselves. Something about those extra couple of clips really
holds me back.
In message <f987c6cd.04031...@posting.google.com>,
vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<l4gc50p9tdvmre6lv...@4ax.com>...>>
>> Are you ever going to respond to:
>>
>> Message-ID: <p8f6501cl5b78ince...@4ax.com>
>>
>> ...any part from my line reading "For the sake of the game?" forward?>
>No, I really wasn't planning on it. To be honest I didn't read it, I
Actually, I'm certain you read it. But this is the dodge that people
like you always come up with when you have no counterarguments.
>was being typically lazy that day. Besides I hate the "he who talks
>the most must be 'right'" kind of justice online comunities tend to
>have, so I tend to ignore most posts longer than 3 paragraphs during
>flamewars. I tend to ignore most flamewars period, really... They're
>kind of boring... this one in particular.
Standard Internet Defense #13 -- "claim it's boring".
>> I notice you snipped all that in your initial reply, and just wanted to
>> call your attention to it again.>
>Um... yeah, I usually snip irrelevant stuff (sometimes I forget
>though). Thankyou for calling my attention to it. Was anything really
>pertinent said? Perhaps you could paraphrase it for me, if it was so
>important.
Plenty pertinent was said. You'll need to reread it though.
I can come up with a DIFFERENT question for you -- and in words of one
syllable, no less!
Why did you do it when you knew it was wrong?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Jeff Haar wrote:
> Let it stand for the record that I cut portions of Derek's reply. I
> hate it when the posts run over the text limit and are only view-able
> by themselves. Something about those extra couple of clips really
> holds me back.
?
USENET has no text limit (or, if it does, it's not one that will be reached
by any message someone can type in in under 30 minutes).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ expounded:
> Jeff Haar wrote:
> > Let it stand for the record that I cut portions of Derek's reply. I
> > hate it when the posts run over the text limit and are only view-able
> > by themselves. Something about those extra couple of clips really
> > holds me back.
>
> ?
> USENET has no text limit (or, if it does, it's not one that will be reached
> by any message someone can type in in under 30 minutes).
I presume it was a reference to Google where you need to view any
message over about 30 lines on its own with an extra mouse-click.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4057B4A...@white-wolf.com>...
> Jeff Haar wrote:
> > Let it stand for the record that I cut portions of Derek's reply. I
> > hate it when the posts run over the text limit and are only view-able
> > by themselves. Something about those extra couple of clips really
> > holds me back.
>
> ?
> USENET has no text limit (or, if it does, it's not one that will be reached
> by any message someone can type in in under 30 minutes).
What you are saying is technically true. However, when the posts
become too large they are only viewable in full by clicking on the
appropriate link at the end of the post.
Since many posts are 90% the post they are replying to I figure if
they really wanted me to read it they would make it easier to do so. I
can always read the previous post.
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5k4f50l5u8n7r3ah8...@4ax.com>...
> In message <f987c6cd.04031...@posting.google.com>,
> vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>
> >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<l4gc50p9tdvmre6lv...@4ax.com>...
Actually, no, you twerp, I didn't read it, in part because I knew it
would reinforce an image of you of the aforementioned personality
aspect, and other nagatives one's as well and in other part because I
am finding this flame war trite and boring. Seriously, its not an
attempt to 'win' the flame war. See below.
> Why did you do it when you knew it was wrong?
You'll have to rephrase your question, as I saw nothing inherantly
wrong with posting it (despite what's his face's naive request not to
post it, and despite the fact that I would only mentally (that is
conceptually, because the actually playing of your prophecies league
will remain virtually unchanged) ruin the fun of a few people who give
too many shits, mostly a bunch of princes with their decks up their
asses).
In hindsight I see why its a problem. Because it generates tons of
useless lines of data like has happened, thanks to people who over
react, like yourself, and from people who try to defend themselves
against unwarranted threats, insults and disrespect (your response, to
which I will not reply, is going to be something like "I don't talk to
me about respect!"... blah blah... Imight as well type a bunch of
'blahs' on the screen to save you time from responding...).
Consider yourself a man on the side of a flame war that you've won,
but for all of the wrong reasons. I will no longer post the Prophecies
on this use group, not because I think its wrong, but because, to be
honest, you've whined enough and generated enough ranting to make me
not want to waste membors of this usegroup's time with a retarded
flame war.
Congrats.
BTW, though, anyone who wants to know the prophecies my playgroup
encounters can email me. Furthermore I will not respond to anymore
messages about in regards to this flamewar. You're welcome, you poor
abused spirit of rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad.
~SV
Oh wait... one last thing Derek. FOAD. I used to love saying that, and
this time was no exception.
In message <f987c6cd.04031...@posting.google.com>,
vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5k4f50l5u8n7r3ah8...@4ax.com>...>> In message <f987c6cd.04031...@posting.google.com>,
>> vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>>
>> >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<l4gc50p9tdvmre6lv...@4ax.com>...>
>Actually, no, you twerp, I didn't read it, in part because I knew it
>would reinforce an image of you of the aforementioned personality
>aspect, and other nagatives one's as well and in other part because I
>am finding this flame war trite and boring. Seriously, its not an
>attempt to 'win' the flame war. See below.
*yawn* We both know you read the whole thing, and realized you didn't
have anything to say to defend yourself. Don't ever expect to convince
me otherwise; I assume that makes us pretty much done with THAT part of
the subject.
>> Why did you do it when you knew it was wrong?>
>You'll have to rephrase your question, as I saw nothing inherantly
>wrong with posting it (despite what's his face's naive request not to
At the time, I'm sure you didn't see anything wrong with posting it.
>post it, and despite the fact that I would only mentally (that is
>conceptually, because the actually playing of your prophecies league
I'm not in a league, remember.
>will remain virtually unchanged) ruin the fun of a few people who give
>too many shits, mostly a bunch of princes with their decks up their
>asses).
Again, all you demonstrate (especially with the referral to Robert
Goudie as "naive") is that you are a person who cannot be trusted, and a
person who cannot respect the community.
It is also clear that you are a person who takes delight in the "ha, ha,
you can't stop me!" sort of thing; again, it shouldn't even have had to
be SAID. It WAS said, and you opted to ignore it, for reasons that only
you know.
If what's been said so far hasn't convinced you that what you did was
wrong, nothing ever will; I'm already pretty sure of that myself.
>but for all of the wrong reasons. I will no longer post the Prophecies
>on this use group, not because I think its wrong, but because, to be
Well, there we go. That's about as simple as it gets.
Congratulations! Because of members like you in the V:TES community,
the overall trust we have in each other has significantly diminished.
Any ideas in the future will obviously have to have strict constraints
on secrecy, and NDAs all around. And so we take another step closer to
Magic...
It's a shame, but I suppose it had to happen sometime.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Jeff Haar wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4057B4A...@white-wolf.com>...>>Jeff Haar wrote:>>>Let it stand for the record that I cut portions of Derek's reply. I
>>>hate it when the posts run over the text limit and are only view-able
>>>by themselves. Something about those extra couple of clips really
>>>holds me back.>>
>>?
>>USENET has no text limit (or, if it does, it's not one that will be reached
>>by any message someone can type in in under 30 minutes).>
> What you are saying is technically true. However, when the posts
> become too large they are only viewable in full by clicking on the
> appropriate link at the end of the post.
...or by using an adequate news reader. Google is a USENET archive service
(and a great one, at that). It is not a very good news reader, however.
The problem with displaying even moderately sized articles you cite being
only one of its shortcomings in that area.
That said, one shouldn't assume that everyone else is subject to the same
shortcomings. So don't feel obliged to snip the posts on our behalf. :-)
> Since many posts are 90% the post they are replying to I figure if
> they really wanted me to read it they would make it easier to do so. I
> can always read the previous post.
Leaving enough quoted material in for context is good etiquette. Snipping
the excess quoted material is even better, yes. But don't depend on Google
to provide context for your readers, though - posts without context are
difficult to read (and often skipped, at least by this author).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6nmh509oe39g6dqg5...@4ax.com>...
>
> It is also clear that you are a person who takes delight in the "ha, ha,
> you can't stop me!" sort of thing; again, it shouldn't even have had to
> be SAID. It WAS said, and you opted to ignore it, for reasons that only
> you know.
>
> If what's been said so far hasn't convinced you that what you did was
> wrong, nothing ever will; I'm already pretty sure of that myself.
>
> >but for all of the wrong reasons. I will no longer post the Prophecies
> >on this use group, not because I think its wrong, but because, to be
>
> Well, there we go. That's about as simple as it gets.
>
> Congratulations! Because of members like you in the V:TES community,
> the overall trust we have in each other has significantly diminished.
> Any ideas in the future will obviously have to have strict constraints
> on secrecy, and NDAs all around. And so we take another step closer to
> Magic...
>
> It's a shame, but I suppose it had to happen sometime.
>
Derek,
As someone who's part of your victim's playgroup, I must say I'm kind
of amused at how sharp the distiction is: you're more often right, and
your prose is so much clearer, but he's the more decent guy, even if
he froths a little.
Having said that, I like to read your post outside of flamewars, since
you are an excellent judge of game balance issues, on the whole.
Regards,
Patrick
In article <f987c6cd.04031...@posting.google.com>,
vermil...@yahoo.com says...
> > Why did you do it when you knew it was wrong?
>
> You'll have to rephrase your question, as I saw nothing inherantly
> wrong with posting it
This seems to contradict this statement you made in your original post:
> 4.) I've given plenty of warning here for those people who don't want
> to read the Spoiler and be surprised each week with a new silly rule.
> I'm sorry I've ruined these people's games by giving this information
> to those who don't care enough in that they WILL read these rules
> spoilages...
You acknowledge that some people will read the posts because they care
about winning more than anything. You acknowledge that some people
won't because they enjoy the surprise. You acknowledge that the
knowledge gained by the former will possibly ruin the game of the latter
due to an unfair advantage. And yet apparently you saw nothing wrong
with this. It's good to know you enjoy ruining people's games.
> (despite what's his face's naive request not to post it
So you did read Robert's post then and just disregarded it? Great.
Good to see you showing respect (there's that word again) to the people
that work hard in the tournament scene.
> and despite the fact that I would only mentally (that is
> conceptually, because the actually playing of your prophecies league
> will remain virtually unchanged) ruin the fun of a few people who give
> too many shits, mostly a bunch of princes with their decks up their
> asses).
You really sound like a Magic player. Perhaps you're in the wrong game.
> BTW, though, anyone who wants to know the prophecies my playgroup
> encounters can email me.
This entire mess could have been avoided by you showing the common sense
to post this instead of your spoiler.
--
-Snapcase
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4059004B...@white-wolf.com>...
> >>Jeff Haar wrote:
> >>>Let it stand for the record that I cut portions of Derek's reply. I
> >>>hate it when the posts run over the text limit and are only view-able
> >>>by themselves. Something about those extra couple of clips really
> >>>holds me back.
>> That said, one shouldn't assume that everyone else is subject to the same
> shortcomings. So don't feel obliged to snip the posts on our behalf. :-)
>
I think you are making fun of me but I'm not sure. I realize some guy
sitting somewhere really gets off on clicking for that extra screen. I
don't expect anyone to trim their posts to make me happy. I just do it
because that's the way it think it should be done.
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6nmh509oe39g6dqg5...@4ax.com>...
Hey, Derek. I decided to cut out your whole post in my reply. If you
don't like it you can file a complaint in the National Agency of
Rhetoric or drive to Columbus and punch me in the face.
I also play with verm. I want you to understand that I do not attempt
to defend him because I like him. While I do feel some degree of
affection for him I am the kind of guy who prefers to let people fight
their own fights. I have been quoted before to say 'If that guy tries
to kick your ass I will stop him before you are killed or maimed. You
get to take the beating because you deserve it.'
I want you to understand this. I respond to your posts because you are
a bully. You select alex as the target of your attacks because you
can. You push the issue and when it is apparant that alex doesn't care
enough to argue with you, you then declare yourself the victor.
I wonder, the victor of what? I will be the first to award you 1st
place in the asshole competition.
Couldn't you do something more productive with your time. There are
MANY things wrong with the world. In no way do I suggest that it is
your responsability to better the world, however, I will point out
that far worse things happen every second then what alex did. If you
have as much energy and time on your hands as it seems you do you
could pick a more worthy cause and save the dolphins or whatever.
I hope that I was sucsessful in conveying a tone of disgust as well as
suggestion for possible improvement but in no way the image of some
sort of assinine touch down dance.
Jeff Haar wrote:
> I think you are making fun of me but I'm not sure.
No, I don't think he is making fun of you. But he is point out that the
problem that you are discussing (the extra clicking) isn't an issue for many
(most?) people, as they read this newsgroup on a newsreader (outlook;
newswatcher; whatever) rather than on the web. As usenet isn't so much
designed for the web, it doesn't work as well on the web.
> I realize some guy
> sitting somewhere really gets off on clicking for that extra screen. I
> don't expect anyone to trim their posts to make me happy. I just do it
> because that's the way it think it should be done.
The accepted, appropriate way to post is to quote relevant text to which you
are replying so as to provide a context for the discussion. This being said,
editing out irrelevent text is also a good thing (i.e. if you are responding
to a specific point someone is making, quote the specific paragraph or
whatever and remove the rest).
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
I wasn't making fun of you.
I thought you were suggesting that you trimmed the amount of Derek's
post that you quoted for the reason of how the post would appear on
Google.
Better to go for the "standard" format - quote as much as necessary
and let Google take care of Google. Google is the only newsreader
(and I use the term loosely for Google) that I know of that requires
an extra click to read past 30 or so lines. For that reason and others,
it is not really suited to the task of reading news as it happens
(although is is ideally suited for looking for old posts).
Posts "should be" limited to 80 columns (72 if you expect people to
quote your post in follow-ups), but there is no artificialy "should
be" limit to the number of lines one should use - one "should" use
as many as are necessary (and not much more). :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Howdy,
Warning, there's an awful high context-to-commentary ratio in this
post, but it seemed important to leave most of it in...
> >Please refrain from namecalling, arguing for arguing's sake and other
> >immature behaviour. Let's focus on the game we all love instead of
> >trying to use the newsgroup as a means to bully, aggravate or
> >discredit other people.
>
> So Vermillian shouldn't have posted his spoilers, because he knew it
> would aggravate a bunch of people. Right?
>> As someone else noted, welcome to the Internet. I'm hardly the only
> person who wades in and says what he thinks; it's been around for a long> time. Look at Stefan, for example; he's in there slugging it out with
> me toe-to-toe, and yet wants to take the "oh, i am a model of reasoned
> discourse" position? Please. Five minutes for fighting, both of us.
Heh. Good analogy - as with hockey, on Usenet, the fights are often
at least as entertaining as the game...
> However, I'm going to point out that the Internet also makes it possible
> for one side of a discussion to be deliberately ignorant. There's no
> tone of voice, there's no facial expressions, and most importantly, it's
> much more difficult to carry on a debate... because you can't
> immediately clarify your points when someone misreads or misunderstands
> them, and you can always just snip out the parts you didn't agree with.
I'm not sure how much I agree with this. Firstly, there's an awful
lot of non-Usenet 'discussion' that seems to me to exhibit the same
'deliberate ignorance' property. In fact, as far as I can tell,
formal debate is more or less based entirely on selective exploitation
of that property, to say nothing of presidential 'debate'. And
secondly, I often find myself in face-to-face discussion wishing I had
everything written down and threaded, so that I could track the
development (and possible circularity) of argument, and make sure that
all the various important parts get addressed before I forget them,
etc. (Which provides a sort of 'artificial immediacy' to each branch
of the argument, if you follow me.) Finally, the lack of actual
immediacy can also be a blessing - in that one can (theoretically, I
know) think before one speaks, reread others' and one's own writing.
Of course, I'm not a very good extemporaenous face-to-face arguer.
Physical clues don't really help me a lot over (and I can't believe
I'm saying this) the accursed smileys. Any emotional heat
face-to-face is really going to make it difficult for me to proceed.
So I'm fairly biased here, but still I think there's a lot of plus to
go with the minus.
> Over the past six years, I've found that certain people consistently are
> not capable of reading English. This isn't a slam at Europeans, because
> most of the people I refer to are native English speakers. But they
> simply can't read what's being said, and can't understand it. I don't
> know if it's a flaw in the much-maligned American educational system, or
> what, but you can say "X is true", and someone will say "no, Y is
> false!" I've brought this up before; it's an example of the "My dog has
> four legs, all cats have four legs, my cat is a dog" chain of logic...
> and you see it a LOT here.
This looks like two different things to me. First there's 'deliberate
ignorance' or 'disunderstanding' as like to phrase it. This isn't a
case of not being able to understand, so much as willingly
misrepresenting the opposing facts or argument. This, while annoying
and despicable, is a tried and true debate tactic.
The other problem, which is not quite the same, is the inability to
parse or form a logical argument. This is not deliberate ignorance so
much as cluelessness, though at some point you do have to wonder how
it is that a human of a certain age has managed to avoid learning such
a basic thing. It's usually actually pretty easy to tell the two
apart, I think? And while there's not much you can do about the
former, other than to point out their fallacies, the latter should be
susceptible to education if you're patient. Heh.
> This leads to irritation on everyone's part, and where in a face-to-face
> discussion this would only lead to a raised voice and a cessation of all
> other topics until the X/Y issue was resolved, the Internet doesn't have
> a natural outflow for this. Someone is free to write on and on, drawing
> elaborate conclusions from "Y is false!", whether or not Y had anything
> to do with the topic at hand... and further disrupting and confusing the
> discussion. I've also noticed that if you try to say "Y isn't relevant
> to the issue", the person will immediately respond with an entire post
> explaining why Y is false, completely derailing the topic. Good luck
> trying to recover.
>
> The only EFFECTIVE solution is not to try to debate anything over the
> Internet. That won't happen and isn't a realistic solution, so as an
> alternative to raised voices, you end up with people punctuating with
> insults. Some people are relatively calm, but you may notice they also
> back out of discussions as soon as the "Y is false" problem comes up;
> they're taking the second approach, which is to not even bother trying
> to convince people who aren't willing to listen. I'm not sure I agree
> with that approach; not the sort of person to give up easily, you know.
> But it does improve the signal-to-noise ratio, at the cost of allowing
> incorrect information to be disseminated.
>
> Which is worth more to you?
I guess I fall into the former camp? I've thought about adopting the
alias or signature 'threadcutter', as my messages are so often the
leaves or 'twigs' (once removed from leaves) of message trees.
I can sort of see where you're coming from with the 'don't want to
leave the id10t looking like he was right' argument. But I think
there may be a fallacy there. If those following the discussion can
parse the arguments and evaluate the truth value of the premises, then
what is to be gained by following down the 'Y is false' branch?
Everyone who was interested in X has stopped paying attention. And if
those following the discussion _cannot_ parse the arguments and
evaluate the truth value of the premises, is a non-sequitur argument
('Y is false', 'X is true', 'Y is FALSE!', 'X is TRUE you freakin'
id10t!') likely to clear things up for them?
Further, I'm not sure that this really describes the problem that
Daneel was (beautifully naively) addressing (in the post quoted up
top). It seems to me that the source of most of the flameage is the
(sometimes accidental, but see the previous discussion of
'disunderstanding') descent of argument into ad hominem. (OK, so
sometimes there's not so much a descent as a plunge - many people seem
to have the mistaken impression that any reply by Derek in particular
is necessarily a challenge.) And the problem, as I see it, with being
to itchy on the trigger there is that you may mistake the clueless for
the deliberately ignorant, which is almost certainly not going to lead
to enlightenment...
OK, that was way too long to essentially just be a plea for patience
and giving people the benefit of the doubt until they're proven to be
Andrew. <insert smiley thing here>
On the other hand, I really enjoy watching the fights (from a safe
distance).
Hope that helps,
the _other_ Alex
Jeff Haar <kit3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I want you to understand this. I respond
> to your posts because you are a bully.
Jeff, I haven't ever seen Derek take someone to task unless they were trying
to justify complete and utter stupidity.
If you can reference such a time where Derek has ever done that, I'll give
you a free badge to Origins and free entry into every WW event that I run.
> You select alex as the target of your attacks because you can.
Alex selected himself as the target by acting stupidly. The environment
where Alex chose to act stupidly happens to include Derek. Derek is one of
those guys that doesn't take well to allowing people to continue acting
stupidly without trying to help them understand that they're acting
stupidly. Now, if the person acting stupidly happens to be sensitive about
his stupidity, then YOU'RE going to blame DEREK when the stupid person
starts whining about Derek being stern with him?
>You push the issue and when it is apparant that alex doesn't care
> enough to argue with you, you then declare yourself the victor.
When someone "doesn't care enough" to continue the discussion, it becomes
VERY suspicious -- and usually VERY obvious -- that the person CAN'T
continue the discussion.
This is obvious to anyone paying attention.
> I wonder, the victor of what? I will be the first
> to award you 1st place in the asshole competition.
Just because people start whining about putting forth points of view which
are badly thought out and indefensible on their part doesn't mean that Derek
is an asshole.
Last year, someone on the newsgroup claimed that I was making "irrational
conclusions" and told me to "chill out and relax" because I have my Prince
title in my .sig. This was in reply to a humor-based post with smileys in
it, and lots of other users saying that they recognized the sarcasm and
humor. I told him to go fuck himself. Does that make me an asshole?
> Couldn't you do something more productive with your time. There are
> MANY things wrong with the world. In no way do I suggest that it is
> your responsability to better the world, however, I will point out
> that far worse things happen every second then what alex did. If you
> have as much energy and time on your hands as it seems you do you
> could pick a more worthy cause and save the dolphins or whatever.
Pointing out that "far worse things happen every second then what alex did"
is a poor attempt on your part to obfuscate the fact that alex acted
stupidly.
> I hope that I was sucsessful in conveying a tone of disgust as well as
> suggestion for possible improvement but in no way the image of some
> sort of assinine touch down dance.
No, just the image of someone that doesn't define terms well, and yet tries
to obfuscate Alex's stupidity. :(
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"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
> Congratulations! Because of members like you in the V:TES community,
> the overall trust we have in each other has significantly diminished.
> Any ideas in the future will obviously have to have strict constraints
> on secrecy, and NDAs all around. And so we take another step closer
> to
> Magic...
>
> It's a shame, but I suppose it had to happen sometime.
>
> -- Derek
I guess you're right Derek.
For me, what I have quoted is the conclusion of this flamewar. Enough said.
What a pity !
Nagaraja
Kevin M. wrote:
> Jeff Haar <kit3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I want you to understand this. I respond
>>to your posts because you are a bully.>
>
> Jeff, I haven't ever seen Derek take someone to task unless they were trying
> to justify complete and utter stupidity.
>
> If you can reference such a time where Derek has ever done that, I'll give
> you a free badge to Origins and free entry into every WW event that I run.
DAmn, you have set the Bar rather high here?
>>>>You push the issue and when it is apparant that alex doesn't care
>>enough to argue with you, you then declare yourself the victor.>
>
> When someone "doesn't care enough" to continue the discussion, it becomes
> VERY suspicious -- and usually VERY obvious -- that the person CAN'T
> continue the discussion.
>
> This is obvious to anyone paying attention.
It was very obvious to me. I wasn't even really paying attention.
>
>
> Pointing out that "far worse things happen every second then what alex did"
> is a poor attempt on your part to obfuscate the fact that alex acted
> stupidly.
Personnally I take offense at the thin defense that, "its Ok to be
stupid/Offensive/Mean/Violent/Ect. simply because I'm not as bad as..."
So basically what that means is I ain't killed 30 million people yet, so
I'm a SAint. right.
I'll send Noal over to send you on your way to Sain't hood, but don't
wait for the Pope to approve it.
I really wish people would head in the other direction and start off
with I'm Nicer than...., rather than I'm not as big an Asshole as....
Raille
Kevin M. expounded:
> Jeff Haar <kit3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I want you to understand this. I respond
> > to your posts because you are a bully.
>
> Jeff, I haven't ever seen Derek take someone to task unless they were trying
> to justify complete and utter stupidity.
Please define "take someone to task".
In message <b149e44597f82010...@news.teranews.com>,
Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about:
>I really wish people would head in the other direction and start off
>with I'm Nicer than...., rather than I'm not as big an Asshole as....
I'm nicer than Hitler.
SHIT! Godwin's Law. I lose.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<8Bz6c.43607$Zp.15986@fed1read07>...
> Last year, someone on the newsgroup claimed that I was making "irrational
> conclusions" and told me to "chill out and relax" because I have my Prince
> title in my .sig. This was in reply to a humor-based post with smileys in
> it, and lots of other users saying that they recognized the sarcasm and
> humor. I told him to go fuck himself. Does that make me an asshole?
>
Yes; you could have chosen a more polite phrasing, at the least. Mind,
I'm not convinced that what you intended to do alone would make you an
asshole.
> > Couldn't you do something more productive with your time. There are
> > MANY things wrong with the world. In no way do I suggest that it is
> > your responsability to better the world, however, I will point out
> > that far worse things happen every second then what alex did. If you
> > have as much energy and time on your hands as it seems you do you
> > could pick a more worthy cause and save the dolphins or whatever.
>
> Pointing out that "far worse things happen every second then what alex did"
> is a poor attempt on your part to obfuscate the fact that alex acted
> stupidly.
I think that Jeff has accepted that Alex acted stupidly, and he does
not seem to defend Alex, either; no obfuscation I can see.
His statement is of course true, although it makes little sense in a
purely V:TES environment. And since I prefer not to pull in religion
or politics...
>
> > I hope that I was sucsessful in conveying a tone of disgust as well as
> > suggestion for possible improvement but in no way the image of some
> > sort of assinine touch down dance.
>
> No, just the image of someone that doesn't define terms well, and yet tries
> to obfuscate Alex's stupidity. :(
>
>
> Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
> "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
At least you have telling quotes. And you *do* seem to know yourself,
which is laudable. Wish it helped, though.
Patrick
Columbus, OH
LSJ wrote:
> Posts "should be" limited to 80 columns
Bonus points to the person that can tell me why the value of 80
columns became the default.
Regards,
Noal
On 20 Mar 2004 21:28:31 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald)
scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
it's how wide screens were at the time usenet started off?
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
In message <bb705c59.04032...@posting.google.com>,
dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) mumbled something about:
[ quoted text not captured ]
80-column punch cards.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Derek Ray wrote:
> 80-column punch cards.
Awesome!
Kind of like (according to tale) how the reason that train track rails are
still spaced apart like they are 'cause of the width of Roman chariot
wheels...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Derek Ray wrote:
> (Noal McDonald) mumbled something about:
> >LSJ wrote:
> >> Posts "should be" limited to 80 columns
> >
> >Bonus points to the person that can tell me why the value of 80
> >columns became the default.
>
> 80-column punch cards.
*ding* *ding* *ding*
We have a winner. There were also 98 column punch cards, but the 80
column variety were more popular.
Regards,
Noal
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:21:50 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I'm nicer than Hitler.
>
>SHIT! Godwin's Law. I lose.
You know that doesn't work, Derek. :P
Try again. :)
Xian
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> Kind of like (according to tale) how the reason that train track
> rails are still spaced apart like they are 'cause of the width of
> Roman chariot wheels...
Unfortunately, a false tale:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm> Peter D Bakija
> pd...@lightlink.com
> http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Kevin M." wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > Kind of like (according to tale) how the reason that train track
> > rails are still spaced apart like they are 'cause of the width of
> > Roman chariot wheels...
>
> Unfortunately, a false tale:
> http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm
Not completely. Read the whole thing. Train tracks *are* the width of
Roman chariot wheels. However, the standard today had more to do with
coincidence than anything else.
Regards,
Noal
Kevin M. wrote:
> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>>Kind of like (according to tale) how the reason that train track
>>rails are still spaced apart like they are 'cause of the width of
>>Roman chariot wheels...>
>
> Unfortunately, a false tale:
> http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm
>
Aw, you beat me to this one.
Raille