SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4

Jack Simth · #1 June 23rd, 2003, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It is directly implied with every post made that what is stated in said post is the opinion of the poster with every post that is not obviously direct fact, such as stating that APBs do more damage than DUCs. This is why I do not add a lot of frivolous qualifiers such as "I think" or "it is my honest opinion that" to my Posts. Those qualifiers are implied by the very nature of this medium of communication. You are seeing implications where there are none.

In your case, you were quoting him and directly contradicting, which is a different scenerio from stating your opinion on the subject at hand, as Baron Munchausen was doing. The format was one of 'no, you are wrong' rather than one of 'I disagree':

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
you [...] claim it is a great game, when it is not.

You flat out contradicted him, rather than saying you disagree.

.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

It always amazes me when people that frequently post to forums fail to realize that Posts are opinions by default, not factual reports.

=0=

And now for a mostly disjoint subject. Do not take this as any sort of attempt to distract from anything. That is a direct absolute, by the way; no implications are necessary. I'd make it a separate post but doing so would just pad my post count even more.

Apparently most of the other posters in this thread realize this (point in first section), as they also did not throw "I think" qualifiers onto their Posts. Look at BM's post for a good example. Not once does his post include any such qualifiers. It is filled with alleged "implied absolutes." I see no mention of this in your post Jack. Why is this? Why am I being singled out? Why do my Posts deserve special attack? Is it because you do not agree with me? I would hope not, but that is a very logical conclusion to be drawn from me being singled out here.

Nah, BM's post was a different scenario, as I mentioned.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

=0=

quote:
You appear to forget that "good" and "bad" when it comes to things designed for entertainment are entierly subjective.

Only to you, my friend, only to you.

=0=

Quote:

You may not have been picking on him directly, but you were picking on him, especially as the second post in this thread was a specific request for good reports on MOO3.

Oh, the irony. No, I was not picking on him at all. Why do you automatically assume that my disagreeing with his statements is a result of picking on him? That is an unwise assumption to make.

I'm clearly not the only one who thought so - Mephisto mentioned it first, as I recall:

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Ah, don't pick on him, he never said it was a great way.

Besides, you were saying outright that his solution was a bad one, offering no solution of your own, when he was trying to be helpful (to someone else, no less). How is that not picking on him?

Fyron · #2 June 23rd, 2003, 04:24 AM

You completley missed my points, you know.

Jack Simth · #3 June 23rd, 2003, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You completley missed my points, you know.

How so?

Fyron · #4 June 23rd, 2003, 04:28 AM

My main point was that Posts are statements of opinon, not factual reports. Do you agree or disagree with this?

[ June 23, 2003, 03:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth · #5 June 23rd, 2003, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My main point was that Posts are statements of opinon, not factual reports. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Usually so - however, when specifically disagreeing with someone, especially via quoting, you are implying that the other person is objectively wrong when leaving out qualifiers that modify that nature.

Besides, you used the plural when you said I missed your points; that's only one.

Edit: And come to think of it - I did address that one a bit, I just didn't word it so that it was entierly obvious that I was addressing it: I mentioned that BM's case was a different scenerio and I talked about the format of your post.

[ June 23, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron · #6 June 23rd, 2003, 04:48 AM

The presence or lack of direct quotes in a post is irrelevant. It is quite common to post implied opinions after a quote.

BM's post is not a different scenario (at least, not different enough in regard to this issue to be a relevant difference).

=0=

By the way, the "=0=" is a section break, as I thought I made very clear. Different sections were not parts of the same argument, and so should not have been bunched together. Please do not do that in the future. They were deliberately separated for a reason.

=0=

About "points"... I was giving out a free s?

Actually, you seem to have (marginally) addressed my other point(s), so... yeah...

=0=

Is there any point in continuing this? We have bloated down this thread enough already...

[ June 23, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Ragnarok · #7 June 23rd, 2003, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

By the way, the "=0=" is a section break, as I thought I made very clear. Different sections were not parts of the same argument, and so should not have been bunched together. Please do not do that in the future. They were deliberately separated for a reason.

I just have to say this.

You in no way indicated that the "=0=" were section breaks. You said the following at the beginning of the sentance that came after the first "=0=
.

Quote:

And now for a mostly disjoint subject.[...]

By no means did you make it "clear" that those were section breaks in the argument. Your simple statement of "And now for a mostly disjoint subject." does not say what the "=0=" were there for. You just indicated that you were moving onto another point.