G
Guest
Guest
RE: *Sigh*
Sorry about the name and Symbol, I did not realize that I had put that in, I am truly sorry.
Sorry about the name and Symbol, I did not realize that I had put that in, I am truly sorry.
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Septerra Core & FF.
Actually, wait. You have insulted me twice now, and that's it. I will entertain no more arguements from you, The only time, I will anknowledge you exsist is outside this arguement. I will answer no more of your counter-points or counter-arguemnets, and that is that.
Skynet Security Systems
Actually, wait. You have insulted me twice now, and that's it. I will entertain no more arguements from you, The only time, I will anknowledge you exsist is outside this arguement. I will answer no more of your counter-points or counter-arguemnets, and that is that.
Skynet Security Systems
G
Guest
Guest
"Of course I'll do and use things to prove my point, there is nothing wrong with that, how else am I going to argue, sit idly by and hope that the computer will Argue for me?"
No, but you it really looks like you are grasping at straws. Your posts are losing any validity, you just ramble on and on. Half the time you miss the point and go off on a tangent.
"and if so called "circular logic" and "long-winded" posts are the best way to prove my point, then so be it.
But, they aren't proving your point (which should be apparent by now).
"Now then the Dictionary is not a last resort,"
It is for people with some maturity. Basically, you are trying to use the Dictionary to clear up your misconceptions, or to prove that your definition is the only correct one.
"the thing a person does when he is losing an arguement is: Insult the other person, he takes it to a personal level, thats how you know you've won."
Well, then I haven't lost an argument in years. I haven't insulted anyone or taken it to a personal level in a very long time. Does this mean that until someone results to insults the debate is not over? Is it a stalemate? I, honestly, would like to know the rules for debates. Would you post them?
"So let me get this straight, you see only problems with my logic?"
Yes, with this post in particular:
"But I am right. Let me explain. First off Reality is relative, what I know as reality is different from what you know as reality. Second, since the truth is reality and reality is relative, then the truth is relative and what I belive as the truth is differnet from what you know as the truth. So that definition is the truth because I belive it as reality, it is in my reality and therefore the truth, it just seems to make me seem right, but really it is the truth, in my perspective. Now what is CORRECT is when a large group of people see the truth the same way. A thing is correct when a large number of people see it as the truth. But my definition of Cross-Genre is the truth simply because I belive it to be, and yours is wrong because I do not belive it to be right. Of course you think mine is wrong because you do not belive it to be right, and there is nothing wrong with that. Of course there are some UNIVERSAL truths, and this is one of them. Universal truths are truths are always the same and lie deeply buried beneath opinion, universal truths are things you *KNOW* to be true utmostly, for you see when I talked about truth before it really was opinion, beacause opnion drives are life and we improperly see opnion as the Truth. The real truth are the never changing things like what I am talking about, there are a lot of them but they are hard to find, and when you found them you KNOW them you do not just belive them, you KNOW as will everyone who finds them will KNOW them not just belive them. We belive Opinion we KNOW the truth. What we see as the truth is really a misinterpretation of opinion. Now here is Shrodingers Cat method, Until the game comes out we are both correct in our views of it, it is both bad and good, and until the game is re;eased it will stay this way(oh and this is a basis of Quantum Physics). Now then I see we've degraded to insulting me, that's not good. But then again I have questions for you. One, Why do you seem to hate me, what have I done do, you? You call me stupid, yet have you seen any of my work? Do you know my life? I made one mistake (which was not even a mistake) and you call me stupid, with that People Against Stupidity Stuff. That is insulting. Two, why will you not answer my question, Why don't we give this game a chance? Why won't you answer it."
"When I made the first post, I was not looking to get into an arguement,"
The post "Continuation of a Previous Arguement" or "Some Thoughts about new fallout?" With CoaPA, it's obvious you are continuing the argument, thus looking for more debate. With STanf it doesn't look like you are looking for an argument. But, once someone disagreed with your view, you seemed to force it back at them. There wasn't any addition points in your reply.
"Why do you see problems with only my post? Why, Why Why?"
If you really want me to, I can break down that whole bold-italicised paragraph and point everything out to you. Up until then I didn't have any problems with your posts. Sure, you are over adamant about your views; but no more than most people on this board.
"Oh, my last question: Are you going to give this game a chance?"
Am I going to give it a chance? If that means buying it as soon as it comes out - no. If that means being optomistic about it - no. I will watch it from afar and read up on any new info. I won't buy the game until I've read some reviews and I'm fairly certain I'll like it.
BTW: Do you realise how far off tangent we have gone from your original statement? It started off with you explaining why we shouldn't shun the game. Now, defintions and reality are being debated.
Skie
No, but you it really looks like you are grasping at straws. Your posts are losing any validity, you just ramble on and on. Half the time you miss the point and go off on a tangent.
"and if so called "circular logic" and "long-winded" posts are the best way to prove my point, then so be it.
But, they aren't proving your point (which should be apparent by now).
"Now then the Dictionary is not a last resort,"
It is for people with some maturity. Basically, you are trying to use the Dictionary to clear up your misconceptions, or to prove that your definition is the only correct one.
"the thing a person does when he is losing an arguement is: Insult the other person, he takes it to a personal level, thats how you know you've won."
Well, then I haven't lost an argument in years. I haven't insulted anyone or taken it to a personal level in a very long time. Does this mean that until someone results to insults the debate is not over? Is it a stalemate? I, honestly, would like to know the rules for debates. Would you post them?
"So let me get this straight, you see only problems with my logic?"
Yes, with this post in particular:
"But I am right. Let me explain. First off Reality is relative, what I know as reality is different from what you know as reality. Second, since the truth is reality and reality is relative, then the truth is relative and what I belive as the truth is differnet from what you know as the truth. So that definition is the truth because I belive it as reality, it is in my reality and therefore the truth, it just seems to make me seem right, but really it is the truth, in my perspective. Now what is CORRECT is when a large group of people see the truth the same way. A thing is correct when a large number of people see it as the truth. But my definition of Cross-Genre is the truth simply because I belive it to be, and yours is wrong because I do not belive it to be right. Of course you think mine is wrong because you do not belive it to be right, and there is nothing wrong with that. Of course there are some UNIVERSAL truths, and this is one of them. Universal truths are truths are always the same and lie deeply buried beneath opinion, universal truths are things you *KNOW* to be true utmostly, for you see when I talked about truth before it really was opinion, beacause opnion drives are life and we improperly see opnion as the Truth. The real truth are the never changing things like what I am talking about, there are a lot of them but they are hard to find, and when you found them you KNOW them you do not just belive them, you KNOW as will everyone who finds them will KNOW them not just belive them. We belive Opinion we KNOW the truth. What we see as the truth is really a misinterpretation of opinion. Now here is Shrodingers Cat method, Until the game comes out we are both correct in our views of it, it is both bad and good, and until the game is re;eased it will stay this way(oh and this is a basis of Quantum Physics). Now then I see we've degraded to insulting me, that's not good. But then again I have questions for you. One, Why do you seem to hate me, what have I done do, you? You call me stupid, yet have you seen any of my work? Do you know my life? I made one mistake (which was not even a mistake) and you call me stupid, with that People Against Stupidity Stuff. That is insulting. Two, why will you not answer my question, Why don't we give this game a chance? Why won't you answer it."
"When I made the first post, I was not looking to get into an arguement,"
The post "Continuation of a Previous Arguement" or "Some Thoughts about new fallout?" With CoaPA, it's obvious you are continuing the argument, thus looking for more debate. With STanf it doesn't look like you are looking for an argument. But, once someone disagreed with your view, you seemed to force it back at them. There wasn't any addition points in your reply.
"Why do you see problems with only my post? Why, Why Why?"
If you really want me to, I can break down that whole bold-italicised paragraph and point everything out to you. Up until then I didn't have any problems with your posts. Sure, you are over adamant about your views; but no more than most people on this board.
"Oh, my last question: Are you going to give this game a chance?"
Am I going to give it a chance? If that means buying it as soon as it comes out - no. If that means being optomistic about it - no. I will watch it from afar and read up on any new info. I won't buy the game until I've read some reviews and I'm fairly certain I'll like it.
BTW: Do you realise how far off tangent we have gone from your original statement? It started off with you explaining why we shouldn't shun the game. Now, defintions and reality are being debated.
Skie
G
Guest
Guest
Click me...I'm not really important...but please read...
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON May-24-00 AT 12:36PM (GMT)[p]Look at the post previous to this one. (I was going to quote it, but that's just way to much ugly.) Is it not the biggest mess? Honestly, I can't imagine trying to read that...it's like 8 pages of garbage...How many >'s do you need to go back to? It would seem you would only need the persons you are replying to, and only the important information...but instead it's:
>>>>Blah!
>>>Blah blah.
>>>Yadda, yipity scipity.
>>Snirf nyat nip...?
>>Mip bop blah.
>>>Yoink
>Zip! Bang!
>>>>Ok.
Now what?
>>>I ran out of
>>>useless noises
Anyways, do you understand?
Sure they try to be a bit more coherent, but it's a much biger mess.
Skie
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON May-24-00 AT 12:36PM (GMT)[p]Look at the post previous to this one. (I was going to quote it, but that's just way to much ugly.) Is it not the biggest mess? Honestly, I can't imagine trying to read that...it's like 8 pages of garbage...How many >'s do you need to go back to? It would seem you would only need the persons you are replying to, and only the important information...but instead it's:
>>>>Blah!
>>>Blah blah.
>>>Yadda, yipity scipity.
>>Snirf nyat nip...?
>>Mip bop blah.
>>>Yoink
>Zip! Bang!
>>>>Ok.
Now what?
>>>I ran out of
>>>useless noises
Anyways, do you understand?
Sure they try to be a bit more coherent, but it's a much biger mess.
Skie
G
Guest
Guest
Alright, one I realize how far off Topic we are.
It looks like I am grasping at straws but I am not. I am explaining something so that when i use it later, people will understand what I am talking about.
All right I admit it, I should have made my posts a bit cleaer they do get confusing, I am sorry.
So you are going to watch from afar, good. Now let me clear up something that some might not know. I am not overly optomistic I do not thing the game will be good or bad, I am waiting and seeing, I am neutral. I am also not defending the game by saying It WILL be good. I am saying that lets just wait and see, and at least give it a chance b/c no one knows if it will be bad or good.
About the insulting, when somebody does you knwo you've won, but I did not say its the only way. there are lots of ways to win and lose.
CoPA, I made this by the time the "disscussion" had already become an arguement so I thought it would be the best title and I thought the other post was getting too long so I made another one.
I do not belive there are written rules for debates, but you have to makle rules for each one since each is defferent, It is sort of that "Every plan is flawless until it is actually intiated" mentality.
You said you are not optomistic about it, but are you pessimistic about it? (real question not a mocking one)
and lastly, although I had some thoughts in the beggining I do not think I am going to change my opponents mind, I have said enough to let any undecided person who reads it make up there mind about which way they want to go, and so lets end this arguement here and now, we've said all that can be said. BTW I would like to commened you both for your argueing skills, especially Skie.
BTW: Skie please answer my question still.
I do not belive there is anything left to say.
Skynet Security Systems Logging off....
It looks like I am grasping at straws but I am not. I am explaining something so that when i use it later, people will understand what I am talking about.
All right I admit it, I should have made my posts a bit cleaer they do get confusing, I am sorry.
So you are going to watch from afar, good. Now let me clear up something that some might not know. I am not overly optomistic I do not thing the game will be good or bad, I am waiting and seeing, I am neutral. I am also not defending the game by saying It WILL be good. I am saying that lets just wait and see, and at least give it a chance b/c no one knows if it will be bad or good.
About the insulting, when somebody does you knwo you've won, but I did not say its the only way. there are lots of ways to win and lose.
CoPA, I made this by the time the "disscussion" had already become an arguement so I thought it would be the best title and I thought the other post was getting too long so I made another one.
I do not belive there are written rules for debates, but you have to makle rules for each one since each is defferent, It is sort of that "Every plan is flawless until it is actually intiated" mentality.
You said you are not optomistic about it, but are you pessimistic about it? (real question not a mocking one)
and lastly, although I had some thoughts in the beggining I do not think I am going to change my opponents mind, I have said enough to let any undecided person who reads it make up there mind about which way they want to go, and so lets end this arguement here and now, we've said all that can be said. BTW I would like to commened you both for your argueing skills, especially Skie.
BTW: Skie please answer my question still.
I do not belive there is anything left to say.
Skynet Security Systems Logging off....
G
Guest
Guest
"You said you are not optomistic about it, but are you pessimistic about it?"
I'm pessimistic about it. Generally, companies that have made sub-par games, never make a great game. I don't know of any great game that 14° East have developed. From what I can tell, the two that I could find reviews on, didn't do especially well.
Invictus - 4.7 out of 10 - "There are other problems with Invictus, but the true death knell is that the missions aren't fun, inspired, or particularly challenging. They might be timed, or they might hinge on locating an object or person - but whatever the goal is, it feels contrived."
Star Trek: Starfleet Command - "Yet another addition to the long and proud tradition of crappy Star Trek games."
I've noticed (from reading the reviews) that they tend to have problems programming good AI routines. I can't imagine a good tactical game with poor AI. Sure, this isn't a problem with multi-player; but I shouldn't be condemmed to multi-player for a good gaming experience.
The only redeeming feature is Chris Taylor, maybe he can set them on the right path.
Skie
I'm pessimistic about it. Generally, companies that have made sub-par games, never make a great game. I don't know of any great game that 14° East have developed. From what I can tell, the two that I could find reviews on, didn't do especially well.
Invictus - 4.7 out of 10 - "There are other problems with Invictus, but the true death knell is that the missions aren't fun, inspired, or particularly challenging. They might be timed, or they might hinge on locating an object or person - but whatever the goal is, it feels contrived."
Star Trek: Starfleet Command - "Yet another addition to the long and proud tradition of crappy Star Trek games."
I've noticed (from reading the reviews) that they tend to have problems programming good AI routines. I can't imagine a good tactical game with poor AI. Sure, this isn't a problem with multi-player; but I shouldn't be condemmed to multi-player for a good gaming experience.
The only redeeming feature is Chris Taylor, maybe he can set them on the right path.
Skie
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Just a note
Ok, I didn't even think to check that. So 14 East has only developed one game so far? And the average review was from 60-70%, doesn't fair to well (unless they didn't develop the star trek game...?).
Skie
Ok, I didn't even think to check that. So 14 East has only developed one game so far? And the average review was from 60-70%, doesn't fair to well (unless they didn't develop the star trek game...?).
Skie
G
Guest
Guest
The ignorant and the bold
Hah.
I didn't take the time to read through all the posts, but with my rough check, I noticed some people here deserve to be called: IDIOTS.
I would like to relate to the part which annoyed my most, where SKY NET told Xotor:
"Willingness to be ingorant, is ignorant. If someone is willing to be ignorant he IS ignorant."
What.
Are you a true IDIOT?
Are you a human? maybe you are a ghoul!
Let me explain to you the simple thing that Xotor said, although it wasn't his main point, and although many other things make me think you are an idiot.
Xotor said:
Stupid and ignorant are not the same
Ignorant is someone with the LACK OF KNOWLEDGE of ANYTHING. As he said, you can be even ignorant of the fact your brothers are gay, or that your teacher is on drugs.
Although USUALLY "ignorant" indeed is used to say- "ONE WITH LACK OF GENERAL KNOWLEDGE"
But knowledge, as you know (i hope) is something that you acquire, not something you are born with.
The knowledge you have depends on your memory ability (if you have a damaged brain and you cannot remember anything that occured more than 30 minutes ago, you will have a very difficult life, and almost no knowledge), on your experience in life, this is why most of the time in LIVING CREATURES, and also in humans, adults have more knowledge than children, even if they are homeless or live in tribes in africa.
HE had a very nice definition for STUPID - some one who is willingly ignorant, and avoids acquiring more knowledge, no matter what it is (either he is aware of it, or it is his nature because of his education or because of his parents genes).
People who are not CURIOUS, people who do not seek for knowledge, people who PREFER sitting down and be lazy, or just have fun all the time, instead of LEARNING more, are stupid.
You can LEARN things from even using the computer and WILLING to learn.
A 12 year old who is unwilling to learn more about the computer and all he cares about is the exact things he was taught to do with it (press these 3 buttons, activate game, and play with 4 keys).
Some ANIMALS can be called stupid in that definiton, for their UNCURIOUS nature.
Chimps are very curious, and therfor can have alot of knowledge.
I saw a chimp which knows about 500 symbols, and can communicate with its masters using a board with the symbols on it.
But what did you say about what he told you?
Someone who is willing to be ignorant - IS ignorant.
You didn't even TRY TO UNDERSTAND what the fuck he told you.
You were just stuck to your incorrect definitions of the words.
You completely IGNORED what he said about those two words, ignored what he said about IGNORANT being only one with lack of knowledge of something or many things, and said- "YA BUT WILLING TO BE IGNORANT IS AN ACT OF IGNORANCE"
and look, those words are very similar.
IGNORE
IGNORANT.
makes you wonder...
Klayhamn - ThieFoRent
Hah.
I didn't take the time to read through all the posts, but with my rough check, I noticed some people here deserve to be called: IDIOTS.
I would like to relate to the part which annoyed my most, where SKY NET told Xotor:
"Willingness to be ingorant, is ignorant. If someone is willing to be ignorant he IS ignorant."
What.
Are you a true IDIOT?
Are you a human? maybe you are a ghoul!
Let me explain to you the simple thing that Xotor said, although it wasn't his main point, and although many other things make me think you are an idiot.
Xotor said:
Stupid and ignorant are not the same
Ignorant is someone with the LACK OF KNOWLEDGE of ANYTHING. As he said, you can be even ignorant of the fact your brothers are gay, or that your teacher is on drugs.
Although USUALLY "ignorant" indeed is used to say- "ONE WITH LACK OF GENERAL KNOWLEDGE"
But knowledge, as you know (i hope) is something that you acquire, not something you are born with.
The knowledge you have depends on your memory ability (if you have a damaged brain and you cannot remember anything that occured more than 30 minutes ago, you will have a very difficult life, and almost no knowledge), on your experience in life, this is why most of the time in LIVING CREATURES, and also in humans, adults have more knowledge than children, even if they are homeless or live in tribes in africa.
HE had a very nice definition for STUPID - some one who is willingly ignorant, and avoids acquiring more knowledge, no matter what it is (either he is aware of it, or it is his nature because of his education or because of his parents genes).
People who are not CURIOUS, people who do not seek for knowledge, people who PREFER sitting down and be lazy, or just have fun all the time, instead of LEARNING more, are stupid.
You can LEARN things from even using the computer and WILLING to learn.
A 12 year old who is unwilling to learn more about the computer and all he cares about is the exact things he was taught to do with it (press these 3 buttons, activate game, and play with 4 keys).
Some ANIMALS can be called stupid in that definiton, for their UNCURIOUS nature.
Chimps are very curious, and therfor can have alot of knowledge.
I saw a chimp which knows about 500 symbols, and can communicate with its masters using a board with the symbols on it.
But what did you say about what he told you?
Someone who is willing to be ignorant - IS ignorant.
You didn't even TRY TO UNDERSTAND what the fuck he told you.
You were just stuck to your incorrect definitions of the words.
You completely IGNORED what he said about those two words, ignored what he said about IGNORANT being only one with lack of knowledge of something or many things, and said- "YA BUT WILLING TO BE IGNORANT IS AN ACT OF IGNORANCE"
and look, those words are very similar.
IGNORE
IGNORANT.
makes you wonder...
Klayhamn - ThieFoRent
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
Shucks Skynet..
>Actually, wait. You have insulted
>me twice now, and that's
>it. I will entertain
>no more arguements from you,
> The only time, I
>will anknowledge you exsist is
>outside this arguement. I
>will answer no more of
>your counter-points or counter-arguemnets, and
>that is that.
I am so devastated that you will no longer grace my presence with your inanities. What do you expect I'm going to beg for forgiveness? The fact is that you're wrong and if you're going to be a twit about it, go ahead.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>Actually, wait. You have insulted
>me twice now, and that's
>it. I will entertain
>no more arguements from you,
> The only time, I
>will anknowledge you exsist is
>outside this arguement. I
>will answer no more of
>your counter-points or counter-arguemnets, and
>that is that.
I am so devastated that you will no longer grace my presence with your inanities. What do you expect I'm going to beg for forgiveness? The fact is that you're wrong and if you're going to be a twit about it, go ahead.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
RE: Shucks Skynet..
>I am so devastated that you
>will no longer grace my
>presence with your inanities.
> What do you expect
>I'm going to beg for
>forgiveness? The fact is
>that you're wrong and if
>you're going to be a
>twit about it, go ahead.
>
>
>-Xotor-
Let it rest Xotor. You're an admin. Act like one.
>I am so devastated that you
>will no longer grace my
>presence with your inanities.
> What do you expect
>I'm going to beg for
>forgiveness? The fact is
>that you're wrong and if
>you're going to be a
>twit about it, go ahead.
>
>
>-Xotor-
Let it rest Xotor. You're an admin. Act like one.
G
Guest
Guest
Shadowman....
>>I am so devastated that you
>>will no longer grace my
>>presence with your inanities.
>> What do you expect
>>I'm going to beg for
>>forgiveness? The fact is
>>that you're wrong and if
>>you're going to be a
>>twit about it, go ahead.
>>
>>
>>-Xotor-
>
>Let it rest Xotor. You're an
>admin. Act like one.
Shadowman, there is nothing that says I can't voice my opinion like any other person here, and like any other person here, I'm putting my opinion up for public scrutiny.
If I were to post a I'm-not-going-to-talk-to-you-because-you're-mean message to a person, I should expect the same harsh reply.
Admins do not have to be the neutral party. No, were here only to keep out the crap. Whether we argue with people or not has nothing to do with what we do as an admin.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>>I am so devastated that you
>>will no longer grace my
>>presence with your inanities.
>> What do you expect
>>I'm going to beg for
>>forgiveness? The fact is
>>that you're wrong and if
>>you're going to be a
>>twit about it, go ahead.
>>
>>
>>-Xotor-
>
>Let it rest Xotor. You're an
>admin. Act like one.
Shadowman, there is nothing that says I can't voice my opinion like any other person here, and like any other person here, I'm putting my opinion up for public scrutiny.
If I were to post a I'm-not-going-to-talk-to-you-because-you're-mean message to a person, I should expect the same harsh reply.
Admins do not have to be the neutral party. No, were here only to keep out the crap. Whether we argue with people or not has nothing to do with what we do as an admin.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
RE: Shadowman....
>>>I am so devastated that you
>>>will no longer grace my
>>>presence with your inanities.
>>> What do you expect
>>>I'm going to beg for
>>>forgiveness? The fact is
>>>that you're wrong and if
>>>you're going to be a
>>>twit about it, go ahead.
>>>
>>>
>>>-Xotor-
>>
>>Let it rest Xotor. You're an
>>admin. Act like one.
>
>Shadowman, there is nothing that says
>I can't voice my opinion
>like any other person here,
>and like any other person
>here, I'm putting my opinion
>up for public scrutiny.
>
>If I were to post a
>I'm-not-going-to-talk-to-you-because-you're-mean message to a person,
>I should expect the same
>harsh reply.
>
>Admins do not have to be
>the neutral party. No,
>were here only to keep
>out the crap. Whether
>we argue with people or
>not has nothing to do
>with what we do as
>an admin.
>
>-Xotor-
You do have to set an example for everybody else. That's an obligation we have. If you continue bickering this board will sooner or later turn into a spamfest. Sometimes you have to be the bigger man and call it quits.
>>>I am so devastated that you
>>>will no longer grace my
>>>presence with your inanities.
>>> What do you expect
>>>I'm going to beg for
>>>forgiveness? The fact is
>>>that you're wrong and if
>>>you're going to be a
>>>twit about it, go ahead.
>>>
>>>
>>>-Xotor-
>>
>>Let it rest Xotor. You're an
>>admin. Act like one.
>
>Shadowman, there is nothing that says
>I can't voice my opinion
>like any other person here,
>and like any other person
>here, I'm putting my opinion
>up for public scrutiny.
>
>If I were to post a
>I'm-not-going-to-talk-to-you-because-you're-mean message to a person,
>I should expect the same
>harsh reply.
>
>Admins do not have to be
>the neutral party. No,
>were here only to keep
>out the crap. Whether
>we argue with people or
>not has nothing to do
>with what we do as
>an admin.
>
>-Xotor-
You do have to set an example for everybody else. That's an obligation we have. If you continue bickering this board will sooner or later turn into a spamfest. Sometimes you have to be the bigger man and call it quits.
RE: Shadowman....
>You do have to set an
>example for everybody else. That's
>an obligation we have. If
>you continue bickering this board
>will sooner or later turn
>into a spamfest. Sometimes you
>have to be the bigger
>man and call it quits.
>
Not really. This isn't the UV where the admins are there to wipe everybody's nose for them, protect and pamper them, and then be a willing target for any UV member that has a serious chip on their shoulder.
>You do have to set an
>example for everybody else. That's
>an obligation we have. If
>you continue bickering this board
>will sooner or later turn
>into a spamfest. Sometimes you
>have to be the bigger
>man and call it quits.
>
Not really. This isn't the UV where the admins are there to wipe everybody's nose for them, protect and pamper them, and then be a willing target for any UV member that has a serious chip on their shoulder.
RE: Shadowman....
>Not really. This isn't the
>UV where the admins are
>there to wipe everybody's nose
>for them, protect and pamper
>them, and then be a
>willing target for any UV
>member that has a serious
>chip on their shoulder.
Pardon my french, but I think that's bullshit. Not that I care to discuss it here. And I believe we do have to set an example. We're not above our own laws and we're here to prevent incidents, not to throw gasoline on the fire.
>Not really. This isn't the
>UV where the admins are
>there to wipe everybody's nose
>for them, protect and pamper
>them, and then be a
>willing target for any UV
>member that has a serious
>chip on their shoulder.
Pardon my french, but I think that's bullshit. Not that I care to discuss it here. And I believe we do have to set an example. We're not above our own laws and we're here to prevent incidents, not to throw gasoline on the fire.
G
Guest
Guest
Again Shadowman...
>Pardon my french, but I think
>that's bullshit. Not that I
>care to discuss it here.
>And I believe we do
>have to set an example.
>We're not above our own
>laws and we're here to
>prevent incidents, not to throw
>gasoline on the fire.
Shadowman, of course we're not here to incite trouble, but it is not in our job description to act like prissy teacher-pets.
That message to Skynet: Yeah, it was a bit insulting, but what do you expect a reply to an arrogant I'm-not-talking-to-you-because-you-don't-agree-with-me-and-that's-your-loss post to be?
If he were to not say anything and I were to write something to the effect: "HAHA you lost this argument" I would understand your comment completely, and I would probably feel the wrath of other administrators too, and I should. But when the message is like it is now...
And like Rosh, I really can't stand sentimental messageboards like the UV. The UV used to be a nice place to converse but has since become a bureaucracy where dogmatic "elders" push their conservative ideologies on the rest of the board in the name of "child-friendliness." C'mon, this is the real world, and it isn't always nice.
But I digress. The point is that if you're going to throw your opinions and ideas into the fray you must some to be countered and ripped apart, just don't come crying to the administrators when they do.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>Pardon my french, but I think
>that's bullshit. Not that I
>care to discuss it here.
>And I believe we do
>have to set an example.
>We're not above our own
>laws and we're here to
>prevent incidents, not to throw
>gasoline on the fire.
Shadowman, of course we're not here to incite trouble, but it is not in our job description to act like prissy teacher-pets.
That message to Skynet: Yeah, it was a bit insulting, but what do you expect a reply to an arrogant I'm-not-talking-to-you-because-you-don't-agree-with-me-and-that's-your-loss post to be?
If he were to not say anything and I were to write something to the effect: "HAHA you lost this argument" I would understand your comment completely, and I would probably feel the wrath of other administrators too, and I should. But when the message is like it is now...
And like Rosh, I really can't stand sentimental messageboards like the UV. The UV used to be a nice place to converse but has since become a bureaucracy where dogmatic "elders" push their conservative ideologies on the rest of the board in the name of "child-friendliness." C'mon, this is the real world, and it isn't always nice.
But I digress. The point is that if you're going to throw your opinions and ideas into the fray you must some to be countered and ripped apart, just don't come crying to the administrators when they do.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
RE: Again Shadowman...
>And like Rosh, I really can't
>stand sentimental messageboards like the
>UV. The UV used
>to be a nice place
>to converse but has since
>become a bureaucracy where dogmatic
>"elders" push their conservative ideologies
>on the rest of the
>board in the name of
>"child-friendliness." C'mon, this is
>the real world, and it
>isn't always nice.
>
I know.
Which is why I got disgusted with them for a while, after certain activities were excused comepletely and someone who attacked others at his whim gets excused for it completely.
But as I was intending to point out when I said that, is that I am not going to swallow my opinion and viewpoint back in light of having to play with kid-gloves and be kind. No matter what any twit does on the UV board, you have to be nice to them.
Yecch...
>And like Rosh, I really can't
>stand sentimental messageboards like the
>UV. The UV used
>to be a nice place
>to converse but has since
>become a bureaucracy where dogmatic
>"elders" push their conservative ideologies
>on the rest of the
>board in the name of
>"child-friendliness." C'mon, this is
>the real world, and it
>isn't always nice.
>
I know.
Which is why I got disgusted with them for a while, after certain activities were excused comepletely and someone who attacked others at his whim gets excused for it completely.
But as I was intending to point out when I said that, is that I am not going to swallow my opinion and viewpoint back in light of having to play with kid-gloves and be kind. No matter what any twit does on the UV board, you have to be nice to them.
Yecch...
RE: Again Shadowman...
>
>>Pardon my french, but I think
>>that's bullshit. Not that I
>>care to discuss it here.
>>And I believe we do
>>have to set an example.
>>We're not above our own
>>laws and we're here to
>>prevent incidents, not to throw
>>gasoline on the fire.
>
>Shadowman, of course we're not here
>to incite trouble, but it
>is not in our job
>description to act like prissy
>teacher-pets.
We can't be the teacher's pets because we're the teachers. At least that's how I'd like to view my position as an admin on this board. We're here to educate others about the rules and that also means we have to set the examples. I'm not saying that you shouldn't participate in any discussion or that you have to be mr nice guy all the time, but it's your job to need to know when to pull the plug on a discussion before things get out of hand. And I think this discussion with Skynet was borderline. It drifted so far from the original point that both of you forgot what you were originally talking about.
>And like Rosh, I really can't
>stand sentimental messageboards like the
>UV. The UV used
>to be a nice place
>to converse but has since
>become a bureaucracy where dogmatic
>"elders" push their conservative ideologies
>on the rest of the
>board in the name of
>"child-friendliness." C'mon, this is
>the real world, and it
>isn't always nice.
Well then your view of the UV is very different of mine. Those dogmatic "elders" like you say don't even exist, because the UV has no hierarchical structure. They're not a bureaucracy at all. Maybe you're confused with the order and it's "senate". The UV is not a place where big brother is watching you all the time to see if you're breaking any rules.
>But I digress. The point
>is that if you're going
>to throw your opinions and
>ideas into the fray you
>must some to be countered
>and ripped apart, just don't
>come crying to the administrators
>when they do.
>
>-Xotor-
That wasn't the point of this discussion at all. The point was that you as an administrator should know when to end a conversation. It was on the edge of turning into a flamefest and the subject had become too off-topic. Which is what this discussion is too, so I suggest you mail me if you have anything else to say. In addition I think I better lock this thread too.
>
>>Pardon my french, but I think
>>that's bullshit. Not that I
>>care to discuss it here.
>>And I believe we do
>>have to set an example.
>>We're not above our own
>>laws and we're here to
>>prevent incidents, not to throw
>>gasoline on the fire.
>
>Shadowman, of course we're not here
>to incite trouble, but it
>is not in our job
>description to act like prissy
>teacher-pets.
We can't be the teacher's pets because we're the teachers. At least that's how I'd like to view my position as an admin on this board. We're here to educate others about the rules and that also means we have to set the examples. I'm not saying that you shouldn't participate in any discussion or that you have to be mr nice guy all the time, but it's your job to need to know when to pull the plug on a discussion before things get out of hand. And I think this discussion with Skynet was borderline. It drifted so far from the original point that both of you forgot what you were originally talking about.
>And like Rosh, I really can't
>stand sentimental messageboards like the
>UV. The UV used
>to be a nice place
>to converse but has since
>become a bureaucracy where dogmatic
>"elders" push their conservative ideologies
>on the rest of the
>board in the name of
>"child-friendliness." C'mon, this is
>the real world, and it
>isn't always nice.
Well then your view of the UV is very different of mine. Those dogmatic "elders" like you say don't even exist, because the UV has no hierarchical structure. They're not a bureaucracy at all. Maybe you're confused with the order and it's "senate". The UV is not a place where big brother is watching you all the time to see if you're breaking any rules.
>But I digress. The point
>is that if you're going
>to throw your opinions and
>ideas into the fray you
>must some to be countered
>and ripped apart, just don't
>come crying to the administrators
>when they do.
>
>-Xotor-
That wasn't the point of this discussion at all. The point was that you as an administrator should know when to end a conversation. It was on the edge of turning into a flamefest and the subject had become too off-topic. Which is what this discussion is too, so I suggest you mail me if you have anything else to say. In addition I think I better lock this thread too.