PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

Page 36 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cce5a5c27ef5cc0989a2e@news.iskon.hr...
> bradd+news@szonye.com wrote:
>
> > MSB also claims that the irrelevant personal details are
> > not fallacies. I insist that this claim is not only intellectually
> > dishonest, but that it's also the variety of dishonesty that smells
like
> > lemon juice.
>
> Eh? I don't get this last metaphor (or whatever it is).

Its a reference to the juice wearing article. Bradd is implying that MSB
may be blind to the extent of his [alleged] dishonesty due to
incompetence.

I say alleged because I'm only skimming the thread (it's boring).
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>>You can hamfist a good idea by making it stupid, like ragemonsters.
>>Delicacy makes for a more interesting experience, and better roleplaying.
> If the berries bring forth the most nastiest monster ever to walk the earth
> or if it's something innocuously stupid, it's *STILL* hamfisted, because
> they have ALWAYS been referred to as BERRIES, not EGGS. It's not *WHAT* the
> something is that comes out of the berries, it's *THAT* something comes out
> of the berries, that makes it hamfisted.

It's the player's fault for not having a higher "Bardic Lore/Survival/Knowledge:
Plants/Knowledge: Daemoneology/Commune/Legend Lore/ or whathaveyou to determine
their true nature.

If you worry about how left-field it might be, then the DM can introduce a minor
side story of increases in normal common folks who rage unexpectedly. Which can
be attributed to the berries, the Rage Demons hatching unexpectedly and killing
folks, or the influence of whomever made the berries.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xx19e.8504$yq6.4769@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> No, I am not. The battle was waged and won, quite decisively. A very
> thorough exploration of the limits of this claim has already been made. It
> sent Chrissie running for the hills in concession - because it is *right*.
> You have a similar habit (as does Goslin) of simply running from the
> decisive arguments, or snipping them and petulantly mischaracterizing
them,
> and so I don't have any doubt that you - being far too proud to admit that
> you've been spanked in your own back yard - will never admit it, but the
> matter *is* settled.

You have a habit of declaring victory based on the volume and quantity of
your own bluster. You write pages and pages of bluster, working under the
assumption(the correct assumption) that nobody will bother to correct the
reams of mistakes you make. Then you claim victory based on the fact that
your arguments are so utterly stupid and pointless (and long winded, most
importantly) that we do not even bother to rebut them.

Simply put, the quantity of logical mistakes you make is so staggering and
so vociferously defended as correct that there is both no point in
correcting you in the first place and no point in correcting your pitiful
defense of those mistakes. You are so completely sure and completely wrong
about the truth of your position that there is no point in correcting you on
anything but a cursory level.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:14:11 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> There are differences enough. Pull a raspberry off the vine, and you get a
> fairly sturdy cone with a hollowed out base.

Most of the raspberries I've picked have either come apart into
individual spheres, or have been roughly spherical clusters of
spheres.

> The point remains however, saying that "berries are berries" is exceedingly
> disingenous when there is so much variety to be had.

Oh yeah.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:35:52 +1200, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
scribed into the ether:

>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:14:11 GMT, Matt Frisch
><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> There are differences enough. Pull a raspberry off the vine, and you get a
>> fairly sturdy cone with a hollowed out base.
>
>Most of the raspberries I've picked have either come apart into
>individual spheres, or have been roughly spherical clusters of
>spheres.

You pick them too ripe :)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:15:49 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> >Lychees. I'm not sure if that's the correct spelling (actually
> >transliteration, I suppose).
>
> Cranberries have a very hard outer shell, comparable to other berries.
> Harder than most chicken eggs I've seen.

Lychees have a hard outer shell, too. Cranberries I don't know much
about - what's usually called a cranberry over here (an import from
southern Africa, I think) is very different from the US cranberry -
it's a red skinned berry with a soft white flesh, and makes very nice
fruit pies and such, but hasn't much potential for juicing.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>"Jeff Goslin" wrote:
<snip comparison between backbiter spear and berry/eggs>
>It would NOT be hamfisted if it were set up in such a way that would allow
>the DM to truthfully claim that this was his intention all along. Giving
>a -1 Spear is INTENTIONAL, on the DM's part. This is a kludge. The
>berries
>aren't berries, they are uh, eggs, yeah that's the ticket, eggs, yeah.


How is this different than:

Giving Rage/Egg Berries is INTENTIONAL, on the DM's part. This is a
kludge. The spear isn't a spear, it is uh, cursed, yeah that's the
ticket, cursed, yeah.

--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:874qe3nxzi.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> > Is observing that someone has proven unable to participate in
> > honest debate ad hominem fallacy? IS IT?
>
> Without supplying proof in that observation, all you are doing is
> *asserting* that someone is unable to participate in honest
> debate. And in that case, yes it would be an ad hominem fallacy.

Precisely my point. His simply stating that it's so doesn't necessarily
make it so.

> Unfortunately, this *is* a common debating tactic on Usenet, so it
> doesn't surprise me that people tend to read implications in your
> statements that you yourself do not mean to be there. They're wrong.

Except for the fact that he DID mean to imply what was implied.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fEa9e.8700$yq6.7227@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Simply put, the quantity of logical mistakes you make is so staggering
and
> > so vociferously defended as correct that there is both no point in
> > correcting you in the first place and no point in correcting your
pitiful
> > defense of those mistakes.
>
> And yet, you cannot seem to show us a single one, you *pussy*.

Actually, just recently, I actually bothered to show how the "logic" you use
was incorrect. See the example clearly displaying ad hominem recently.

> If there are so many, why can't you PROVE YOUR ARGUMENT that they
exist?

I have, on more than one occassion, you simply refuse to acknowledge that
such proof has been provided. You may google the proof at your liesure, not
like I expect you to actually do it, nor do I expect any response other than
"nuh-uh" in any case.

> If they are so easily disproven, why can't you PROVE YOUR ARGUMENT
that
> they are?

I already have, multiple times, you've simply ignored it.

> SIX TIMES now, you have commented on the arguments presented to you,
> without addressing the substance of a *single* *one*.

There is no point. I realize that actually addressing your "arguments"(such
as they are) is a pointless endeavor. They will simply be met with bluster
and foam to replace the bluster and foam that I would respond to. So why
bother actually responding. Instead, I shall use ad hominem attacks and
refer to you as a petulent child, unworthy of being considered sentient.

> "I don't have to respond to the argument because it's really really
> wrong!"
>
> How ... *convincing*.

It's not MEANT to be convincing. It's simply meant to be a reflection of
the reality you present us.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> > > Haven't jumped on the Eberron bus yet. I'm probably missing quite a
> > > bit.
> >
> > IIRC about your campaign being set in an Oriental world going throuh a
> > magical equivalent of industrial revolution (albeit an environment
> > friendlier one), with water elementals powering waterwheels and such...
> > I'd say you are.
>
> You have yet to steer me wrong with your recommendations, but I should
> say that we didn't go with the Oriental setting after all. I wanted to
> take L&L's "Sorcery and Steam" for a spin, so we're doing a coal-and-smoke

The Ashblack district of Sharn, first impression: "The air is filled
with the smell of smoke and sulfur, and the walls are covered with ash.
The constant rumble of the forges and foundries shakes youre feet and
makes conversation difficult."

> urban intrigue/investigation thing. The rise of steel barons,

House Cannith.

> rogue alchemy,

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/sharn_gallery/84582.jpg

> and organized crime

Sharn Chapter 5: Guilds and Organizations: Organized Crime, p. 149.

> against the fall of medieval rule, and all that.
> Even so, that campaign has been on hiatus for over two months now; who
> knows what we'll do when we finally get back to the table.

Yes, well, there's no accounting for Real Life. :)

> > The book has some great setting material and some great mechanics (and
> > some not so great, but eh). It's well worth getting, IMO.
>
> Noted, although my eye is on the "Complete" series at the moment. That
> said, how well do you think Sharn would work as an idea mine without
> Eberron to back it up?

I read both, so I can't quite judge how much of Sharn expects you to
know terms and relationships described in Eberron, but I'd say it should
work well. If there's anything that's not clear from Sharn itself, or
from context, you can always get the basic info here or on the
webforums.

And Sharn could really fit in with what your doing, it seems. For all
that Eberron claims not to be steampunk (and it isn't, really), it's not
hard to find some elements and emphasize them, especially in the
magically intustrialized Sharn.

It's a shame you'd be missing the artificer class from Eberron, though,
which should be a fine addition to any magically industrial setting.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wtednfgXPI5cu_jfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>
> "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
> news:g-udnWeYW56xIfnfRVnytw@pipex.net...
>
> > Never heard of them (Boisenberries)!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boysenberry

Californian eh? Nothing good ever came out of or lived in California!
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:Jrudna0CX_ZvuvjfRVnyiQ@pipex.net...
>
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wtednfgXPI5cu_jfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
>> news:g-udnWeYW56xIfnfRVnytw@pipex.net...
>>
>> > Never heard of them (Boisenberries)!
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boysenberry
>
> Californian eh? Nothing good ever came out of or lived in California!

I would give you a raspberry right now, but that would be too poetic.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> Another example would be, I suppose, Justin Bacon when he begins
losing
> arguments. His defensive mechanism is to call people liar over and
> over and over and over.

Bah. I've never lost an argument in my life. Nor have I ever called
someone a liar. I can't believe you'd post such lies, you filthy liar.

😉

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said

> "Matt Frisch" wrote
>> The point remains however, saying that "berries are berries" is
>> exceedingly disingenous when there is so much variety to be had.
>
> The point being made was not that berries are berries, but that a
> person would be able to tell the fundamental difference between a
> berry and an egg.

LOL. I'm sure I could design a blind test where someone was unable to
tell the difference between a berry and an egg. You're ignoring the
variability in eggs.

> Berries have "berrylike" qualities.

What would that be? That they're round or spherical? That they contain
a food source for animals?

> Eggs have "egglike" qualities.

What would that be? That they're round or spherical? That they contain
a food source for animals?

> A person would be able to say X is a berry and Y
> is an egg, from a very GENERAL perspective.

I think this is what Bradd means by wearing the juice.

> As noted before, there
> are a wide variety of both berries and eggs, but the two things,
> despite being internally different and composed of a wide variety of
> possible choices, the simple fact remains that eggs and berries share
> little in common.

Actually they share more in common then they have differences. <MSB>
Moron </MSB>

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns963DC53095A0Frsingers@IP-Hidden...
> Actually they share more in common then they have differences. <MSB>
> Moron </MSB>

It's stunning to me that you would claim that YOU could not tell the
difference between a berry and an egg. Absolutely stunning. Somehow you
are convinced that *I* am the moron because I actually *CAN* tell the
difference between a berry and an egg.

Believe me, if you can't tell the difference between a berry and an egg
after seeing, smelling, feeling, and tasting each, it is not *I* who is the
moron. There's simply not much more that needs to be said.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Rupert Boleyn said

> Lychees have a hard outer shell, too. Cranberries I don't know much
> about - what's usually called a cranberry over here (an import from
> southern Africa, I think) is very different from the US cranberry -
> it's a red skinned berry with a soft white flesh, and makes very nice
> fruit pies and such, but hasn't much potential for juicing.

Really? We get Cranberrys similiar to Blueberrys and Cranberrys which are
really some form of swamp guava. So which one are you refering to?

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <xa6dnWeNweMJrfjfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns963DC53095A0Frsingers@IP-Hidden...
>> Actually they share more in common then they have differences. <MSB>
>> Moron </MSB>
>
>It's stunning to me that you would claim that YOU could not tell the
>difference between a berry and an egg. Absolutely stunning. Somehow you
>are convinced that *I* am the moron because I actually *CAN* tell the
>difference between a berry and an egg.

IIRC he said there are some kinds of (unusual) berry that are hard to tell
from some kinds of (unusual) egg. I don't know this is true of false from my
own experience, but find it quite believable.

Especially if either (or both) is from Down Under! :)
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d43mta$f0s$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> In article <xa6dnWeNweMJrfjfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns963DC53095A0Frsingers@IP-Hidden...
> >> Actually they share more in common then they have differences. <MSB>
> >> Moron </MSB>
> >
> >It's stunning to me that you would claim that YOU could not tell the
> >difference between a berry and an egg. Absolutely stunning. Somehow you
> >are convinced that *I* am the moron because I actually *CAN* tell the
> >difference between a berry and an egg.
>
> IIRC he said there are some kinds of (unusual) berry that are hard to tell
> from some kinds of (unusual) egg. I don't know this is true of false from
my
> own experience, but find it quite believable.
>
> Especially if either (or both) is from Down Under! :)

Mostly I find it amusing that you would use the fact that there ARE
exceptions to show how wrong I am, when I am speaking in general terms.
Yes, I understand and accept and appreciate that there will be exceptions to
the general rule. But in general terms, eggs are egglike and berries are
berrylike. The exceptions will be just that, exceptions, but in general,
people have no trouble saying that one is a berry and one is an egg.

I also find it very believable that there is some "berrylike egg" and
likewise an "egglike berry" to be found somewhere in nature. After all,
nature makes up some wacky stuff(platypus, eg). But that doesn't mean it's
a standard thing for people to accept that as "normal".

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> MSB *does* *not* assassinate character in order to impugn arguments.

Bradd wrote:
>> Irrelevant.

> Very relevant. *That's where the fallacy comes from*.

Incorrect. The informal fallacies apply both when the speaker commits an
error in reasoning and when the speaker leads others to commit errors in
reasoning. You often gloat about the latter. Laying a trap for your
opponent like that is a fallacy just as much as using the irrelevant
claims to support your argument.

The only time an irrelevant, prejudicial remark is /not/ a fallacy is
when all parties are aware of the logical irrelevance and recognize that
its value is purely psychological. It's not too unusual to see a speaker
argue thus: "If you're having trouble accepting my reasons, consider
this ...." The idea here is that you offer psychological reasons to
overcome the other side's biases, to make your argument both logical and
psychologically palatable. That's why pure rhetoric isn't always a
fallacy. However, if you disguise the psychological "argument" as a
logical argument, or if you use it to distract or bait your opponent,
you've committed a fallacy or laid a trap for your opponent to commit
one, and that's a bad argument.

> Repeating *yourself* about *nonexistent* genetive fallacies doesn't
> make the charge valid .... Comments on why courtrooms are
> inappropriate places for personal attacks are *irrelevant*. This is
> not a courtroom.

If you read legal sources, including those I've already quoted, you'll
see attorneys, judges, and bar associations condemning ad hominem
remarks because they generally are unpersuasive, hostile, prejudicial,
foolish, and sanctionable. If you read critical-thinking textbooks,
you'll see them condemn ad hominem fallacy because it generally is
illogical, hostile, foolish, and provocative. The only substantial
difference between the two is that lawyers can get fined or disbarred
for committing the fallacy.

You have repeatedly claimed that courtrooms are different, but you have
not established that the difference is substantial or relevant. Until
you do, you are guilty of the genitive fallacy.

> The only point of intersection between here and there in your cite is
> on the un-persuasiveness of personal attacks ....

Untrue. You personally believe that respect and reputation are
irrelevant on Usenet. However, your belief is far from universal, and
furthermore it's irrelevant to the definition of ad hominem fallacy --
unless you're advocating a different definition for Usenet.

The only place where the legal guidelines differ from general usage is
that lawyers can get in professional trouble for committing ad hominem
fallacies.

>>>> Our local logic expert, Jeff Heikkinen confirmed that your
>>>> definition is not the only one in wide use.

> Tsk. "Wide use" is the cheater word, Bradd. There is a very specific
> context for that alternate perspective which *is* *not* *ours*.

What specific context? My encyclopedic sources agreed with the legal
sources. That's not a "very specific context." It looks like you're
trying to pigeonhole the legal sources, with no basis in fact.

> The fact that institutions interested in *unentertaining* and sterile
> debates consider personal attacks inappropriate distractions from
> their work and therefore poor *quality* arguments has no bearing on
> whether or not mockery is actually representative of bad thinking.

So you are advocating a different definition for Usenet?

>> Unfortunately for you, since you don't study logic or rhetoric, you
>> missed the whole part where philosophers, lawyers, and just about all
>> practitioners of critical thinking put your debate tactics in the
>> "bad argument" file. They call them "fallacies" for exactly the same
>> reason they call illogical arguments fallacies -- they add nothing
>> but misinformation.

> Incorrect, Braddie boy. They call slightly different debate tactics
> "bad arguments" ....

No, they all agree on that. They only differ in the consequences:
Lawyers can suffer professional sanctions; amateur philosophers cannot.

> ... all of your assumptions ignore ENTERTAINMENT VALUE as a motivation
> for behaviour.

An entertaining bad argument is still a bad argument.

>>> You're actually stuck insisting that suggesting we killfile someone
>>> for their sins is ad hominem fallacy!

>> Not only is it ad hominem fallacy, it's a very commonly-cited form of it.

> NO IT IS *NOT*. Your claim on this point is a blatant case of
> equivocation fallacy, as has already been explained to you --

Repeating this still doesn't make it true.

Go ahead, declare victory by fiat again.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <iIOdnaM1IP6m-PjfRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>news:d43mta$f0s$1@knot.queensu.ca...
>> In article <xa6dnWeNweMJrfjfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
>> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >It's stunning to me that you would claim that YOU could not tell the
>> >difference between a berry and an egg. Absolutely stunning. Somehow you
>> >are convinced that *I* am the moron because I actually *CAN* tell the
>> >difference between a berry and an egg.
>>
>> IIRC he said there are some kinds of (unusual) berry that are hard to tell
>> from some kinds of (unusual) egg. I don't know this is true of false from
>my
>> own experience, but find it quite believable.
>>
>> Especially if either (or both) is from Down Under! :)
>
>Mostly I find it amusing that you would use the fact that there ARE
>exceptions to show how wrong I am, when I am speaking in general terms.

I haven't joined the "let's flame Jeff for fun" brigade, but I think I have to
agree with some of them that your writing tends to make absolutist statments
about over-generalizations. And I don't think I'm just picking nits, either.
To me the previous posters on the subject of "can't tell an egg from a berry"
were clearly talking about unusual cases, which you overgeneralized to say
they can't tell any berries from any eggs.

All of which is basically the same as what I said last time, only with less
humour and more words.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "David Alex Lamb" wrote
>
> > IIRC he said there are some kinds of (unusual) berry that are hard to
tell
> > from some kinds of (unusual) egg. I don't know this is true of false
from
> my
> > own experience, but find it quite believable.
> >
> > Especially if either (or both) is from Down Under! :)
>
> Mostly I find it amusing that you would use the fact that there ARE
> exceptions to show how wrong I am, when I am speaking in general terms.
> Yes, I understand and accept and appreciate that there will be exceptions
to
> the general rule. But in general terms, eggs are egglike and berries are
> berrylike. The exceptions will be just that, exceptions, but in general,
> people have no trouble saying that one is a berry and one is an egg.

So what is it, specifically, that makes an egg "Egglike" and a berry
"Berrylike"?


John
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:06:40 GMT, Michael Scott Brown
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:SNGdnf2zo8Og-f7fRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > Presuming that mocking the interlocutor is "attacking their
> credibility"
>> > is a strawman.
>>
>> Not even remotely. Your intent is clear.
>
> MSB's intent is very clear - he's explained his motives and modus
> operandi many times. These do not, however, include bolstering an
> argument
> by discrediting the speaker. We humiliate the speaker *because* of their
> choice to make an easily discredited argument.

We? Why do both of you occasionally refer to yourselves in the third
person? 😵

--
In an old 1E campaign I played in, there was this half-dwarf, half-orc
character. They called him a dorc. -Solomoriah
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:46:48 +0100, "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> scribed into
the ether:

>
>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:wtednfgXPI5cu_jfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
>> news:g-udnWeYW56xIfnfRVnytw@pipex.net...
>>
>> > Never heard of them (Boisenberries)!
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boysenberry
>
>Californian eh? Nothing good ever came out of or lived in California!

You've never had a pie made from them...yum.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said

> "Robert Singers" wrote
>> Actually they share more in common then they have differences. <MSB>
>> Moron </MSB>
>
> It's stunning to me that you would claim that YOU could not tell the
> difference between a berry and an egg. Absolutely stunning. Somehow
> you are convinced that *I* am the moron because I actually *CAN* tell
> the difference between a berry and an egg.

Liar liar pants on fire. I didn't claim that at all Jeff.

> Believe me, if you can't tell the difference between a berry and an
> egg after seeing, smelling, feeling, and tasting each, it is not *I*
> who is the moron. There's simply not much more that needs to be said.

So now you're climing to have eaten every type of egg and every type of
berry there is in existance. Once again I call you a liar Jeff.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:30:09 -0700, Mouse <mail141023@pop.net.invalid>
scribed into the ether:

>>"Jeff Goslin" wrote:
><snip comparison between backbiter spear and berry/eggs>
>>It would NOT be hamfisted if it were set up in such a way that would allow
>>the DM to truthfully claim that this was his intention all along. Giving
>>a -1 Spear is INTENTIONAL, on the DM's part. This is a kludge. The
>>berries
>>aren't berries, they are uh, eggs, yeah that's the ticket, eggs, yeah.
>
>
>How is this different than:
>
>Giving Rage/Egg Berries is INTENTIONAL, on the DM's part. This is a
>kludge. The spear isn't a spear, it is uh, cursed, yeah that's the
>ticket, cursed, yeah.

Jeff apparently doesn't believe in retconning.