PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

In article <vzW8e.10409$lP1.7038@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Equivocation fallacy again. The discussion is of ad hominem
>*comments* - intended to refer to personal attacks in this context - is a
>larger set than the set of personal attacks that are *also* part of
>illogical arguments.

How come you get to introduce the term "ad hominem comments" when you objected
to my use of "ad hominem attack"? In both cases we're introducing a short
term for the purpose of shortening our sentences.
--
"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...)

 

[Guest]

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd68epj.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> > Can you [MSB] at least step back, *critically* think about it, and
> > acknowledge that you *might* be wrong?
>
> Judging by past behavior, no, he can't.

Of course Bradd seemst to be ignoring some rather thorough expositions
of critical thinking done just today ... all those arguments he just snips
and runs from ...

You're as much of a pussy as Goslin.

How does that feel?

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> How is it equivocation when we've been discussing an informal fallacy
>> all along? Or did you not know that? It looks more like you've been
>> caught with a barrel of lemon juice.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Quite true. Ad hominem is such obviously incorrect reasoning I always
> assumed it lived in the formal category. Mea culpa.

Congratulations.

By the way, your explanation is also an example of poor reasoning:

1. Formal fallacies imply incorrect reasoning.
2. Ad hominem is obviously incorrect reasoning.
3. Therefore, ad hominem is a formal fallacy.

That's affirming the consequent, a /formal/ fallacy I've caught you out
on before.

> Amazing, what intellectual honesty looks like, isn't it?

You don't get kudos until you admit to ad hominem fallacy. There's no
reason not to; after all, it's just an "informal fallacy" and therefore
merely "rhetorical shenanigans" and not an error in reasoning --
according to you.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d41e7m$bv1$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> In article <vzW8e.10409$lP1.7038@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Equivocation fallacy again. The discussion is of ad hominem
> >*comments* - intended to refer to personal attacks in this context - is a
> >larger set than the set of personal attacks that are *also* part of
> >illogical arguments.
>
> How come you get to introduce the term "ad hominem comments" when you
objected
> to my use of "ad hominem attack"?

*I* didn't introduce it- the buggered quote that Bradd cited did. I
disagree strongly with their misuse of the term.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd68frb.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
> >> How is it equivocation when we've been discussing an informal fallacy
> >> all along? Or did you not know that? It looks more like you've been
> >> caught with a barrel of lemon juice.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Quite true. Ad hominem is such obviously incorrect reasoning I always
> > assumed it lived in the formal category. Mea culpa.
>
> Congratulations.
> By the way, your explanation is also an example of poor reasoning:

No. It is an example of ignorance. I haven't a clue how fallacies are
categorized - I just know shitty thinking when I see it.
I didn't even know they were so arranged; upon seeing the distinction I
guessed at how they'd break down.

Again and again, you try to trot about with fallacies when there are
none.

Like it or not, Bradd, MSB's "flavour" rhetoric is never a case of ad
hominem fallacy. In your desperate attempt to prove otherwise you have
offered the newsgroup nothing but equivocation fallacies, false appeals to
authority, and a collection of generally absurdist bullshit, not to mention
demonstrated *total cowardice* in refusing to confront (and admit your
mistakes) in the face of decisive arguments.

How pathetic.


-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

MSB wrote:
>>> Equivocation fallacy again. The discussion is of ad hominem
>>> *comments* - intended to refer to personal attacks in this context -
>>> is a larger set than the set of personal attacks that are *also*
>>> part of illogical arguments.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> How come you get to introduce the term "ad hominem comments" when you
>> objected to my use of "ad hominem attack"?

Note that one of my sources includes the quotation, "personal or /ad
hominem attacks/ on them merely distract from the merits of the
litigation" (emphasis mine). I don't know legal citations well enough to
tell for certain, but I think this is from a judge's ruling.

Also, all three of my sources include the phrase "ad hominem comments"
or "ad hominem attacks." One is from a code of professionalism and
ethics, one is a judge's advice to attorneys, and one is from a court
ruling. In contrast, not one of them uses the phrase "ad hominem
fallacy."

> *I* didn't introduce it - the buggered quote that Bradd cited did. I
> disagree strongly with their misuse of the term.

Outside of a philosophy department, you won't find more qualified
experts than the sources I cited. When you're strongly disagreeing with
jargon as used by the people who practice it professionally, you just
might want to consider that you're the one misusing it.

(Inside of a philosophy department, it's too dark to read.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> You can deny it all you want, throw up your smoke screen and pout like
> a petulant little child, but the simple fact of the matter was that
> you EXPLICITLY used an ad hominem attack ....

Please stop agreeing with me.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h-6dnXb1OPb92vnfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > My claim is that because personal attacks are not used to attack an
> > argument AT ALL, *jackass*, they are not ad hominem fallacies.
>
> This position is blatantly, completely and 150% wrong and untrue. It
> doesn't MATTER if a personal attack is used in conjuction with the
argument
> or in the place of an argument, the simple fact is that you use as a form
of
> character assassination to attack the speaker, making it, by default, an
ad
> hominem fallacy.

Um, Jeffie? *That* is what the argument is about - not you. And you,
like a large number of other simpletons, *do* *not* *understand* *logic* if
you believe this. The information is out there, and every single source
you cite disagrees with your contention. The key nuance - mockery only
risks *fallacy* when the it is conducted in order to *undermine an
argument* - completely escapes you.


-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IqY8e.10463$lP1.4322@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> you cite disagrees with your contention. The key nuance - mockery only
> risks *fallacy* when the it is conducted in order to *undermine an
> argument* - completely escapes you.

YOUR PURPOSE WITH YOUR INSULTS IS TO UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
SPEAKER.

THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THAT SIMPLE FACT.

THEREFORE, YOU ARE GUILTY OF AD HOMINEM FALLACY.

For someone who claims to adore logic, you sure don't have a very good grasp
of it.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

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

Regarding the quotation, from a code of professional legal conduct:
>>>>> "A lawyer should bear in mind that ad hominem comments frequently
>>>>> are unpersuasive, increase the level of personal antagonism, and
>>>>> tend to diminish public respect for lawyers and the courts.[1]"

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> Equivocation fallacy again. The discussion is of ad hominem
>>> *comments* - intended to refer to personal attacks in this context -

Bradd wrote:
>> Since when does "ad hominem" refer to anything but the fallacy, in any
>> context? And what part of "unpersuasive" did you not understand?

> A question that gave me pause when reading that passage, but it's a
> common mistake and it's clear that the writer made it.

It is common -- all three of the legal articles I quoted used "ad
hominem comments" or "ad hominem attacks" -- but I disagree that it's a
mistake.

> The context is rather obvious, as "ad hominem fallacy comments" is
> nonsensical English.

How is that nonsensical? It doesn't scan well, because "ad hominem
fallacy" is clunky as an adjective phrase, but it's still meaningful.
Most speakers and writers shorten the adjective phrase to "ad hominem"
in my experience.

> Further, the assertion that {ad hominem comments} "increase the level
> of personal antagonism" is only meaningful in the context of a
> personal attack; because ad hominem *fallacy* can be committed with
> complimentary phrases as well, as well as neutral ones ....

Don't misquote! In the quotation above, the word "frequently" modifies
all three verb phrases, because it precedes the parallel part of speech.
Therefore, the correct quote would be "ad hominem comments frequently
.... increase the level of personal antagonism."

Also, you're guilty of the accident fallacy here:

The logical fallacy of accident, also called destroying the
exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, is a
deductive fallacy occurring in statistical syllogisms (an argument
based on a generalization) when an exception to the generalization
is ignored. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29]

The quotation comes from a list of guidelines -- generalizations -- and
this particular guideline speaks of frequency and tendency. By picking
on an exception to that generalization, and then trying to prove
something from it, you've committed the accident fallacy, just as surely
as somebody who says that surgeons are immoral because they cut people.

> I agree that ad hominem comments - or ad hominem fallacies - are
> unpersuasive. It's a good thing MSB doesnt' try to persuade anyone
> with such things!

When are you going to understand that that doesn't matter?

>> This and the other sources I quoted discussed both the uncivil and
>> the illogical nature of ad hominem fallacy.

> No. Your source discussed the uncivil nature of *personal attacks*.

First, your argument above that "ad hominem comments" is synonymous with
"personal attacks" is bogus, having relied on a red herring and an
accident fallacy. Second, my last source mentioned "personal and ad
hominem attacks," as two separate things.

How does that juice taste? Hasn't it spoiled by now?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> It doesn't MATTER if a personal attack is used in conjuction with the
>> argument or in the place of an argument, the simple fact is that you
>> use as a form of character assassination to attack the speaker,
>> making it, by default, an ad hominem fallacy.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> *That* is what the argument is about .... And you, like a large number
> of other simpletons, *do* *not* *understand* *logic* if you believe
> this.

Begging the question.

> The information is out there, and every single source you cite
> disagrees with your contention.

I haven't kept track of which sources Goslin has cited, but some of the
sources I've used agree with him. You do use a form of character
assassination that fits widely-accepted definitions of poisoning the
well, which is in turn a form of ad hominem fallacy.

You're just too proud to admit it.

> The key nuance - mockery only risks *fallacy* when the it is conducted
> in order to *undermine an argument* -

I've cited encyclopedia entries and legal experts who disagree with you.
Our local logic expert, Jeff Heikkinen confirmed that your definition is
not the only one in wide use. You have admitted to ignorance of some
very basic terminology like "formal" versus "informal" fallacy.

In short, you have demonstrated at least some ignorance of critical-
thinking terminology, yet you have consistently insisted that
professionals "misuse" terms in their own field of expertise. And before
you shout, "Appeal to common practice!" remember that definitions are
all about common practice, and therefore professional usage is relevant.

Even shorter: You're out of your league, juicebag.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Like it or not, Bradd, MSB's "flavour" rhetoric is never a case of ad
> hominem fallacy.

You keep telling yourself that, juicebag.

By the way, the accident fallacy you committed earlier is a deductive
(i.e., formal) fallacy.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd68kt0.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > Further, the assertion that {ad hominem comments} "increase the level
> > of personal antagonism" is only meaningful in the context of a
> > personal attack; because ad hominem *fallacy* can be committed with
> > complimentary phrases as well, as well as neutral ones ....
>
> Don't misquote! In the quotation above, the word "frequently" modifies
> all three verb phrases, because it precedes the parallel part of speech.

That's not remotely clear.

"A lawyer should bear in mind that ad hominem comments frequently
are unpersuasive, increase the level of personal antagonism, and
tend to diminish public respect for lawyers and the courts."

Ad hominem comments frequently are unpersuasive
Ad hominem comments increase the level of personal antagonism
Ad hominem comments tend to diminish respect for lawyers and the courts

Ad hominem comments frequently are unpersuasive
Ad hominem comments frequently increase the level of personal antagonism
Ad hominem comments frequently tend to diminish respect for laywers and
the courts

It works either way.

> The quotation comes from a list of guidelines -- generalizations -- and
> this particular guideline speaks of frequency and tendency. By picking
> on an exception to that generalization, and then trying to prove
> something from it, you've committed the accident fallacy, just as surely
> as somebody who says that surgeons are immoral because they cut people.

Incorrect. My interpretation of the passage does not include the
frequently, therefore I cannot have committed the accident fallacy.

You *really* need to actually be *right* with these ridiculous fallacy
accusations one of these days, Bradd.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Further, the assertion that {ad hominem comments} "increase the level
>>> of personal antagonism" is only meaningful in the context of a
>>> personal attack; because ad hominem *fallacy* can be committed with
>>> complimentary phrases as well, as well as neutral ones ....

Bradd wrote:
>> Don't misquote! In the quotation above, the word "frequently" modifies
>> all three verb phrases, because it precedes the parallel part of speech.

> That's not remotely clear.

That's how English grammar works. Furthermore, the whole article is a
list of generalizations, specifically guidelines for professional
conduct, as I noted later in my argument.

>> The quotation comes from a list of guidelines -- generalizations --
>> and this particular guideline speaks of frequency and tendency. By
>> picking on an exception to that generalization, and then trying to
>> prove something from it, you've committed the accident fallacy, just
>> as surely as somebody who says that surgeons are immoral because they
>> cut people.

> Incorrect. My interpretation of the passage does not include the
> frequently, therefore I cannot have committed the accident fallacy.

You pick: You relied on the accident fallacy, or you made a serious
mistake in English reading comprehension. Which is it?

By the way, you really should read up on the history of rhetoric and
critical thinking. The things you dismiss as mere rhetorical nastiness
have been lumped in with incorrect reasoning for a couple thousand
years, when Plato expressed his disgust at the sophists' tactics.

Critical thinking lumps the two together because they have the same
basic form and effect: They cannot logically support an argument, but
can only serve to distract or mislead. To a critical thinker, it doesn't
matter whether you've made an ignorant mistake or deliberately obscured
the argument with irrelevant claims. Both are forms of intellectual
dishonesty: one based in self-deception, the other in deliberate agenda.
If anything, the latter form -- the one you brag about -- is the worse
of the two.

For some bizarre reason, you value reasoning more than honesty, such
that you'll admit to rhetorical shenanigans -- even brag about them --
but deny that you've made a logical error. The funny thing is that your
position on this only shows off your ignorance of critical thinking, the
very thing you claim pride in, because real critical thinkers despise
your kind of fallacy even more than the ignorant kind.

Not that you're all that great at logical reasoning either. In past and
present arguments, I've caught you out on several deductive (formal)
fallacies, including affirming the consequent and the accident fallacy,
two particularly boneheaded mistakes. A good thinker would recognize the
error and correct it. You, apparently, would rather wear your lemon
juice with pride.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> By the way, the accident fallacy you committed earlier is a deductive
>> (i.e., formal) fallacy.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Um, Bradd? There is no fallacy in my interpretation of that passage.
> The fallacy only appears if you assume that I was operating under the
> assumption that "frequently" applied, which changes the entire meaning
> of the sentence.

Both English grammar and the fact that it was a guideline for
professional conduct indicated that the statement was a generalization,
yet you tried to argue from an exception anyway. Since you insist that
it wasn't accident fallacy, I'll take this as a confession of poor
reading comprehension instead.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Heh, you botched the difference between deductive and inductive
> fallacies, and you call it "a little squirt of juice."

For reference, there's a decent explanation of informal fallacy here:
http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/fallacy.htm

The key thing to note here is that all of the informal fallacies are
founded in distraction, deception, emotional appeal, or all three.
Whether they invalidate the argument is not particularly important:
circular arguments are logically valid, but are included among the
informal fallacies because they deceive participants by hiding the
conclusion among the premises.

The cite quoted above lists argumentum ad hominem as an informal fallacy
of deception and emotional appeal. That's why the fallacy is so widely
maligned -- not because it indicates shoddy thinking, but because it's
dishonest and (often) emotionally compelling. Accidental ad hominem
fallacy -- the shoddy-thinking variety -- is much rarer than the
malicious sort that ethical guidelines recommend against.

The site quoted above also notes that "the person who accepts [a
fallacious] argument as being well reasoned" is also guilty of
committing a fallacy. The informal fallacies are reviled in part because
they encourage shoddy thinking on the part of the audience. To put it
another way, when you get to ranting, you actually work counter to your
stated goals.

In short, you have entirely missed the point of the informal/inductive
fallacies. It's more than "a little squirt of juice." Furthermore, your
usual tactics are exactly the sort of thing that /real/ critical
thinkers mock.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> tussock wrote:
<etc>
>>>>>If I state you are wrong because (i) you're premise doesn't support
>>>>>your concusion and (ii) you are stupid, I have committed an ad hominem.
>>>> Not really.
>>>Absolutely.
>>
>> Well, I can see what you're saying, but it still doesn't work that
>>way for me. I guess because you seem to be positing an artificial
>>construct that I don't see in the real world; what people actually say
>>is of the form "this fool's argument is illogical".
>
> Again, be careful of putting words in my mouth. I haven't said "what
> people actually say", I have focused on MSB.

Bullshit; google me up even one solitary instance of MSB declaring
an argument incorrect via ad hominem as plainly as you presented it
above (careful with context, solitary posts do not an argument make).
I've been here a while now, and IME, MSB responds with clean logic
when asked to; but only once or twice. If people don't reply to the
logic part he gives that up and flames them, which is as it should be.

<fanboi> Even when he's in full on whack a mole mode with his pet
hate, there's still alot of good argument turns up. That certain posters
only respond to the surrounding insult doesn't mean it was really the
core of his argument. </fanboi>

> 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. At some point, it ceases being "you are a
> fool" and becomes "you are a fool, so your conclusion is wrong."

I don't much follow Bacon threads, as there's no entertainment
value; so I can't really comment.

However, pissing contests aren't logical fallacies either. Just
because the reader chooses to infer something doesn't mean the OP was
implying it; infact, you can't really imply logic or lack of it at all,
AFAICT.

Someone says -

If A.

B exists.

- you might infer that they were saying "If A then B". That's not
locically what was said though, and if your inference is incorrect it's
not the authors fault; nor is it his logical error.
It may well be a faulty presentation, but that's not a logical
error either. That's the core of my argument here, inferred ad hominem
is no such thing, it can't exist in any meaningful way.

>> You agree with me then.
>
> Nice context snipping -- I agree with you that you were making
> strawmen.

OK, you're disagreeing with something, I just can't tell what.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> writes:

> "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:873btou0vf.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
>> I agree that Michael can be obnoxious as hell, but you are letting
>> yourself be blinded by your dislike of him. Don't do that, it makes
>> you look stupid.
>
> Oh, we're *way* past that. Stupid, dishonest, corrupt, sleazy,
> spineless, cowardly ... Bradd is now second pussy to Goslin. How pathetic.
> Bradd could have taken a stand for decency - but instead, he has waged a
> campaign of slander and strawmanning; he is now guilty of worse than that of
> which he accuses others.
>
Come-on Mike, cool it.

Bradd is stretching in his arguments in this thread, but he is nowhere
near as bad as Goslin. Bradd is still working from a valid
interpretation of the facts, even if his conclusions are not
supported.

And it is true, your subjects may deserve every bit of invective you
can throw at them, the shouting distracts mightily from your
argument.

And this is the last I'll say on it. I have little hope that any
discussion between you and Bradd can be rational. You *both* tend to
devolve into irrational flaming. Shame, because I've got the both of
scored up in my newsreader for otherwise interesting postings.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> writes:

<snip>
> 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.

You bring up Cope, which is not an interesting example. You're free to
assert Cope is unworthy to engage, because reading merely 2 or 3 posts
by Cope supplies the proof to the assertion.

Still, this statement is rather weak, because it implies that the one
doing the observation will supply proof. That does not follow
automatically though (and even you skip that in the obvious
cases). That still leaves us with a bare assertion.


> Suggesting that someone be shunned because of intellectual
> dishonesty *is not a fallacy*.

Again, one needs *proof* of the dishonesty first. Aside from that,
you're right.

> Suggesting that what they say will be wrong, because of their
> poor credibility, *is.
>

> Is observing that someone is an idiot a case of ad hominem
> fallacy? Hmm? IS IT?

> Suggesting that someone be shunned because of poor mental
> faculties *is not a fallacy*.

> Suggesting that what they say will be wrong, because of their
> poor intelligence, *is.
>
This one comes close. Accusing someone of poor intelligence carries
the implication with a lot of people of accusing them to be incapable
of forming a correct argument.

Suggesting that someone is an idiot carries that same implication, and
by extension, the implication that therefore they must be wrong.

Of course, the implication is the logical fallacy, not the bare
statement itself. I think that this is where things go wrong. This is
why I tend to avoid such statements when framing my main arguments,
because I hate implied meanings. Too often the rhetorical use of
implication is to invoke the Ad Populum fallacy.

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.

Foaming at the mouth does not make you any more right though.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:36:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news😛iq7615dhskavg8lq5v6897mjiro9g6r0v@4ax.com...
>> 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.

Tell the difference, by touch, between a wet blueberry, and a frog egg.

I've personally never tasted frogs eggs, but who the hell knows what that
is like? There are berries which are unpleasant to eat, that is certainly
not a defining quality.

>Berries have "berrylike" qualities.

Name them.

> Eggs have "egglike" qualities.

Name those too.

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

A person who doesn't live in a D&D world *might* be able to make such a
claim, but since the people in question *do* reside in such a location,
it's not even a very good general perspective.

Eggs of cold dwelling creatures like Rhemoraz and White Dragons could
easily be ovoid ice structures, and you could probably melt one down and
never know the difference.

 

[Guest]

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

madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> 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 think it works pretty well. It would make a good "most fabled city in the
world" in most settings.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:47:47 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>Yes, many berries aren't round, but many ARE round, which would lead to the
>only possible generality that might be misleading. I, for one, have NEVER
>eaten a berry that had an even REMOTELY egg-like shell,

But I have eaten eggs that had no shell.

and I would think
>that my experience as a "human" would probably mirror the "human life"
>experiences of characters, even in a fantasy world. You know, meat tastes
>like meat, except human meat, which tastes like chicken, etc. 😉

Human meat tastes like pork.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:7bv661tgitni037oas8mt771c5l7nu2o24@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:59:24 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns963CBECDBF460rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> >> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said
> >>
> >> > There are generalities that apply, and the characters would be able
to
> >> > apply the generalities. There are, of course, exceptions to the
> >> > general rules, but there is a reason they are called "exceptions".
> >>
> >> [snip drivel]
> >>
> >> Could I possibly convince you to look up the meaning of the word
fantasy
> >in
> >> a dictionary?
> >
> >*sigh* Yes, I know, it's a fantasy world, and there are lots of wierd
and
> >wacky stuff that CAN happen. But in *MY* fantasy campaign world, there
is a
> >level of "normalness" that is based at least somewhat on reality.
Steel is
> >hard, wood splinters, water is refreshing, food tastes just like it
does to
> >us if it's made of the same basic stuff, up is up, down is down, and
yes,
> >berries taste like berries,
>
> Strawberry?
> Blueberry?
> Boisenberry?

Never heard of them (Boisenberries)!

> Raspberry?
> Blackberry?
> Cranberry?

I will add Gooseberries to your list. Vile, vile things when raw.

 

[Guest]

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

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:g-udnWeYW56xIfnfRVnytw@pipex.net...

> Never heard of them (Boisenberries)!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boysenberry

--
^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

 

[Guest]

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

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).


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr