Texas Justice

Yes, that is where they would go.

Can we swap in Fusionette, General Aarons, or any of the other "stupid AI" helpers we get?

More likely, getting busy.

I thought at first that the OP is referring to the Guide to Guide's. But that is maintained by Zombie Man and was last updated in June 2011.

In each of the AT specific forums, there is a stickied "Guide and FAQ" for that AT that Cuppa originally started the threads for on the old forums. The lone exception is the SOA, but it does have a stickied thread created by Ex Libris on the new forums.

I can't recall who it was of the OCR team that players used to contact with updates to the First Post in the thread, but it was players that maintained the guides and created the updated Guide and FAQ information for the first post.

I was thinking that each AT had someone specific that was working on keeping the guides for that AT organized and keeping the sticky information updated, but it's possible that they lost interest in doing that, don't play anymore, or simply aren't sure who to contact anymore.

And not all of us have the spare time to sit and watch the recordings of them.

Some of us have difficulty connecting and viewing the live or recorded shows as well.

Same.

Scrolling back to get the timeline I probably got names crossed of who I was responding to when since those posts were adjacent.

For making that mistake, I apologize.

Except for the fact that your post was not the one I was responding to. Yours was just the last post before my comment about reading comprehension.

The post just before yours was this one:

Sure. People may infer from reading those two sentences that the food poisoning was caused by Fred's Steak Sandwiches. But it would be a false inference.

I don't think that way. I also don't talk that way.

You say that your first thought when you hear someone say something like that is to ask if they are saying that people are actually getting food poisoning from Fred's Steak sandwiches. That's a fairly reasonable reaction.

Let's take that one step farther. If the response you get from them is that they are NOT saying that, do you go on to argue with them bringing in all types of logical fallacy arguments or red herring fallacy arguments or any other arguments, even going so far as to use ad hominem to suggest that you are ill-educated for the discussion at hand?

Something to think about.

From the way you stated it? No, but that's likely due to the fact that I'm not a big fan of salad of any kind. I am very much a "meat-n-taters" man.

Would I go around saying "Flarstux says the fish eye salad at the Goldfish Emporium and Luncheonette causes food poisoning"? Nope. Because that's not what you said. If I interpreted as you saying that, it would be a misinterpretation on my part.

Well, that means I misinterpreted your initial response. You state that it was simply an observation, so I'll believe that. My interpretation was that you were agreeing with the other poster.

Exactly the point I was making. When two observations may seem related (and they were related in that both were about the same group of people) it doesn't mean that something entirely different was said such as the claim that g_masque made:

You actually made my point, that even when you combine the sentences as you did it doesn't say I was claiming the malware came from Steam.

I'll agree that for someone that has already interpreted one post incorrectly, that sentence could be interpreted in the manner you state. I could have worded it differently. Since you had started arguing my challenge to show where I had said that Steam was the source of the malware, I merely pointed out that combining two sentences into one still doesn't say that I'm calling Steam malware.

I'd guess that could be interpreted as me claiming you said that I had called Steam malware. It could also be interpreted as me saying that combining two sentences doesn't prove that I said something different.

It could go either way.

/shrug

My comment about reading comprehension was in response to your post. So your post was the first of the ad-hominem attacks. To quote from Wikipedia:

Again, I'll ask that you not twist my words to fit your own misinterpretation or put words in my mouth.

A fair statement. But let's look at what happened. Someone incorrectly interpreted my comments to be saying that Steam is the source of the malware some people had removed, something I never said. I challenged that person to show me where I had said that the malware they had removed came from Steam.

At that point, someone else joined the conversation and started their ad hominem attacks (reiella's own words, not mine) on what I'd said.

I've merely repeated my supposition, that one shouldn't read any words into what I've said except for the words I've said. Had I intended to say that I believe that Steam is a source of malware, I'd have said it in those words. Those weren't my words. The fact that 2 people misinterpreted it to mean that is due to them trying to read something into the posts that simply isn't there.

EDIT: As an example, the devs have made comments that have been misinterpreted by more than one person to mean something different for years. Power Customization is one example. Some read a comment about the difficulty of doing Power Customization and misinterpreted it to mean that the devs said it couldn't be done. Others misinterpreted it to mean that the devs said it would never be done. And they continued to spread those misinterpretations. Some understood it to be saying exactly what it said. That didn't mean that the writing didn't convey the intent of the poster effectively, only that some people put their own incorrect interpretation on it.

People often make comments in threads that are not relevant to the topic at hand. That doesn't make them a fallacy. It merely makes them a comment by the poster.

People trying to misinterpret and twist what others say into being something else is the only fallacy being exercised here.