Question: which existing farm topic in this forum?
By
Another_Fan,
Posted on: 2009-05-03 17:28 in Mission Architect
Well.....
I have been wondering the same question honestly, and have decided to start converting the i14 discussion/feedback threads in the developer's corner, as well as the posi letter feedback thread.
Since these are the threads created by the Admin, i figure it is about the best we are going to get. I didn't want to take over a thread for all of an issue with just our farming discussions, but that looks like the best solution to me
[ QUOTE ]
Mod08 seems to be closing down a lot of farm related threads in this forum, even though they are directly on topic for discussion about Misson Architect and it's usage, asking in the last post of each one that he lock that we "limit conversations on farming to one of the existing topics."
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be nice. Wouldnt hold my breath though. As long as debate tactics are being borrowed from Joeseph Goebels it will be hard to have an inteligent discussion on farming.
[ QUOTE ]
Godwin in four posts, very nice.
[/ QUOTE ]
chuckle
Shirer's rise and fall. Its a little long but still definitive. Read it and you might understand why your comment is funny
So how come, when I'm making the RL analogies, I'm wrong, but when you resort to that most tired and cliched of internet appeals, argumentum ad nazium, it's true and/or funny?
All I did was remark on the speed with which you resorted to it.
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
[ QUOTE ]
So how come, when I'm making the RL analogies, I'm wrong, but when you resort to that most tired and cliched of internet appeals, argumentum ad nazium, it's true and/or funny?
All I did was remark on the speed with which you resorted to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is that what happened ? My old eyes must be getting worse by the minute. What I saw was someone trying to shutdown a line of discussion by attaching a label to it. Which was exactly one of the tactics used by the propaganda minister.
So I wasn't making a funny just observing that you had become one
The sad part is, I tried to start a thread on overall culture concerns people are voicing post i14, and it got hijacked by some farmers fearing it was an anti-farming thread and Mod08 came in and shut it down.
So now not can someone direct me to not only the i14 farming discussion thread but ALSO the "effects of i14 on the various aspects of the game culture" thread?
Probably because you can't discuss culture decline without discussing reasoning behind it. That always leads to a discussion about powergaming and farming. This in turn leads to people defending their chosen method of game play. All of these things have been discussed at length in various threads that have been shutdown by Mod8 without any of us knowing exactly where the "safe" thread is.
I have PMed Mod8 asking this very question. If i get a response I will let ya'll know.
[ QUOTE ]
Probably because you can't discuss culture decline without discussing reasoning behind it. That always leads to a discussion about powergaming and farming. This in turn leads to people defending their chosen method of game play.
[/ QUOTE ]
By "defending their chosen method of game play", you mean "igoring the discussion in favor of just tossing insults at people who don't think farming is necessarily a good thing", right? Because I've yet to see a one of you actually engage in defending anything. Tossing fecal material at people you disagree with does not consitute "defending your opinion".
[ QUOTE ]
Mod08 seems to be closing down a lot of farm related threads in this forum, even though they are directly on topic for discussion about Misson Architect and it's usage, asking in the last post of each one that he lock that we "limit conversations on farming to one of the existing topics."
Does anyone have any idea which thread in the "Mission Architect: Resources, Discussion, & Questions" forum he is talking about, or should we just be guessing and/or creating new threads in the absence of a clue about this?
Or is there no existing topic and this is a way to curtail discussion without looking like that?
Just trying to figure out what is the proper way to continue to discuss these important matters in this appropriate forum.
Thanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's an idea, send Mod08 a PM and ask him.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably because you can't discuss culture decline without discussing reasoning behind it. That always leads to a discussion about powergaming and farming. This in turn leads to people defending their chosen method of game play.
[/ QUOTE ]
By "defending their chosen method of game play", you mean "igoring the discussion in favor of just tossing insults at people who don't think farming is necessarily a good thing", right? Because I've yet to see a one of you actually engage in defending anything. Tossing fecal material at people you disagree with does not consitute "defending your opinion".
[/ QUOTE ]
The humor boggles the mind. That anyone could consider disagreement and pointing out the obvious flaws in a position, especially when that position is little more than "I don't like it make them stop" as tossing feces.
Now here is some feces that has been tossed
[ QUOTE ]
Despite what the Farmheads keep saying
all the farking farms
To all you hairballs
because you jerks are ruining the server
"just a game" isn't a reason to piss all over other people.
childish buttheads
governed by go-fever and treasure-lust.
[/ QUOTE ]
This has all been tossed by you though.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably because you can't discuss culture decline without discussing reasoning behind it. That always leads to a discussion about powergaming and farming. This in turn leads to people defending their chosen method of game play.
[/ QUOTE ]
By "defending their chosen method of game play", you mean "igoring the discussion in favor of just tossing insults at people who don't think farming is necessarily a good thing", right? Because I've yet to see a one of you actually engage in defending anything. Tossing fecal material at people you disagree with does not consitute "defending your opinion".
[/ QUOTE ]
The humor boggles the mind. That anyone could consider disagreement and pointing out the obvious flaws in a position, especially when that position is little more than "I don't like it make them stop" as tossing feces.
Now here is some feces that has been tossed
[ QUOTE ]
Despite what the Farmheads keep saying
all the farking farms
To all you hairballs
because you jerks are ruining the server
"just a game" isn't a reason to piss all over other people.
childish buttheads
governed by go-fever and treasure-lust.
[/ QUOTE ]
This has all been tossed by you though.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was just about to post the same thing.. Thanks for saving me the trouble, A_F. 
[ QUOTE ]
Here's an idea, send Mod08 a PM and ask him.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't aware you could just wander up to a Mod and talk to them o.@
-C.A.
[ QUOTE ]
The humor boggles the mind. That anyone could consider disagreement and pointing out the obvious flaws in a position, especially when that position is little more than "I don't like it make them stop" as tossing feces.
Now here is some feces that has been tossed
[ QUOTE ]
Despite what the Farmheads keep saying
all the farking farms
To all you hairballs
because you jerks are ruining the server
"just a game" isn't a reason to piss all over other people.
childish buttheads
governed by go-fever and treasure-lust.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Tu quoque ad hominem: Otherwise known as the "you too" fallacy, a Tu quoque ad hominem is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false. Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The humor boggles the mind. That anyone could consider disagreement and pointing out the obvious flaws in a position, especially when that position is little more than "I don't like it make them stop" as tossing feces.
Now here is some feces that has been tossed
[ QUOTE ]
Despite what the Farmheads keep saying
all the farking farms
To all you hairballs
because you jerks are ruining the server
"just a game" isn't a reason to piss all over other people.
childish buttheads
governed by go-fever and treasure-lust.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Tu quoque ad hominem: Otherwise known as the "you too" fallacy, a Tu quoque ad hominem is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false. Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
[/ QUOTE ]
Another poster beat me to it in another thread, but oh well.
obtuse
adjective
1. of an angle; between 90 and 180 degrees [ant: acute]
2. (of a leaf shape) rounded at the apex
3. lacking in insight or discernment; "too obtuse to grasp the implications of his behavior"; "a purblind oligarchy that flatly refused to see that history was condemning it to the dustbin"- Jasper Griffin
4. slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity; "so dense he never understands anything I say to him"; "never met anyone quite so dim"; "although dull at classical learning, at mathematics he was uncommonly quick"- Thackeray; "dumb officials make some really dumb decisions"; "he was either normally stupid or being deliberately obtuse"; "worked with the slow students" [syn: dense]
If that's the best you monkeys can come up with, you're boring the hell out of me.
All you've done is convinced me that a) I'm more mature than you are and b) I'm a damned sight smarter than you are.
[ QUOTE ]
If that's the best you monkeys can come up with, you're boring the hell out of me.
All you've done is convinced me that a) I'm more mature than you are and b) I'm a damned sight smarter than you are.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can copy/paste from Wiki too!
Ad Hominem: Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes Claim C.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A rather than on Claim C.
3. Therefore Claim C is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
[ QUOTE ]
If that's the best you monkeys can come up with, you're boring the hell out of me.
All you've done is convinced me that a) I'm more mature than you are and b) I'm a damned sight smarter than you are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ad Hominem Argument
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the person") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
ahh, shadowjack beat me to it 
Hehe, I beat ya to it Frost! That was exactly the kind of response I was attempting to elicit from her, tho.
See, we need a new law to match Godwin's law.
any argument which winds up quoting, in whole or in part, wikipedia's 'logical fallacies' page or any page of a similar nature in a different resource is automatically lost by the poster quoting said resource.
It is alright to mention that something is an 'ad hominem' or 'moving the goalposts' argument, but defining it bespeaks an arrogance that proves that the arguer has nothing really to say about the argument itself, and is simply attempting to wave their 'intellectual superiority' e-peen.
[ QUOTE ]
See, we need a new law to match Godwin's law.
any argument which winds up quoting, in whole or in part, wikipedia's 'logical fallacies' page or any page of a similar nature in a different resource is automatically lost by the poster quoting said resource.
It is alright to mention that something is an 'ad hominem' or 'moving the goalposts' argument, but defining it bespeaks an arrogance that proves that the arguer has nothing really to say about the argument itself, and is simply attempting to wave their 'intellectual superiority' e-peen.
[/ QUOTE ]
To be honest, when she started rebutting all the arguments via Wiki copy/paste, I thought to myself "Wow, this is just like my high school debating days." Back then it was also popular to mask the lack of an actual argument by referencing one of these fallacies and hoping the judge was stupid enough not to notice the sidestepping.
I have PM'ed Mod8, I just haven't recieved response yet.
I recommend ignoring CassandraCorte...You will never get more out of her other thatn the things you have quoted.
Why do you monkeys think I was quoting wikipedia?
Mod08 seems to be closing down a lot of farm related threads in this forum, even though they are directly on topic for discussion about Misson Architect and it's usage, asking in the last post of each one that he lock that we "limit conversations on farming to one of the existing topics."
Does anyone have any idea which thread in the "Mission Architect: Resources, Discussion, & Questions" forum he is talking about, or should we just be guessing and/or creating new threads in the absence of a clue about this?
Or is there no existing topic and this is a way to curtail discussion without looking like that?
Just trying to figure out what is the proper way to continue to discuss these important matters in this appropriate forum.
Thanks.
For Great Justice!