[Announce] TADS 2 and 3 updaets
Mike Roberts
cross-post my first attempt.]
I'm pleased to announce the first TADS 3 General Release, and also a TADS 2
maintenance update.
As long-time raif readers know, TADS 3 has been in "beta" for quite some
time. Well, we're finally declaring it ready. The official release version
is available immediately from tads.org (see below), and has been uploaded to
the IF Archive, where it will be available as soon as it makes its way
through the normal formalities.
This release includes a bundle of documentation, organized into several
(virtual) books: Eric Eve's Getting Started in TADS 3, a tutorial
introduction; Eric's TADS 3 Tour Guide, an in-depth survey of the library,
with practical examples of how to use most of the classes; the System
Manual, a reference covering the language, run-time system, and compiler and
other tools; the Technical Manual, a collection of mostly task-oriented "how
to" articles that go into depth on topics of interest to many authors; and
the Library Reference Manual, with details on virtually everything in the
library and extensive cross-references.
As many of you know, I had long been planning on writing a more traditional,
monolithic, textbook-style manual, and part of what held up the software
release for so long was this planned linkage to a new manual. But other
priorities kept me from ever starting in earnest on that project, much less
completing it, and it was becoming clear that this wasn't going to change.
Sometimes one must admit that "staying the course" is not a viable plan.
So, I decided to release the software, even without a manual. I wanted to
have *something* to point people to by way of documentation, though, so I
figured I'd look to see what was already available. What I found was that
there's actually a wealth of good material already, and taken together, it
covers just about everything that I would have put into a monolithic manual.
I decided that if I could put everything together in an organized package,
the result would cover most of what a manual would have. So I contacted
Eric, whose two books cover a huge part of what I had in mind, and Edward
Stauff, who wrote the program that generates the Library Reference, and I
asked them about including their work in the software distribution. They
graciously agreed, and in fact Eric quite enthusiastically embraced the
idea. Eric did a considerable amount of work helping me plan the overall
set of documentation, and then revising and expanding his books and even
contributing new material to other parts of the set. I also did some
sprucing up of my parts, and a little light editing of some of the other
contributions.
The end result is, I think, in some ways better than a textbook-style tome
would have been. The loose federation of books means that each one is
purpose-built, so it can fill its role in a way that a chapter in a book
usually can't. And given the amount of information that needs to be
covered, a single book would almost certainly have been unwieldy, at best.
I'm pretty pleased with the results; the real test is that people will find
it useful, of course, but I think they will.
On to the download specifics:
The TADS 3 General Release, version 3.0.12, is available for download now
from
That page has links for the various available packages and configurations.
The software has also been uploaded to the IF Archive; you should be able to
find it under the if-archive/unprocessed directory soon, and in the
if-archive/programming/tads3 directory in due course.
The new TADS 2 update, version 2.5.10, can be download for Windows and in
source-code form from
http://www.tads.org/t2_patch.htm
It's also been uploaded the Archive and is in the posting process. This is
a maintenance update, mostly to fix a number of bugs.
The TADS 3 documentation is quite large as installed (about 35 MB), mostly
because of the extensive cross-referencing in the Library Reference. Given
the modern miracle of perpendicular magnetic domains and so on, this might
not be much of a practical concern to anyone; but in case it is, the
Author's Kit is available with or without the doc bundle. If you choose the
"no doc" version, you'll get Web links to the on-line edition, so the
experience will be relatively seamless. If you just want to view the
documentation on-line, visit
http://www.tads.org/t3doc/doc/index.htm
My thanks to everyone who's contributed to the project. Special thanks to
Eric for all his work in creating the excellent Getting Started and Tour
Guide books, and for his kind permission to offer them as part of the
documentation package.
Mike Roberts
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com
Rob G
James Mitchelhill
> I'm pleased to announce the first TADS 3 General Release
About bloody time. ;)
Seriously, though, this is excellent news. TADS 3 is an astounding piece of
work.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Stebbins
Mike Roberts wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the first TADS 3 General Release, and also a TADS 2
> maintenance update.
I downloaded the previous TADS 3 Release Candidate a few days ago. Do
you recommend downloading the General Release version, or are the two
essentially the same?
~Stebbins
Nikos Chantziaras
> I'm pleased to announce the first TADS 3 General Release, and also a TADS 2
> maintenance update.
Is it OK to assume that the release of Inform 7 had an influence on your
release schedules? ;)
Graham Nelson
> TADS 3 is an astounding piece of work.
And so say all of us. Many congratulations to the TADS 3 team for
bringing the ship into harbour, so to speak - or perhaps it should be
the opposite metaphor, setting sail onto the open seas.
"Nothing is hidden except in order to be revealed," according to Mark
4:22, which Eric quotes in chapter 8 of the TADS 3 Tour Guide - a
perhaps slightly tenuous attempt to find the roots of interactive
fiction in the New Testament, this - but not the least achievement of
TADS 3 is that it has come to its release entirely openly, with nothing
hidden at all. That may perhaps mean there is less to be "revealed"
when a milestone like today's is reached, or at any rate, less of a
sense of theatre. But I for one think it marks a significant event in
the history of interactive fiction, of which TADS has been and
continues to be one of the great achievements.
IF needs both diversity and convergence: diversity of tools and
approaches to help writers to realise their plans, but convergence for
players and browsers, who want to find and explore the literature. We
are already starting to see programs which can play story files for
multiple types of virtual machine, using a unified form of
bibliographic data. I hope we shall see much more of this, and that IF
browsing tools and web-based services will enable us to have a modern,
appealing, thoroughly platform-agnostic, virtual machine-agnostic,
experience for players. iTunes 7 came out this week, and perhaps it
ought to remind us that we aren't all that far away from being able to
have something similar for playing and finding IF. (With some
server-side work at the Archive, existing tools like Zoom and
Spatterlight would be nearly there.) "My father's house has many
rooms," but what is IF unless it is the genre in which rooms
interconnect?
But I am straying from my sheep. What I really meant to say was: well
done to all involved.
quic...@quickfur.ath.cx
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:58:38 GMT, Mike Roberts wrote:
>
> > I'm pleased to announce the first TADS 3 General Release
>
> About bloody time. ;)
>
> Seriously, though, this is excellent news. TADS 3 is an astounding
> piece of work.
Seconded. Even though I've barely begun to scratch the surface of the
ADV3 library, the utter flexibility of TADS already allows me to create
such fascinating things as rooms with 3 degrees of rotation, and have
the description automatically updated (without needing to code all
possibilities directly), or even a PC knowledge extension in which the
descriptions (and even actions on) objects change depending on what the
player has learned through the course of the story.
QF
--
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful
objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill
gives us modern art. -- Tom Stoppard
Mike Roberts
system updates (3.0.12 and 2.5.10). FrobTADS is the package to use if
you're on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, BeOS, BSD, or other Unix systems; you
can even use it on Windows.
--Mike
Mike Roberts
> I downloaded the previous TADS 3 Release Candidate a few days ago.
> Do you recommend downloading the General Release version, or are
> the two essentially the same?
They're almost the same; just a couple of bug fixes. If you have a fast
internet connection, so that the download isn't too onerous, I would
recommend updating to pick up the bug fixes.
--Mike
Mike Roberts
Er, it probably would have been a lot more helpful if I'd mentioned where
you can find it:
http://www.tads.org/frobtads.htm
--Mike
Emily Short
Mike Roberts wrote:
> [Sorry to post this separately to raif and rgif - I accidentally failed to
> cross-post my first attempt.]
>
> I'm pleased to announce the first TADS 3 General Release, and also a TADS 2
> maintenance update.
Excellent news -- congratulations to everyone involved.
steve....@gmail.com
> Many congratulations to the TADS 3 team for
> bringing the ship into harbour, so to speak - or perhaps it should be
> the opposite metaphor, setting sail onto the open seas.
Or maybe there's no real call for metaphoric wax on the release of TADS
3.
> "Nothing is hidden except in order to be revealed," according to Mark
> 4:22, which Eric quotes in chapter 8 of the TADS 3 Tour Guide - a
> perhaps slightly tenuous attempt to find the roots of interactive
> fiction in the New Testament[.]
To quote the piece in entirety:
> Nothing is hidden except in order to be revealed, nor does anything become
> concealed but that it might come into the open. - Mark 4.22
>
> Mark was writing about Jesus' parables, not Interactive Fiction, although since
> according to at least some commentators Mark treats Jesus' parables as riddles and
> according to Nick Montfort (Twisty Little Passages. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT
> Press, 2003) the riddle is of the precursors of IF, there may be a tenuous link here. It
> may be that Mark portrays Jesus' parables as employing concealment as a strategy
> of revelation; it is certainly the case that IF authors often hide objects in their games
> with the intention that the player will find them (hopefully with more success than the
> disciples in Mark).
Anyway, nowhere can anyone intelligently sense any attempt whatsoever
"to find the roots of interactive fiction in the New Testament." That
is not the point at all. It's a "tenuous link," a tenous connection. A
passing comment on a similarity that the author finds in his (non-IF)
professional work.
Graham has been justly criticized for including tenuous and irrelevant
quotes at the beginning of his DM4 chapters, and wants to spread the
blame. That's why he's written this nonsense.
> but not the least achievement of
> TADS 3 is that it has come to its release entirely openly, with nothing
> hidden at all.
Well, that's not entirely true. It is wonderful, and wonderfully
useful, that TADS 3 was developed openly. Still, I wouldn't associate
openness with "achievement." Openness is more of an initial decision,
an ethical standard.
> IF needs both diversity and convergence: diversity of tools and
> approaches to help writers to realise their plans, but convergence for
> players and browsers, who want to find and explore the literature. We
> are already starting to see programs which can play story files for
> multiple types of virtual machine, using a unified form of
> bibliographic data. I hope we shall see much more of this, and that IF
> browsing tools and web-based services will enable us to have a modern,
> appealing, thoroughly platform-agnostic, virtual machine-agnostic,
> experience for players. iTunes 7 came out this week, and perhaps it
> ought to remind us that we aren't all that far away from being able to
> have something similar for playing and finding IF. (With some
> server-side work at the Archive, existing tools like Zoom and
> Spatterlight would be nearly there.)
Ok great, so you're in favor of cross-VM 'terps.
> "My father's house has many
> rooms," but what is IF unless it is the genre in which rooms
> interconnect?
What? You noticed Eric Eve, a scholar of the Bible, using a Biblical
reference intelligently, and you can't wait to drop one yourself?
Please note: it's obvious the difference. Eric comes off as
intelligent, while your foolery curls the toenails.
> But I am straying from my sheep. What I really meant to say was: well
> done to all involved.
Who or what sheep are you talking about? Seriously, are you calling I7
users "your sheep?" Oh Jesus. (No I don't mean you.)
Nikos Chantziaras
James Cunningham
Ah, Doc Stevie, his mouth full of cursing and bitterness; destruction
and misery are his ways, and his soul has never known peace. Would that
his mouth be silenced, that he could be brought to justice before
Graham Nelson!
Best,
James
Quintin Stone
> Or maybe there's no real call for metaphoric wax on the release of TADS
> 3.
C'mon, Stevie. Time to grow up.
==--- --=--=-- ---==
Quintin Stone "You speak of necessary evil? One of those necessities
st...@rps.net is that if innocents must suffer, the guilty must suffer
www.rps.net more." - Mackenzie Calhoun, "Once Burned" by Peter David
Stuart Moore
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, steve....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Or maybe there's no real call for metaphoric wax on the release of TADS
>> 3.
>
> C'mon, Stevie. Time to grow up.
A troll, grow up?
--
Stuart "Sslaxx" Moore
http://sslaxx.livejournal.com/
Adam Thornton
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> Who or what sheep are you talking about? Seriously, are you calling I7
> users "your sheep?" Oh Jesus. (No I don't mean you.)
Bah! Bah, I say. Bah, bah, bah.
Adam
Kevin Forchione
news:adam-D0A456.1...@fileserver.fsf.net...
I've always considered myself one of the old goats...
--Kevin
JDC
At least no one mentioned moose.
-JDC
JDC
At least no one mentioned moose.
-JDC
Adam Thornton
Richard Bos
*Cough* A mřřse once bit my sister...
Richard B. Llama
Mynd you, mřřse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
Graham Nelson
> > But I am straying from my sheep. What I really meant to say was: well
> > done to all involved.
>
> Who or what sheep are you talking about?
A rather pleasing expression borrowed into English from a French
proverb: it means "but I have wandered from the subject I meant to talk
about, and will now return". I do not think it's all that obscure in
either meaning or usage, but perhaps it hasn't made it to American
English yet.
Kevin Forchione
news:1158832201.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Doubtful that it will, since Americans have lost use for sheep as a
commodity outside of evangelical metaphor. However, it might make headway in
the political arena with the slight alteration: "But I am straying from my
pork..."
--Kevin
steve....@gmail.com
It's nice that, upon reflection, this is what you would like to have
meant, but your claim on the expression is obviously untrue.
The pastoral, as a source of imagery and a ready reference, was already
well exhausted two centuries ago. Of course a competent writer could
conceivably invent such a figure, or borrow one from now-archaic
tradition, but would never employ such as this one in the context of
New Testament, where the shepherd/sheep trope is entirely determined,
indeed overdetermined.
Still, I appreciate the lie, if only insofar as it signs an implicit
acknowledgement that you've been entirely got, and that your
magalomania is quite unattractive. Please note that flailing
incompetence almost always accompanies condescension, so you might best
avoid either by simply avoiding both. Anyway, I hope your further
experiments will occur outside earshot; they are not at all, as you
say, pleasing.
Nikos Chantziaras
> [...]
> Still, I appreciate the lie, if only insofar as it signs an implicit
> acknowledgement that you've been entirely got, and that your
It's "megalomania". :P
Kevin Forchione
news:eev1o2$irb$1...@mouse.otenet.gr...
I'm sure that Steve means this in the context of the Hebrew "maga" meaning
combat, and is saying that Graham has an obsession with warfare. Hence the
continuing feud between them. Perhaps this is his attempt to extend the
olive branch...
--Kevin
Adam Thornton
"Kevin Forchione" <ke...@lysseus.com> wrote:
> I'm sure that Steve means this in the context of the Hebrew "maga" meaning
> combat, and is saying that Graham has an obsession with warfare.
AHEM.
<mode="Steve Breslin">
As can clearly be seen in the poncy and pretentious wankfodder of
"Jigsaw." The author of Jigsaw is clearly in grave need of
psychological counselling, by which I mean being locked in a padded cell
and lobotomized.
"Jigsaw" is precisely the sort of half-bright half-cocked work you'd
expect from someone who's read the Cliff's Notes version of Wittgenstein
and rubbed it all over himself while listening to his recording of Eliot
himself reading _The Book of Practical Cats_, in a lavender-scented
bubble bath. However, its half-cockiness perfectly suits the author's
halfwittedness.
</mode>
There, now that I've said it, perhaps Steve won't feel the need to.
Adam
Zonk the Troll Questioner
Yes, of course. What Graham really meant is that he seems himself as
Jesus Christ and the users of Inform as his disciples to whom he feeds
the NL-wafers of I7. That was surely his intent when writing that
sentence.
Or perhaps your personal attacks reveal that it is actually you who are
either a liar or deeply incompetent. Let's examine the evidence.
You have often maintained that one of your primary concerns is to be
engaged in the honest intellectual discussion of ideas. In fact, you
have often labeled criticisms leveled at you as petty personal attacks
whose only aim is to avoid the issues involved, and thus degrade and
derail the level of intellectual discourse.
However, this claim does not sit well with your seemingly unavoidable
penchant for making personal attacks upon the character of Graham
Nelson (and Emily Short). One must conclude that either (a) you are a
liar -- you do not care about the obvious degradation to discourse
repeated attempts at character assassination cause or (b) you are
incompetent -- you actually do care, but are simply too intellectually
and emotionally weak (or confused) to control yourself.
Furthermore, you do irreparable damage to actually valid and
worthy-of-discussion theoretical criticisms you sometimes raise,
because it becomes all too easy for anyone to justifiably claim all
your criticisms arise from personal vendetta instead of careful
thought. That this should be obvious to you, and you continue to use
these tactics regardless, further displays deep intellectual
incompetence.
-- ZtTQ
Gene Wirchenko
Too concise, Adam. Pad it another 200%. Remember, he attacks
Emily Short, but that does not mean that his prose is short.
And that is <blather mode="Steve Breslin">. Either that or
"blither". That is what a blithering idiot does, right?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
David Kinder
> Perhaps this is his attempt to extend the olive branch...
Hmmm, well, maybe. Or perhaps Steve has stopped taking his medication?
Graham Nelson
> > > Who or what sheep are you talking about?
> >
> > A rather pleasing expression borrowed into English from a French
> > proverb: it means "but I have wandered from the subject I meant to talk
> > about, and will now return". I do not think it's all that obscure in
> > either meaning or usage, but perhaps it hasn't made it to American
> > English yet.
>
> It's nice that, upon reflection, this is what you would like to have
> meant, but your claim on the expression is obviously untrue.
> acknowledgement that you've been entirely got, and that your
> magalomania is quite unattractive.
Just to flesh out "the lie", the French expression I refer to is
"revenons à nos moutons", and some of its various English
borrowings may be found under meaning 3c of "sheep, n."
in the OED. The earliest appears to date from 1617, and it
would indeed appear to be a secular, pastoral comparison.
As to the attractiveness or otherwise of my megalomania,
others must decide. I claim only to be able to spell the word.
> Please note that flailing
> incompetence almost always accompanies condescension,
Demonstrably.
steve....@gmail.com
> steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Who or what sheep are you talking about?
> > >
> > > A rather pleasing expression borrowed into English from a French
> > > proverb: it means "but I have wandered from the subject I meant to talk
> > > about, and will now return". I do not think it's all that obscure in
> > > either meaning or usage, but perhaps it hasn't made it to American
> > > English yet.
> >
> > It's nice that, upon reflection, this is what you would like to have
> > meant, but your claim on the expression is obviously untrue.
> > Still, I appreciate the lie, if only insofar as it signs an implicit
> > acknowledgement that you've been entirely got, and that your
> > magalomania is quite unattractive.
>
> Just to flesh out "the lie"
Oh, come off it man. You were riffing on the New Testament (very
clumsily, I would like to add) and everyone knows it. Just one sentence
before you were (very lamely) quoting John 14:2; here you're borrowing
the religious sheep/shepherd metaphor, figuring yourself the shepherd,
of course.
There's no use denying this with an even lamer reference to a French
expression which has nothing to do with sheep but mutton (as in, during
a big banquet, one might say "well, that was a nice diversion, but now
let's return to our feast").
> the French expression I refer to is
> "revenons à nos moutons", and some of its various English
> borrowings may be found under meaning 3c of "sheep, n."
> in the OED. The earliest appears to date from 1617, and it
> would indeed appear to be a secular, pastoral comparison.
>
> As to the attractiveness or otherwise of my megalomania,
> others must decide. I claim only to be able to spell the word.
>
> > Please note that flailing
> > incompetence almost always accompanies condescension,
>
> Demonstrably.
Yup.
JDC
You have missed the much more dangerous implication of Graham's
comment. Although cleverly disguied as a reference either to a French
proverb or to the New Testament, he was actually using "sheep" to refer
to a prostitute (as in "to hawk one's mutton"). A clever ruse, but we
have seen through it! Clearly he is of loose moral character, and also
so megalomaniacal as to interrupt a sexual liason to proclaim his
superiority. He sets a bad example for children and will lead to the
moral decay of the IF community. Lo, there are already rumors of
another Stiffy Makane story. Hence I encourage all upstanding citizens
to shun the man and to boycott Inform; only in this way shall we
preserve our virtue.
-JDC
Neil Cerutti
> You have missed the much more dangerous implication of
> Graham's comment. Although cleverly disguied as a reference
> either to a French proverb or to the New Testament, he was
> actually using "sheep" to refer to a prostitute (as in "to hawk
> one's mutton"). A clever ruse, but we have seen through it!
> Clearly he is of loose moral character, and also so
> megalomaniacal as to interrupt a sexual liason to proclaim his
> superiority. He sets a bad example for children and will lead
> to the moral decay of the IF community. Lo, there are already
> rumors of another Stiffy Makane story. Hence I encourage all
> upstanding citizens to shun the man and to boycott Inform; only
> in this way shall we preserve our virtue.
"Do you like being breslin?"
"It's gotta be better than the alternative."
"What's it like? It it like being a bug?"
"Like a WHAT?"
"I imagine bugs and breslin have a dim perception that nature
played a cruel trick on them, but they lack the intelligence to
really comprehend the magnitude of it."
--
Neil Cerutti
ixnay
news:slrneh7ve9....@FIAD06.norwich.edu...
> "Do you like being breslin?"
> "It's gotta be better than the alternative."
> "What's it like? It it like being a bug?"
> "Like a WHAT?"
> "I imagine bugs and breslin have a dim perception that nature
> played a cruel trick on them, but they lack the intelligence to
> really comprehend the magnitude of it."
Okay ... I have to admit. I really liked this last bit. :)
Has anyone just thought of never responding to Breslin? I mean, he has the
right to speak. He has the right to act like he does. To me, the more silly
people seem to be the ones that continue to engage him in "debate" or
whatever it is you call it. It just fuels him.
Just leave him alone. Don't respond. Ever. He may still post here. But when
he's being totally ignored, at least then it will just seem pathetic rather
than what it is now: pathetic *and* annoying.
Maybe we could even put that in the FAQ for the site?
Jon
> There's no use denying this with an even lamer reference to a French
> expression which has nothing to do with sheep but mutton (as in, during
> a big banquet, one might say "well, that was a nice diversion, but now
> let's return to our feast").
I'm not a French speaker, but I remember my Spanish teacher warning us
about "false friends"; words that sound like the same thing but which
aren't. (The example she used involved 'embarazada' to indicate
embarrasment, when it actually indicates pregnancy.) In this case, you
seem to have seen the word 'moutons' and imagined it means 'muttons'.
However, a minute's visit to Bablefish and the French wikipedia would
indicate that you're wrong there.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouton shows pictures of live sheep rather
than dead slices thereof, and indeed, the English listing under "other
languages" links to "sheep". A trip to babelfish translates the phrase
as "let us return to our sheep", and while machine translations are not
wholly to be trusted, sometimes you just have to call a duck a duck.
> > > Please note that flailing
> > > incompetence almost always accompanies condescension,
> >
> > Demonstrably.
>
> Yup.
To continue the Biblical references, Proverbs 26:27 says "He who digs a
pit falls into it." You probably should stop digging, Mr Breslin.
Adam Thornton
"Jon" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To continue the Biblical references, Proverbs 26:27 says "He who digs a
> pit falls into it." You probably should stop digging, Mr Breslin.
And let us not forget the Book of Zork and the parable of the man who
dug in the sand too many times.
Adam
Jackdaw
"JDC" <jd...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:1158937328....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> Graham Nelson wrote:
> > steve....@gmail.com wrote:
Snip
> Yup.
You have missed the much more dangerous implication of Graham's
comment. Although cleverly disguied as a reference either to a French
proverb or to the New Testament, he was actually using "sheep" to refer
to a prostitute (as in "to hawk one's mutton"). A clever ruse, but we
have seen through it! Clearly he is of loose moral character, and also
so megalomaniacal as to interrupt a sexual liason to proclaim his
superiority. He sets a bad example for children and will lead to the
moral decay of the IF community. Lo, there are already rumors of
another Stiffy Makane story.
Is there a date for the release of this?
< fx > Heavy breathing .
;Ź)
--
Jackdaw collector of junk, trivia and bright twinkly things.
Visit my gallery at www.jackdaw-crafts.co.uk
Neil Cerutti
>
> "JDC" <jd...@psu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1158937328....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> steve....@gmail.com wrote:
>> Graham Nelson wrote:
>> > steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> Snip
>
>> Yup.
>
> You have missed the much more dangerous implication of Graham's
> comment. Although cleverly disguied as a reference either to a French
> proverb or to the New Testament, he was actually using "sheep" to refer
> to a prostitute (as in "to hawk one's mutton"). A clever ruse, but we
> have seen through it! Clearly he is of loose moral character, and also
> so megalomaniacal as to interrupt a sexual liason to proclaim his
> superiority. He sets a bad example for children and will lead to the
> moral decay of the IF community. Lo, there are already rumors of
> another Stiffy Makane story.
>
> Is there a date for the release of this?
>< fx > Heavy breathing .
I heard it's being "hard" coded to an EPROM as we speak.
--
Neil Cerutti
ChicagoDave
> And let us not forget the Book of Zork and the parable of the man who
> dug in the sand too many times.
Nor shall we forget also from the Book of Zork, "He who stays on the
Frigid River Too Long, Plummets."
This in turn point us to the Book of Python on the subject of Sheep,
"They don't so much fly as they do plummet."
Baaaa - SPLAT!
David C.
Graham Nelson
> There's no use denying this with an even lamer reference to a French
> expression which has nothing to do with sheep but mutton
In French, "mouton" generally means "sheep" rather than mutton in the
English sense, though it can mean "mutton sheep", that is, a sheep
raised for food. The OED's definition under "revenons à nos moutons,
phr." is:
'Let us return to the subject': an exhortation to cease digressing.
> (as in, during
> a big banquet, one might say "well, that was a nice diversion, but now
> let's return to our feast").
An interesting but false etymology. It's actually an allusion to comic
events in the Farce de Maistre Pierre Pathelin, 1470, and none of the
English usages cited in the OED have any connotation of eating. (I
can't read the original terribly well, but the gist is that Pathelin is
an inept lawyer who defends a shepherd working for a cloth-maker.)
In short, then, the phrase I used was used correctly; did not refer to
the Lamb of God; and did not refer to mutton. When I pointed this out,
it was not "a lie", and my "claim upon the expression" was not
"obviously untrue". But I believe I will end my rebuttal against these
inexplicable charges here, lest I become a mouton enragé ("normally
calm person who becomes suddenly enraged or violent", first cited 1896).
Neil Cerutti
> In short, then, the phrase I used was used correctly; did not
> refer to the Lamb of God; and did not refer to mutton. When I
> pointed this out, it was not "a lie", and my "claim upon the
> expression" was not "obviously untrue". But I believe I will
> end my rebuttal against these inexplicable charges here, lest I
> become a mouton enragé ("normally calm person who becomes
> suddenly enraged or violent", first cited 1896).
That reminds me! _Mouton Rouge_ is one of Kidman's best films!
--
Neil Cerutti
Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps
affirm this fact. --Edward Koch
steve....@gmail.com
> In short, then, the phrase I used was used correctly; did not refer to
> the Lamb of God; and did not refer to mutton.
You were riffing on the New Testament. In an embarassingly
megalomaniacial moment, you doubled-up the "sheep" metaphor to figure
yourself Christ (and to give your prose an aire of sophistication). And
-- your protestations are very amusing indeed, but transparently false
(and upsetting to your flock, it would seem); your original post is
there for all to see: my father's house has many rooms ... I'll return
to my flock; it just cannot be more obvious. Further groping through
the dictionary isn't going to help your case; it's just further
acknowledgement of your foolishness.
(Neither here nor there, but a quick look at the dictionary suggests
that Graham is right about the metaphorical underpinning of his French
proverb.)
> When I pointed this out,
> it was not "a lie", and my "claim upon the expression" was not
> "obviously untrue". But I believe I will end my rebuttal against these
> inexplicable charges here, lest I become a mouton enragé ("normally
> calm person who becomes suddenly enraged or violent", first cited 1896).
Or, if you don't like "angry sheep," maybe something more like, "don
caught masturbating in public (again)" or so. Not sure what's the
French for that one.... Got a dictionary handy Don?
Stephen Granade
> You were riffing on the New Testament. In an embarassingly
> megalomaniacial moment,
> (and to give your prose an aire of sophistication)
> Got a dictionary handy Don?
If so, Graham, may I suggest that you loan it out?
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade
stephen...@granades.com
Gene Wirchenko
Yes, but by responding as we are now doing, we can be amused.
Turning the tables is fun. Oh, some day, I may truly be charming --
Thanks, Adam -- but I can still show steel.
He can whine about ad hom if he wants. I say that he has been
eagerly stirring the shit bucket for months, and now, some of us are
for dumping it on him.
>Maybe we could even put that in the FAQ for the site?
"Make your next newsgroup fool a Breslin."
Neil Cerutti
> He can whine about ad hom if he wants. I say that he has been
> eagerly stirring the shit bucket for months, and now, some of
> us are for dumping it on him.
>
>>Maybe we could even put that in the FAQ for the site?
>
> "Make your next newsgroup fool a Breslin."
I declare Gene president of G.R.O.S.S: Get Rid of Slimy breSlin.
I'm First Tiger.
Graham Nelson
> Further groping through
> the dictionary isn't going to help your case; it's just further
> acknowledgement of your foolishness.
You asked what I meant by a given expression and I gave the explanation
you asked for, but you called it a "lie". So I provided evidence that
the expression did indeed mean that. Since you would not accept this,
for a variety of reasons (to do with the exhaustion of the pastoral,
the ubiquity of the Bible, and the supposed meaning of "mouton"), I
posted verbatim evidence. That's the only case I am arguing here, and
you now concede it:
> (Neither here nor there, but a quick look at the dictionary suggests
> that Graham is right about the metaphorical underpinning of his French
> proverb.)
Thus what you called a "lie" was true, and you had no basis for
suggesting otherwise. Quite why you chose to make an issue of the
question of whether or not a French expression referred to wandering
sheep, I really have no idea, but you evidently decided this was
important enough to call somebody else a liar over it. Perhaps you
would now like to apologise.
Gene Wirchenko
>On 2006-09-22, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> He can whine about ad hom if he wants. I say that he has been
>> eagerly stirring the shit bucket for months, and now, some of
>> us are for dumping it on him.
>>
>>>Maybe we could even put that in the FAQ for the site?
>>
>> "Make your next newsgroup fool a Breslin."
>
>I declare Gene president of G.R.O.S.S: Get Rid of Slimy breSlin.
>I'm First Tiger.
Tigers are neat.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Supreme Dictator for Life
Adam Thornton
Stephen Granade <stephen...@granades.com> wrote:
> If so, Graham, may I suggest that you loan it out?
"'Lend it out,' he gritted through clenched teeth. 'To loan is not a
verb.'"
Adam
Adam Thornton
"Jackdaw" <dicon-...@jackdaw-crafts.co.uk> wrote:
> "JDC" <jd...@psu.edu> wrote
> > Lo, there are already rumors of
> > another Stiffy Makane story.
>
> Is there a date for the release of this?
> < fx > Heavy breathing .
> ;¬)
No date has been announced. It is safe to say that it is not one of
this year's IF-Comp games, though.
At least, not from *this* author.
Adam
Adam Thornton
Even I would be embarrassed about taking credit for something that's
evidently just Beat 'Em and Eat 'Em with a few minor sprite changes.
Adam
steve....@gmail.com
> steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Further groping through
> > the dictionary isn't going to help your case; it's just further
> > acknowledgement of your foolishness.
>
> You asked what I meant by a given expression and I gave the explanation
> you asked for, but you called it a "lie".
Yes, and you're sticking with it! Good for you! Good for us all, I
would say.
(You lapped "doth protest too much" two posts ago.)
The more ridiculous you make yourself look, sticking to this totally
obvious lie, worming away with transparent diversions, the clearer to
all is your folly and your bad conscience.
I identified you riffing on the New Testament, with the condescension
and patronizing false-magnanimity of Inform's Christlike Shepherd. One
doesn't go to the trouble of calling oneself a shepherd while alluding
to the New Testament, unless one is trying to capitalize on the
Christian metaphor. Your lie is that your figure was exclusive to an
accidental, unrelated, secular shepherd. (Pretending that I accused you
of lying on other grounds is just another hopeless wiggle.)
Till you're blue in the face you'll be trying to change the subject, or
claiming "I was only scratching an itch," but you got caught vigorously
masterbating (yet again), plain as day.
Adam Thornton
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> vigorously masterbating (yet again)
You spelled "masturbating" correctly the previous time.
I think your medical situation is deteriorating and it's taking your
brain function with it. You might wish to seek aid.
Adam
James Mitchelhill
> The more ridiculous you make yourself look, sticking to this totally
> obvious lie, worming away with transparent diversions, the clearer to
> all is your folly and your bad conscience.
Who's this "all" Steve? Do the lurkers support you in email?
I don't mind your pathetic attacks on Graham, which are at least
transiently amusing, but claiming to be opening up everyone's benighted
eyes to the awful truth is a bit... well... magalomaniacal.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
ChicagoDave
> Yes, and you're sticking with it! Good for you! Good for us all, I
> would say.
I figured you out you clever old Cat.
You tried this now twice, both times with your Hat.
I see your mechanations, your mischievous pose.
You think we're all morons, we're all dolts I suppose.
But no more will you bother us with your games that you play.
For we are united and have one important thing to say.
Please leave us now, take your Hat too.
We don't need any of your kind in our Igloo.
Although it is true I have heard of a cure.
It's not in your Hat and it takes balls to persue.
If you get laid, you might learn to unwind.
You might unravel that ego and learn to be kind.
You might even take comfort in discourse with friends.
But I suspect you know this, you clever old cat.
The problem with you is
No one will have anything to do with your tiny little bat.
David C.
steve....@gmail.com
Adam Thornton wrote:
> In article <1158967058.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> > vigorously masterbating (yet again)
>
> You spelled "masturbating" correctly the previous time.
Aw, it's sweet coming from you, but I would much prefer Graham
correcting that particular typo. Something like, "The attractiveness
[thrust] of my masturbating [thrust] I shall leave for others to
determine [double-pump]. I only claim [thrust] is that I can spell
[thrust] the word [thrust] correctly [splat]." -- or somesuch, you get
the idea I'm sure.
> I think your medical situation is deteriorating and it's taking your
> brain function with it. You might wish to seek aid.
Brez off his meds, eh? Well this is probably some figment of my lunacy,
but I think our group is pretty rare for not unanimously laughing doc
ox off stage long ago. In most social contexts, superiority and
condescension are not so well tolerated. I wonder what it is about this
group that some members happily suffer, even defend, such foolishness.
I get that he wrote Inform, and some people this feel they're forever
indebted to him (or so), but I wonder if there's something more.
IF is not an inescapably pretentious literary genre, but it has at
least one strong tendency in that direction. (Plotkin has remarked this
more intelligently (and less judgmentally) than I can.) Of course I get
that nobody likes an asshole, but to think that the asshole is not the
pretender, but is rather the person who stands and says "this pretender
is talking down to us" -- I suspect that in that case, pretention and
condescension is a strange interest, almost something to be celebrated.
It may just be the "emperor's new clothes" situation, but I think it's
more specific than that; that it's related to the history and state of
the genre which has at least nominally attracted readers here.
Certainly this is all too complicated for me, but I hope you get the
drift of my thought.
Nathan
> IF is not an inescapably pretentious literary genre, but it has at
> least one strong tendency in that direction. (Plotkin has remarked this
> more intelligently (and less judgmentally) than I can.) Of course I get
> that nobody likes an asshole, but to think that the asshole is not the
> pretender, but is rather the person who stands and says "this pretender
> is talking down to us" -- I suspect that in that case, pretention and
> condescension is a strange interest, almost something to be celebrated.
You are Jacek Pudlo, and I claim my five pounds.
Adam Thornton
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> Adam Thornton wrote:
> Something like, "The attractiveness
> [thrust] of my masturbating [thrust] I shall leave for others to
> determine [double-pump]. I only claim [thrust] is that I can spell
> [thrust] the word [thrust] correctly [splat]." -- or somesuch, you get
> the idea I'm sure.
Oh, indeed I do. You certainly do seem fascinated by the mental image
of Graham masturbating.
> I wonder what it is about this
> group that some members happily suffer, even defend, such foolishness.
> I get that he wrote Inform, and some people this feel they're forever
> indebted to him (or so), but I wonder if there's something more.
Well, you mean, other than we all want to fellate him, and then pull a
Deep-Purple-Groupie with a turkey baster, and bear his children, anally
if necessary? Because, other than that, nah, I don't think so.
> IF is not an inescapably pretentious literary genre, but it has at
> least one strong tendency in that direction. (Plotkin has remarked this
> more intelligently (and less judgmentally) than I can.) Of course I get
> that nobody likes an asshole, but to think that the asshole is not the
> pretender, but is rather the person who stands and says "this pretender
> is talking down to us" -- I suspect that in that case, pretention and
> condescension is a strange interest, almost something to be celebrated.
> It may just be the "emperor's new clothes" situation, but I think it's
> more specific than that; that it's related to the history and state of
> the genre which has at least nominally attracted readers here.
> Certainly this is all too complicated for me, but I hope you get the
> drift of my thought.
And again, I do, but I have very sad news for you. Jacek Pudlo has
wondered just this, but far more articulately, and far more
entertainingly, than you do. And on top of that, he's written brilliant
IF, and is--I'm not afraid to say it in public--the very best beta
tester I've ever had. And you, sir, are no Jacek Pudlo.
I can, however, say with little fear of contradiction, that if
faux-sophisticated literary pretension makes you break out in hives,
then you'd be well-advised to stock up on Benadryl before you play my
work in progress, when it's released.
I'll give you "Doc Ox," though. That was worth a small chortle. If
only you could parlay that into some hideous metaphor involving the New
Testament and tentacle hentai.
Adam
Adam Thornton
"Nathan" <nts...@netscape.net> wrote:
See, I don't think so, and here's why:
Jacek clearly knows I6 quite well. He's very good at it.
Steve clearly knows T3 *very* well. He's excellent at it, and is quite
active in T3 discussions.
If Jacek is obsessive enough to maintain two separate net.kook
personalities, both of whom are highly competent in their languages of
choice, and both of whom pretend ignorance of the other language...well,
I would be very very surprised. That would reveal a truly startling
level of dedication to the craft.
I could be wrong; if I am, I have been masterfully trolled.
Adam
Nikos Chantziaras
> [...]
> Well, you mean, other than we all want to fellate him, and then pull a
> Deep-Purple-Groupie with a turkey baster, and bear his children, anally
> if necessary?
Can I have a link to where you download your porn from? Thanks in
advance. :)
Adam Thornton
Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@arcor.de> wrote:
Oh, I just use the Hun, like everybody else. Sorry.
Adam
John DeBerry
> Just leave him alone. Don't respond. Ever. He may still post here. But
> when he's being totally ignored, at least then it will just seem
> pathetic rather than what it is now: pathetic *and* annoying.
This is a good idea. He is seeking attention, and even negative
attention is attention. It's like your child throwing a tantrum. It's
to manipulate you, get your attention, and get you to do something. The
best thing to do is to disengage or leave the room.
Therefore, I choose not to respond to him any more. He never listens to
us or anyone anyway.
John DeBerry
> I'm pleased to announce the first TADS 3 General Release, and also a TADS 2
> maintenance update.
Congratulations on a job well done!
John
Gene Wirchenko
>In article <mcu02zh...@sargent.dyndns.org>,
> Stephen Granade <stephen...@granades.com> wrote:
>
>> If so, Graham, may I suggest that you loan it out?
The top entry so far in the Graham Nelson Imitation Contest:
>"'Lend it out,' he gritted through clenched teeth. 'To loan is not a
>verb.'"
Keep those entries coming, folks!
In related news, the Steve Breslin Imitation Contest has been
cancelled. No judges could found with sufficently strong stomachs.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
It is very difficult to get me to LOL to a USENET post, but you
did so wonderfully.
Does Precious Breslin make a good straight man?
Graham Nelson
> The more ridiculous you make yourself look, sticking to this totally
> obvious lie, worming away with transparent diversions, the clearer to
> all is your folly and your bad conscience.
and then...
> I identified you riffing on the New Testament, with the condescension
> and patronizing false-magnanimity of Inform's Christlike Shepherd.
and then...
> Till you're blue in the face you'll be trying to change the subject, or
> claiming "I was only scratching an itch," but you got caught vigorously
> masterbating (yet again), plain as day.
I will accede to general requests and stop responding to poor Mr
Breslin, I think. His state is more to be pitied than anything else,
and I bear him no ill will, but it does not seem possible for anyone he
regards as some kind of rival opinion-former to engage usefully with
him in discussion.
Gene Wirchenko
Oh, Jesus! Now, he is going to complain that you are comparing
yourself to a saint or something.
Adam Thornton
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> "Graham Nelson" <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I will accede to general requests and stop responding to poor Mr
> >Breslin, I think. His state is more to be pitied than anything else,
> >and I bear him no ill will, but it does not seem possible for anyone he
> >regards as some kind of rival opinion-former to engage usefully with
> >him in discussion.
>
> Oh, Jesus! Now, he is going to complain that you are comparing
> yourself to a saint or something.
Well, Gene, it's *you* addressing Graham as Jesus. You poor lost little
mutton.
And Graham:
s/ he
Adam Thornton
> "Graham Nelson" <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I will accede to general requests and stop responding to poor Mr
> >Breslin, I think. His state is more to be pitied than anything else,
> >and I bear him no ill will, but it does not seem possible for anyone he
> >regards as some kind of rival opinion-former to engage usefully with
> >him in discussion.
>
> Oh, Jesus! Now, he is going to complain that you are comparing
> yourself to a saint or something.
AUGH. I keep forgetting that MT-NewsWatcher doesn't have quite standard
Mac keymappings. Let's try that again. Sorry about the mangled
previous post:
Gene, it is, after all, *you* who are addressing Graham as Jesus, you
poor lost little mutton.
Graham (pardon my Perl (or sed)):
s/he regards as some kind of rival opinion-former //;
Adam
steve....@gmail.com
> [I]t does not seem possible for anyone he
> regards as some kind of rival opinion-former to engage usefully with
> him in discussion.
That you were referring to yourself as shepherd in the context of NT
allusions is a matter of public record, not opinion.
Yours, like any brand of eliteism, is an aggression upon the right to
opinion and difference. You frequently use language, not for
communication, but to glorify yourself in your own eyes, and such is
essentially masturbation, nothing more. You are a terrible role model.
It's such language that Orwell had in mind when he invented the
"Ministry of Truth". When you hide your desire, to glorify yourself
without embarassment, under the aegis of opinion, you disrespect and
damage that sacred right.
Adam Thornton
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> Yours, like any brand of eliteism, is an aggression upon the right to
> opinion and difference. You frequently use language, not for
> communication, but to glorify yourself in your own eyes, and such is
> essentially masturbation, nothing more. You are a terrible role model.
Well, you got "masturbation" right again! Congratulations! Pity about
"elitism," though. While I'm at it I'll fix the typo in the Subject:
line. Gosh, I bet you're going to tell me again that you wish that
*Graham* had corrected you, not me.
I have an idea: you could go start a moderated web forum, and then not
allow me to post to it, and then carry on your discussion there. That
would fix the problem.
Furthermore, I was unaware that Graham was supposed to be a role model.
The implication that he is seems to reveal much more about you than
about him. I know *I* don't want to be like Graham: for one thing, he
doesn't make enough dick jokes in his games, and I *like* dick jokes.
More generally, I characterize myself as a Dionysian sort of fellow--at
least by comparison to his Apollonian public personality--and I really
have no desire to change that. I admire Graham's work without feeling
that I should adopt him as a role model.
> It's such language that Orwell had in mind when he invented the
> "Ministry of Truth". When you hide your desire, to glorify yourself
> without embarassment, under the aegis of opinion, you disrespect and
> damage that sacred right.
What sacred right? I can't find your antecedent. Is "aegis of opinion"
the sacred right? There are really too many commas there. I think that
if you left out the first two, the sense of the sentence I *think* you
meant to say would come out a bit more clearly. Here, try this: "When
you hide your desire to glorify yourself without embarrassment [this fix
is free] under the aegis of opinion, you disrespect and damage that
sacred right."
It's still pretty clumsy, though, and it's still not at all clear
whether the sacred right is that to hold (to promulgate?) an opinion or
for unashamed self-glorification.
Well, there's glory for you.
Humptily Yrs.,
Adam
P.S. This is why I think that Breslin is not Jacek. Jacek--who claims
to be European, and who, judging from the arrival times of his emails
about my work in progress, keeps European hours--says that English is
not his mother tongue. If, however, that is truly the case, he
nonetheless has a much firmer command of the language than Steve
Breslin. Jacek would not have written a sentence for public consumption
that left us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he meant.
David Whyld
Adam Thornton wrote:
>
> I have an idea: you could go start a moderated web forum, and then not
> allow me to post to it, and then carry on your discussion there. That
> would fix the problem.
>
If he started a moderated web forum and moderated it properly, he'd
have to ban himself so that idea wouldn't work.
Nikos Chantziaras
In defense of Mr. Breslin, he hasn't done anything to deserve a ban.
His opinions are read, noted and simply rejected.
James Mitchelhill
Actually, I think you'll find that Orwell was much more concerned with the
use of language by governmental organisations than by individuals. He was
particularly concerned with what would today be called "spin", and also the
excision of responsibility from governments texts. Language like "It is to
be regretted that..." and "The situation necessitates...", where nobody in
particular is doing the regretting or deciding that something is necessary.
Graham isn't an elite - he's just this guy, y'know? He gets respect for
what he's done, not the way he expresses himself. Anyone's free to disagree
- as you obviously do. But most people seem to be able to conduct
themselves cordially while doing so.
steve....@gmail.com
> Gosh, I bet you're going to tell me again that you wish that
> *Graham* had corrected you, not me.
Heh, no not at all. I thought it would be amusing for Graham to correct
the spelling of "masturbation" because he would correct it in what I
have been calling the language of masturbation, so it would be a
sort-of comedic match of subject and language. You have an ear for this
sort of thing -- I think you must have gotten the joke.
> Furthermore, I was unaware that Graham was supposed to be a role model.
Right -- that was a very clumsy choice of words. I mean, what role is
he modeling? IF system designer perhaps? Well he is a bad model for
that, but for what burgeoning IF system designers? Few if any. No,
you're right. I meant that he's a bad model for writing games, and
certainly a bad model for conversation. He's in a position of authority
and it would be nice if he weren't such an elitist, since that's a bad
influence. That's all I meant.
> > It's such language that Orwell had in mind when he invented the
> > "Ministry of Truth". When you hide your desire, to glorify yourself
> > without embarassment, under the aegis of opinion, you disrespect and
> > damage that sacred right.
>
> What sacred right?
The right to opinion. Sorry, I thought that was clear.
He was pretending that ours was a difference of opinion, and that I
don't allow difference on opinion. An ironical position. His language
is one of intolerance and elitism. His pretending on the side of
opinion is just laughable. Indeed, "difference" is the name of the
modern philosophical concept aimed at demolishing his
acedemic-culture's false superiority, the latter largely based on an
inflated, self-important style of writing, and also on a reductive
logic designed to strip meaning from dissenting opinion.
steve....@gmail.com
> Actually, I think you'll find that Orwell was much more concerned with the
> use of language by governmental organisations than by individuals.
Yes, I agree with you. It was never about this or that individual
writer. Although, he did have some individual opponents. Hobgen, for
example, former head of the labor party, wrote in roughly the same
style as Graham. It wasn't that Orwell thought Hobgen was the problem,
or that I think Graham is the problem. These writers are bad
influences; or better: indicative examples of bad cultural tendencies,
when they are taken seriously.
Yes, Orwell's interest in language was more on the level of culture,
less on the level of the individual. In this context, he would not care
a whit what Graham writes personally, but rather the culture of
writing.
I think I have, in heated enthusiasm, overstated the relevance of
Graham's style. I do not think this newsgroup or culture, or genre, is
heavily by Graham. And indeed, the biggest person most influenced by
Graham is Emily Short, and I like her writing very much.
Adam Thornton
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> He's in a position of authority
> and it would be nice if he weren't such an elitist, since that's a bad
> influence. That's all I meant.
Graham has as much authority as you choose to ascribe him. I mean--and
no offense intended to anyone--I'm not exactly wandering around with a
"WWGD?" little rubber bracelet on my wrist, and I don't know anyone who
is.
Sure, people respect him, largely on account of his works. Inform 6 is
fairly popular, although I'll grant that some of its syntactical choices
are at best idiosyncratic. I7 is *far* more idiosyncratic and the jury
is, I think, still out on its ultimate utility. I myself find it much,
much faster to get stuff down in a "first draft" but basically working
form in I7 than I do in I6. Getting the fiddly stuff right is slower,
but it still seems to be a net win for me. Certainly my
work-in-progress is much larger than anything I've actually released,
and I am nowhere near the end, nor am I out of steam. I realize you
don't think much of the IDMv4, but it's a far less dry reference work
than *most* language textbooks; unlike the I7 documentation, it *does*
function as a reference work, and it's as fun to just read without a
particular problem you need to solve as the better O'Reilly books--which
is high praise from me.
As far as his games go: _Curses_ was a great deal of puzzle-festy fun
when it first appeared, although I suspect it has not aged very well (I
haven't played it in years and years). I quite like _Jigsaw_, mostly
because I really enjoyed _Trinity_ (Infocom's best, for my money) and
_Jigsaw_ is very much from the same mold. _The Meteor, etc._ was a
competent but largely forgettable Infocom-style puzzle game, as I
remember it, and _The Tempest_ was an interesting but ultimately
unsuccessful experiment (and if anyone was predisposed to like it, it
was me: I consider _The Tempest_ Shakespeare's best play, period. Yes,
better than _Hamlet_ or _King Lear_). Have I missed anything? 4 games,
two reasonably major, and a third arguably somewhat influential, does
not seem to me to an authority make.
I don't *think* I'm an Inform fanboy. I bought TADS 2 way back in 1991
or 1992, and I've followed the development of T3, as you know,
reasonably closely for a number of years. For the game idea that I and
one of my betatesters have been idly kicking around--a classical world
murder mystery, perhaps--I'm probably going to try it in T3 since that
gives me access to a whole bunch of NPC-knowledge-state modeling stuff
right off the bat. If I ever write it, that is.
> His language is one of intolerance and elitism.
This, I really don't see. At least, not the intolerance part, and I'm
somewhat blind to the "elitist" argument since I've never understood,
really, what's wrong with "elitism"--if you've mastered at something,
your opinion about that thing *ought* to carry more weight than that of
someone who doesn't understand it.
> His pretending on the side of
> opinion is just laughable. Indeed, "difference" is the name of the
> modern philosophical concept aimed at demolishing his
> acedemic-culture's false superiority, the latter largely based on an
> inflated, self-important style of writing, and also on a reductive
> logic designed to strip meaning from dissenting opinion.
I really don't see where you're getting all that from. The guy likes
High Modernism. So? Are you supposed to pretend you *haven't* read all
the stuff you're quoting? Are you supposed to *not* cite it?
Here's a quick diagnostic for you: do Eliot's _Notes on the Waste Land_
piss you off because they're so poncy and so very irritatingly superior,
or make you chuckle because you strongly suspect he's having fun at his
critics' expense? I'm of the strong opinion that the _Notes_ are
largely an elaborate--and funny--piece of hermeneutic misdirection.
Eliot's just making up the relevance of half this stuff, and he's
tossing it in because it _sounds_ good. The Shackleton bit in the
_Notes_ makes this pretty clear, I think.
_The Waste Land_, and Graham's
writing-and-continual-quoting-of-external-referents, only makes you feel
inferior if you think it should. Me, well, I know that I haven't read a
tenth of that stuff, but I don't let it bother me. I also know plenty
of things little Tommy Stearns didn't, and I've known a few people who
really *do* have the kind of encyclopedic knowledge that Eliot pretended
to, and who could take him three falls out of three in an intellectual
wrestling match, without breaking a sweat. (None of them, as far as I
know, have his *ear*, though: for someone whose fame rests largely on
destroying the Victorian sonority-without-much-sense aesthetic, *damn*,
the man could string syllables together beautifully when he wanted to:
Polyphiloprogenitive
The sapient sutlers of the Lord
Drift across the window-pane
In the beginning was the Word.
)
You're reading quotation-happy playfulness as attempted intimidation;
that's your choice, of course, but be aware that there are responses
that don't involve nearly so much defensiveness, even if you haven't
read the stuff that's being quoted at you.
The question is who's to be master, that's all.
Humptily Yrs.,
Adam
Stebbins
Adam Thornton wrote:
> As far as his games go: _Curses_ was a great deal of puzzle-festy fun
> when it first appeared, although I suspect it has not aged very well (I
> haven't played it in years and years). I quite like _Jigsaw_, mostly
> because I really enjoyed _Trinity_ (Infocom's best, for my money) and
> _Jigsaw_ is very much from the same mold. _The Meteor, etc._ was a
> competent but largely forgettable Infocom-style puzzle game, as I
> remember it, and _The Tempest_ was an interesting but ultimately
> unsuccessful experiment (and if anyone was predisposed to like it, it
> was me: I consider _The Tempest_ Shakespeare's best play, period. Yes,
> better than _Hamlet_ or _King Lear_). Have I missed anything? 4 games,
> two reasonably major, and a third arguably somewhat influential, does
> not seem to me to an authority make.
You left out _Reliques of Tolti-Aph_. That game didn't seem to be very
well received, so mentioning it only strengthens your point.
Adam Thornton
"Stebbins" <moja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You left out _Reliques of Tolti-Aph_. That game didn't seem to be very
> well received, so mentioning it only strengthens your point.
Right. I'm not sure to what degree it's even intended as a game, rather
than an extended I7 example.
Adam
Nikos Chantziaras
> [...]
> Graham has as much authority as you choose to ascribe him. I mean--and
> no offense intended to anyone--I'm not exactly wandering around with a
> "WWGD?" little rubber bracelet on my wrist, and I don't know anyone who
> is.
The best part about Graham Nelson is the cool name. If someone named
"Graham" is talking, you *HAVE* to listen. Maybe because the name
reminds me of Abraham, not sure; guess that makes him quite biblical.
(Did I spell the last word correctly?)
steve....@gmail.com
> Hobgen, for
> example, former head of the labor party, wrote in roughly the same
> style as Graham.
Oops, I got my poncy schmucks confused. *Laski* was the head of the
labor party; Hobgen was the Interglossa guy (that being precursor to
Esperanto). (Orwell cites them both in parallel examples of poncy
writing; Graham writes much more in the style of the former, who
happens to be, surprise surprise, from Oxford.)
Neil Cerutti
> Graham isn't an elite - he's just this guy, y'know? He gets
> respect for what he's done, not the way he expresses himself.
You wouldn't say that if you saw his tour-de-force of snippets
written in the style of famous Science Fiction authors. It should
be in Google Groups, but I'm too lazy to find it for you (see the
next paragraph).
Am I irked that Graham Nelson is smarter, more dedicated, and
most likely far more handsome and virile than myself? Of course!
But I don't blame him. I blame myself--well, actually, my
parents.
> Anyone's free to disagree - as you obviously do. But most
> people seem to be able to conduct themselves cordially while
> doing so.
Breslin is cordial enough. Well, for a looney. The
less-than-ten-fingers thing is, I think, when he fell into
dementia where Graham Nelson is concerned.
--
Neil Cerutti
8 new choir robes are currently needed, due to the addition of
several new members and to the deterioration of some of the
older ones. --Church Bulletin Blooper
Quintin Stone
> The more ridiculous you make yourself look, sticking to this totally
> obvious lie, worming away with transparent diversions, the clearer to
> all is your folly and your bad conscience.
Lest we all forget, this is the guy who teaches a class "on winning
arguments with your friends and enemies, defending yourself against your
relatives, and getting loads of money by impressing those who write
checks. Oh yes, and suave seduction, ingenious wit, masterful
understanding, and the acquisition of everything you could possibly
desire."
Let the pity for his students begin in 3... 2... 1...
==--- --=--=-- ---==
Quintin Stone "You speak of necessary evil? One of those necessities
st...@rps.net is that if innocents must suffer, the guilty must suffer
www.rps.net more." - Mackenzie Calhoun, "Once Burned" by Peter David
Neil Cerutti
In 1995 or so it seemed every other poster to this forum was
named "Graham", or a closely related name. Perhaps all the other
Grahams were just rabid fanboys.
--
Neil Cerutti
steve....@gmail.com
> > He's in a position of authority
> > and it would be nice if he weren't such an elitist, since that's a bad
> > influence. That's all I meant.
>
> Graham has as much authority as you choose to ascribe him.
Oh no, certainly not. The position of authority is neither won not lost
by indulgent-irrelevant references to one's fingers, not by fronting
like Jesus, not (more generally) by all the sytlistic
false-sophistication of a self-fellaciating don. Graham's authority has
nothing to do with his style. He's an authority for the simple fact
that he's an expert and when he has an idea, it's worth listening to.
His style is a bad influence, because that style is elitist and
combative, and does not provide a friendly space for multiple voices. I
have said this style is unethical, because it is reflective of a
certain combative approach to thought, an approach which is contrary to
understanding and difference (or "opinion," a word he recently hid
behind, ironically).
Ironical because, as I said, his language is one of intolerance and
elitism...
> > His language is one of intolerance and elitism.
>
> This, I really don't see. At least, not the intolerance part, and I'm
> somewhat blind to the "elitist" argument since I've never understood,
> really, what's wrong with "elitism"--if you've mastered at something,
> your opinion about that thing *ought* to carry more weight than that of
> someone who doesn't understand it.
Ok, so two different points, taken in turn.
Intolerance: Graham is not a guy whose argument allows disagreement.
The normal way he responds to arguments which do not suit him: he
breaks the argument down into a set of logically-linked assertions
(normally simplifying if not oversimplifying the original argument),
picks a hole in one of them (often a sort-of strawman he's produced
through oversimplification), then claims the argument void. A more
tolerant writer would respect difference, offer his or her view as one
theory or interpretation. A true thinker invites difference, whereas a
merely competitive man wishes to beat or otherwise destroy difference.
You write against the anti-elitist argument, and I sympathize. One can
be so open-minded that rigor and real interest are seemingly lost. I
appreciate authority, the image of a good teacher, as much as I despise
authoritarianism, the image of a bad teacher.
> > His pretending on the side of
> > opinion is just laughable. Indeed, "difference" is the name of the
> > modern philosophical concept aimed at demolishing his
> > acedemic-culture's false superiority, the latter largely based on an
> > inflated, self-important style of writing, and also on a reductive
> > logic designed to strip meaning from dissenting opinion.
>
> I really don't see where you're getting all that from. The guy likes
> High Modernism. So? Are you supposed to pretend you *haven't* read all
> the stuff you're quoting? Are you supposed to *not* cite it?
I don't have any beef with any literature. Eric Eve cites Mark, in
introducing the "hidden" in IF: it's a fun connection, and he's an NT
scholar so he can make it work. It's tangential, but tangents are fun.
Somewhat jealous of the workability of Eric's reference, indeed in a
weak attempt at emulation, Graham very irrelevantly cites a couple
other Bliblical stuffs, getting the metaphors mixed and otherwise lost
and generally makes a crappy job of it. It's not like I'm saying he
should pretend he hasn't read the Bible, or that he shouldn't cite it.
But only that he shouldn't make such an embarassment of himself by
citing it so very badly.
> Here's a quick diagnostic for you: do Eliot's _Notes on the Waste Land_
> piss you off because they're so poncy and so very irritatingly superior,
> or make you chuckle because you strongly suspect he's having fun at his
> critics' expense?
Never read them, sorry. I have read enough Eliot to say that I really
like it, but he's totally outside my area of professional knowledge.
But let me get back to the main point, the ethics of this concept of
knowledge as combat, which you describe thusly:
> I've known a few people who
> really *do* have the kind of encyclopedic knowledge that Eliot pretended
> to, and who could take him three falls out of three in an intellectual
> wrestling match, without breaking a sweat.
See, I don't like the idea that knowledge is superiority, that the more
encyclopedic your knowledge, the better you are at intellectual
wrestling. Understanding and power are what Plotkin would call
"orthoginal" -- and their association doesn't help anyone but the
smartypants with a gift for irrelevant (non-understanding) quotation
and trivia. In an atmosphere like Oxford, this relationship of trivia
to power might motivate somebody here or there to learn their Greek
better, but it's never taught anyone to think or understand any better,
and sympathy and tolerance take heavy losses.
> You're reading quotation-happy playfulness as attempted intimidation;
Well, I think there's something more to it than quotation-happy
playfulness, though it's probably fair to say, charitably, that Graham
never got far enough outside Oxford to observe how language is supposed
to be used, and really does only understand it as (pseudo-)intellectual
warfare (as if posturing could be considered a form of either intellect
or warfare).
vaporware
> Adam Thornton wrote:
> > > He's in a position of authority
> > > and it would be nice if he weren't such an elitist, since that's a bad
> > > influence. That's all I meant.
> >
> > Graham has as much authority as you choose to ascribe him.
>
> Oh no, certainly not. The position of authority is neither won not lost
> by indulgent-irrelevant references to one's fingers, not by fronting
> like Jesus, not (more generally) by all the sytlistic
> false-sophistication of a self-fellaciating don. Graham's authority has
> nothing to do with his style. He's an authority for the simple fact
> that he's an expert and when he has an idea, it's worth listening to.
>
> His style is a bad influence, because that style is elitist and
> combative, and does not provide a friendly space for multiple voices. I
> have said this style is unethical, because it is reflective of a
> certain combative approach to thought, an approach which is contrary to
> understanding and difference (or "opinion," a word he recently hid
> behind, ironically).
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to see *you* accuse *him* of
being combative? That, sir, takes chutzpah.
vw
steve....@gmail.com
> Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to see *you* accuse *him* of
> being combative? That, sir, takes chutzpah.
Thanks, I like chutzpah. Seriously though...
To be intolerant of intolerance is not self-contradictory. Or, yes I
give him holy hell for being obnoxious, and obviously that makes me a
jackass as well, but my jackassedness, unlike his, is not directed
towards undeserving bystanders.
James Mitchelhill
> His style is a bad influence, because that style is elitist and
> combative, and does not provide a friendly space for multiple voices.
Elitism is a good thing. The trouble with having multiple voices is that
you end up with nothing but cacophony. Elitism - or what might be termed
meritocracy - is one way of filtering the crap.
Just take a look at any fan-fiction group that's overly concerned with
providing a friendly space for multiple voices. That's what you get when
there's no elitism. And the result is dreck.
> I
> have said this style is unethical, because it is reflective of a
> certain combative approach to thought, an approach which is contrary to
> understanding and difference (or "opinion," a word he recently hid
> behind, ironically).
>
> Ironical because, as I said, his language is one of intolerance and
> elitism...
Intolerance is a good thing. It's how we determine what we pay attention
to. Tolerating anything, no matter how empty, dumb or asinine drowns
anything interesting.
> Intolerance: Graham is not a guy whose argument allows disagreement.
> The normal way he responds to arguments which do not suit him: he
> breaks the argument down into a set of logically-linked assertions
> (normally simplifying if not oversimplifying the original argument),
> picks a hole in one of them (often a sort-of strawman he's produced
> through oversimplification), then claims the argument void. A more
> tolerant writer would respect difference, offer his or her view as one
> theory or interpretation. A true thinker invites difference, whereas a
> merely competitive man wishes to beat or otherwise destroy difference.
It all depends on whether an argument has any worth, doesn't it? If not,
then inviting more dumb arguments is a good way for a "true thinker" to
become very distracted from what they were thinking about originally.
The purpose of other people in a debate is not to make you feel warm, fuzzy
and valued. Neither can anyone who doesn't have an army of trained
assassins destroy difference.
Neither Graham, nor anyone else, has any moral obligation to encourage
difference. They have no obligation to allow you to set the terms by which
debate should take place. If you don't like the way people argue, then
don't argue with them. Feel free to whine about it, if you want, but
realise that whining isn't at all effective. It's not going to make people
want to debate on your terms. It's not going to turn elitist, authoritarian
Oxfordians into paragons of rational debate, and it's not going to convince
the rest of us that anyone in particular is an elitist, authoritarian
Oxfordian incapable of rational debate.
You've accused Graham of figuratively masturbating in public. What do you
think you're doing?
Andrew Plotkin
> On 26 Sep 2006 15:55:44 -0700, steve....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > His style is a bad influence, because that style is elitist and
> > combative, and does not provide a friendly space for multiple voices.
>
> Elitism is a good thing. The trouble with having multiple voices is that
> you end up with nothing but cacophony.
It's simpler than that. Graham is not elitist, not intolerant, and
I've never seen him be the remotest bit combative.
Steve is what we technically call "wrong".
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Regret, by definition, comes too late;
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate.
John M. Ford, 1957-2006
vaporware
Don't you see that you're the only one being obnoxious? You've been on
a tirade against him for months now. You seem determined to take random
things out of context, interpret them in the craziest way you can think
of (first the fingers, now the sheep), and then make a big fuss out of
nothing.
If this were elementary school, your obsessive behavior toward him
would be considered symptoms of a crush. "You don't need to throw rocks
at Graham," we'd say, "just go up to him and tell him you like him." As
it is, I'm not sure what your motivation is, but your actions are just
as vicariously embarrassing. You make accusations, like this one, that
are completely without merit, and act as if they're plainly obvious.
You aren't the lone defender of truth, you're just a joke.
My honest advice: stick to dispensing TADS 3 advice, which is something
you seem capable of not making a fool out of yourself while doing, and
hope that several months down the line, people will remember you for
that instead of this.
vw
Adam Thornton
Ah, I see we've moved beyond the "masturbation" metaphor, although
"fellating" would have done quite well; you appear to have two
extraneous syllables.
Along those lines, I thought that I might quote from my I7 WIP:
Instead of blowing the player, say "If you could do that, you would
never leave the villa."
> Intolerance: Graham is not a guy whose argument allows disagreement.
> The normal way he responds to arguments which do not suit him: he
> breaks the argument down into a set of logically-linked assertions
> (normally simplifying if not oversimplifying the original argument),
> picks a hole in one of them (often a sort-of strawman he's produced
> through oversimplification), then claims the argument void. A more
> tolerant writer would respect difference, offer his or her view as one
> theory or interpretation. A true thinker invites difference, whereas a
> merely competitive man wishes to beat or otherwise destroy difference.
This has not been my experience, although I have indeed lacked
long-standing, ongoing disagreements with Graham Nelson.
> You write against the anti-elitist argument, and I sympathize. One can
> be so open-minded that rigor and real interest are seemingly lost. I
> appreciate authority, the image of a good teacher, as much as I despise
> authoritarianism, the image of a bad teacher.
An interesting phrasing, but your rhetoric has convinced me neither that
authority is the image of a good teacher, nor that authoritarianism is
the image of the bad one. I will grant that a hallmark of certain kinds
of bad teaching is authoritarianism and the concomitant appeal to
(ill-assumed) authority. Not all authorities (and by this, I mean
uncontroversially legitimate authorities) are good teachers; not all
authoritarians are bad teachers. Likewise, I've had very good teachers
who were not, to be honest, authorities in their subjects (although they
knew more than I did), and I've had crappy, but non-authoritarian,
teachers.
> Somewhat jealous of the workability of Eric's reference, indeed in a
> weak attempt at emulation, Graham very irrelevantly cites a couple
> other Bliblical stuffs, getting the metaphors mixed and otherwise lost
> and generally makes a crappy job of it. It's not like I'm saying he
> should pretend he hasn't read the Bible, or that he shouldn't cite it.
> But only that he shouldn't make such an embarassment of himself by
> citing it so very badly.
One might, on the other hand, take Graham as being not-necessarily
untruthful when he claims that "sheep" was a departure point for his
_bon mot_ and not--as it were--Gospel. Sure, I'll grant you that the
metaphor of the shepherd is very likely to have put the mutton into his
(wooly-headed) brain, but I think that you're constructing a lot that
might not be present in the text if you leap from there to a presumption
that Graham is badly quoting scripture, and from there to "he's fronting
for Jesus."
> > Here's a quick diagnostic for you: do Eliot's _Notes on the Waste Land_
> > piss you off because they're so poncy and so very irritatingly superior,
> > or make you chuckle because you strongly suspect he's having fun at his
> > critics' expense?
>
> Never read them, sorry. I have read enough Eliot to say that I really
> like it, but he's totally outside my area of professional knowledge.
Well, mine too. I mean, I do IT design and architecture for a living.
My day job and my professional knowledge have nothing whatsoever to do
with High Modernism, or text adventures, or indeed bizarre reimaginings
of bits of _The Aeneid_ but with more dick jokes (not, ahem, to give
away too much about my WIP). Doesn't stop me from reading the stuff and
believing that I have the right (perhaps not sacred) to a critical
opinion on it.
That said, any copy of _The Waste Land_ you get hold of will come with
Eliot's notes on the poem tucked into the back, as it was published that
way (perhaps to inflate the page count). Read them along with the poem,
and then decide whether Eliot is being genuinely helpful, or having some
fun at the expense of people trying too hard to analyze the poem. I
incline to the second point of view. And if you like Eliot, then you
really *ought* to read _The Waste Land_ (although, for my money, the
early short poems are even better. No, not really "Prufrock"...but
"Sweeny Among the Nightingales"? Absolutely brilliant. "Mr. Eliot's
Sunday Sermon"--terrific!)
> But let me get back to the main point, the ethics of this concept of
> knowledge as combat, which you describe thusly:
>
> > I've known a few people who
> > really *do* have the kind of encyclopedic knowledge that Eliot pretended
> > to, and who could take him three falls out of three in an intellectual
> > wrestling match, without breaking a sweat.
>
> See, I don't like the idea that knowledge is superiority, that the more
> encyclopedic your knowledge, the better you are at intellectual
> wrestling.
However, if you are going to be intellectually wrestling, encyclopedic
knowledge moves you up a few weight classes.
> Understanding and power are what Plotkin would call
> "orthoginal"
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Understanding and power are most certainly *not*
orthogonal. They aren't the same, but their dot product is decidedly
nonzero. If you know it, you can perhaps learn to control it, and use
its power. If you don't, that tool is inaccessible to you.
> -- and their association doesn't help anyone but the
> smartypants with a gift for irrelevant (non-understanding) quotation
> and trivia. In an atmosphere like Oxford, this relationship of trivia
> to power might motivate somebody here or there to learn their Greek
> better, but it's never taught anyone to think or understand any better,
> and sympathy and tolerance take heavy losses.
Ah. But it *does* teach people to think and understand better. The
more random crap you know, the more entertaining cross-connections
suggest themselves when you find out something new. Most of them, well,
sure, are simply crap. A few aren't. I glanced through Ed Dorn's _The
Gunslinger_ last night--I'm going to read it once I finish with the
facsimile _Waste Land_ with Pound's annotations, which arrived in the
same Amazon shipment--and immediately saw a passage that called to mind,
for me, a chunk from the Crutchfield bit of _Gravity's Rainbow_ (a book
with which I am obsessively familiar). Pynchon certainly *could* have
read Dorn. Did he? No one that I know of has suggested it. This might
turn out to be nothing. On the other hand, maybe I've discovered a
hitherto-unremarked source for a bit of _GR_.
Sympathy and tolerance do not *have* to take heavy losses. Often they
do, because, yeah, a lot of smart people, and a lot of people whose
self-worth is based upon their mastery of minutiae, are dicks about it.
(I have no reason to put Graham in this category). On the other hand,
two of the smartest people I know, both of whom have read and understood
more than I ever will, and have more trivia at their mental fingertips
than I ever will, are also among the kindest and most humane people I've
ever known. Knowledge of random facts and being a dick are not strongly
correlated.
> > You're reading quotation-happy playfulness as attempted intimidation;
>
> Well, I think there's something more to it than quotation-happy
> playfulness, though it's probably fair to say, charitably, that Graham
> never got far enough outside Oxford to observe how language is supposed
> to be used, and really does only understand it as (pseudo-)intellectual
> warfare (as if posturing could be considered a form of either intellect
> or warfare).
Remind me never to ask *you* for charity. How *is* language "supposed
to be used"? I mean, I clearly use it to impress the ladies, and that's
why I'm fending off indecent propositions right and left as a result of
this very thread. But I don't know that that's what you meant.
Are you so very sure it's a fight? I think you're the only one here
coming out swinging.
Adam
Gene Wirchenko
I do not bother reading much by Precious these days. The replies
are much better.
Gene Wirchenko
It isn't? You have lousy aim.
If you really feel that is so, just E-mail Graham, and keep the
rest of us (this newsgroup) out of it.
You are right about being a jackass though. "precious" and
"jackass" are not two words that I would normally put together, so I
suppose you are helping me become more creative.
Duncan Harvey
[of the Breslin]
> I think you're the only one here coming out swinging.
That's an image I could have done without. Thanks.
--
Duncan Harvey
Matthew Russotto
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>> On 26 Sep 2006 15:55:44 -0700, steve....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > His style is a bad influence, because that style is elitist and
>> > combative, and does not provide a friendly space for multiple voices.
>>
>> Elitism is a good thing. The trouble with having multiple voices is that
>> you end up with nothing but cacophony.
>
>It's simpler than that. Graham is not elitist, not intolerant, and
>I've never seen him be the remotest bit combative.
>
>Steve is what we technically call "wrong".
Why, you intolerant so-and-so! How dare you not provide a
friendly-space for voices whose only flaw is a lack of accuracy?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Autymn D. C.
> In article <mcu02zh...@sargent.dyndns.org>,
> Stephen Granade <stephen...@granades.com> wrote:
>
> > If so, Graham, may I suggest that you loan it out?
>
> "'Lend it out,' he gritted through clenched teeth. 'To loan is not a
> verb.'"
http://dictionary.com/search?q=loan
BTW, the opposite of truth is not lie (ridiculose) but lige. There is
also no Bible, even lear the Baibùl (buy-bull).
-Aut
Gene Wirchenko
What is wrong with Precious enjoying a swing set? Is your image
a generous one that includes a slide on the side?
steve....@gmail.com
> Along those lines, I thought that I might quote from my I7 WIP:
>
> Instead of blowing the player, say "If you could do that, you would
> never leave the villa."
Instead of doing what that dog is doing, say "That dog would bite you."
> > Intolerance: Graham is not a guy whose argument allows disagreement.
> > The normal way he responds to arguments which do not suit him: he
> > breaks the argument down into a set of logically-linked assertions
> > (normally simplifying if not oversimplifying the original argument),
> > picks a hole in one of them (often a sort-of strawman he's produced
> > through oversimplification), then claims the argument void. A more
> > tolerant writer would respect difference, offer his or her view as one
> > theory or interpretation. A true thinker invites difference, whereas a
> > merely competitive man wishes to beat or otherwise destroy difference.
>
> This has not been my experience, although I have indeed lacked
> long-standing, ongoing disagreements with Graham Nelson.
First, this is a mere detail (though both the pattern and technique are
clear...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/msg/27f6b834240382f4
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/msg/ff52f0d2e5a439af
...as you can see, and I think I could find around 10 recent examples).
It's not a terribly egalitarian technique, but at least it's
*addressing* an idea. This is Graham in one of his better moments,
where at least he's pretending to engage. Most of the time he is not,
as I explain below.
> > You write against the anti-elitist argument, and I sympathize. One can
> > be so open-minded that rigor and real interest are seemingly lost. I
> > appreciate authority, the image of a good teacher, as much as I despise
> > authoritarianism, the image of a bad teacher.
>
> An interesting phrasing, but your rhetoric has convinced me neither that
> authority is the image of a good teacher, nor that authoritarianism is
> the image of the bad one. I will grant that a hallmark of certain kinds
> of bad teaching is authoritarianism and the concomitant appeal to
> (ill-assumed) authority. Not all authorities (and by this, I mean
> uncontroversially legitimate authorities) are good teachers; not all
> authoritarians are bad teachers. Likewise, I've had very good teachers
> who were not, to be honest, authorities in their subjects (although they
> knew more than I did), and I've had crappy, but non-authoritarian,
> teachers.
I basically agree again, but the main thing with teaching is that you
teach thought, and the information or content is a mere implement. Like
weight-training; the point is not to move X amount of weights Y
distance, but to build muscle. A mere authoritarian, knowing no better,
will teach fact, information, while an authority, who knows that the
state of fact is always in development, will teach knowledge and
understanding.
> > Somewhat jealous of the workability of Eric's reference, indeed in a
> > weak attempt at emulation, Graham very irrelevantly cites a couple
> > other Bliblical stuffs, getting the metaphors mixed and otherwise lost
> > and generally makes a crappy job of it. It's not like I'm saying he
> > should pretend he hasn't read the Bible, or that he shouldn't cite it.
> > But only that he shouldn't make such an embarassment of himself by
> > citing it so very badly.
>
> One might, on the other hand, take Graham as being not-necessarily
> untruthful when he claims that "sheep" was a departure point for his
> _bon mot_ and not--as it were--Gospel. Sure, I'll grant you that the
> metaphor of the shepherd is very likely to have put the mutton into his
> (wooly-headed) brain, but I think that you're constructing a lot that
> might not be present in the text if you leap from there to a presumption
> that Graham is badly quoting scripture, and from there to "he's fronting
> for Jesus."
Agreed. I mean, I don't think he meant to say "hey look everybody, I'm
Jesus," but it's pretty clear from the combination of patronizing
false-grandiloquence and irrelevant allusion that the main objective
was condescension, and his semi-accidental (Freudian?) reference to
himself as Shepherd merely underlined a thoroughgoing conceit.
> Understanding and power are most certainly *not*
> orthogonal. They aren't the same, but their dot product is decidedly
> nonzero. If you know it, you can perhaps learn to control it, and use
> its power.
Yes, sure. You're taking "understanding" in the crass sense of
"mastery," whereas I meant "understanding" in the profound sense of,
what is the spiritual content (enlightenment, what have you) of
education. But see below.
> > [The] relationship of trivia
> > to power might motivate somebody here or there to learn their Greek
> > better, but it's never taught anyone to think or understand any better,
> > and sympathy and tolerance take heavy losses.
>
> Ah. But it *does* teach people to think and understand better. The
> more random crap you know, the more entertaining cross-connections
> suggest themselves when you find out something new.
Yes, and there's fun in trivia too. Useful and fun, but not to be
correlated with power or authority. The problem is that a facility with
trivia can mistake itself for power and authority. And this brings us
to the main point.
> Sympathy and tolerance do not *have* to take heavy losses. Often they
> do, because, yeah, a lot of smart people, and a lot of people whose
> self-worth is based upon their mastery of minutiae, are dicks about it. [but]
> Knowledge of random facts and being a dick are not strongly
> correlated.
I have not spoken against trivia, but against trivialization. Let me
explain this further within the limited context of "the art of
quotation."
When you quote, you take the original text out of its proper and
original contexts (textual, cultural, temporal, etc.), and place that
little piece of language into a new context. The reason you perform
quotation is to inscribe that the original context in its new location.
(The neat thing about language, when you get good at it, is that this
is always the situation, with the individual words and even sounds and
letters; meaning always carries from elsewhere.)
My two favorite writers are Georg Hamann, whose greatest works are
centos of allusion and quotation, and Walter Benjamin, whose unrealized
ideal project was the writing of a book which was pure quotation (in
the good sense). -- the general idea being thoroughgoing quotation, the
art of quotation represented in full. These were great writers and
great teachers because they so well realised the intercontextuality of
language that they attempted to thematize and radicalize it.
Graham is on the absolute opposite end of the spectrum. He does
quotation, but the original context is irrelevant (so long as the
allusion is amusing, impressive, or otherwise profitable). He does not
care what was going on in the original text, whether it's the Bible, or
Wittgenstein, or whatever. He knows the Bible and Wittgenstein are
smart, so he'll quote them to sound smart. That's not a smart guy;
that's not even somebody who knows trivia, really. (That would cheapen
the concept of trivia; with trivia you at least know *something*.)
This particular example, spectacular though it be, might be apocryphal,
but NYTimes writer Thomas Friedman writes these kinds of sentences
pretty regularly: "The dirty dogs kneed him in the balls when his back
was turned." Please note here the triply-mixed metaphor. (And while of
course he's not quoting anyone in particular, one can say that he's
quoting or immitating idiomatic expressions.)
In this case, the writer is what an anthropologist might call
"pre-literary": the meaning is there, and it's sort-of hard-wired to
the expression, but the expression is not self-reflexive enough to jive
the two levels. In the case of Thomas Friedman, yes he's an insane
caveman.
In the case of Graham Nelson, who uses language a bit differently (but
quoting in much the same way), it's actually voluntary. He knows he's
misquoting Wittgenstein, and even makes sport of it. It's
anti-literary, anti-meaning, and it doesn't produce anything either:
this style of quotation is purely self-aggrandizing. Misappropriation
is very easy to do; there is no knowledge or power, and certainly
understanding is insulted; there is only the apeing of intelligence,
and that betrays the intelligence and gift of the source.
> How *is* language "supposed
> to be used"?
Communication. It is, literally, "supposed" (by the addressee) to be
used for communication. When one uses language for another purpose, one
betrays an implicit contract, with the addressee, which supposes that
language is for communication.
What exactly communication is -- well the discussion can become
complicated, but it rests on a certain respect for community which
false-communication betrays, to the detriment of us all.
> Are you so very sure it's a fight? I think you're the only one here
> coming out swinging.
Whether or not you believe that Graham's public self-fellating is a
violence against the community, I doubt you will say that
self-fellating is, in itself, a fight. But yes, it's definitely worth
the time to point out that "high pretendin'" of any sort is aggressive
to community, especially when it hides itself behind the aegis of
"opinion."
Adam Thornton
Actually, Golem--well, he doesn't actually have them anymore, but he
still licks where they used to be--would probably NOT bite you in that
case. I imagine that once he got over his shock, he'd be your bestest
friend.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/msg/27f6b834240382f4
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/msg/ff52f0d2e5a439af
How about an example where Graham is doing it to someone who isn't
*you*? I mean, maybe he just dislikes you, and it's not generalizable.
> I basically agree again, but the main thing with teaching is that you
> teach thought, and the information or content is a mere implement.
Not so, or at least not entirely. Else there would be no distinction
between PHYS 301: Intermediate Mechanics and HIST 492: Marxian
Interpretations of 19th-Century Conflicts.
> Yes, sure. You're taking "understanding" in the crass sense of
> "mastery,"
No one has ever accused the author of _Stiffy Makane: The Undiscovered
Country_ of being less than crass, TYVM.
> I have not spoken against trivia, but against trivialization. Let me
> explain this further within the limited context of "the art of
> quotation."
>
> When you quote, you take the original text out of its proper and
> original contexts (textual, cultural, temporal, etc.), and place that
> little piece of language into a new context. The reason you perform
> quotation is to inscribe that the original context in its new location.
I'm with you so far.
> (The neat thing about language, when you get good at it, is that this
> is always the situation, with the individual words and even sounds and
> letters; meaning always carries from elsewhere.)
>
> My two favorite writers are Georg Hamann, whose greatest works are
> centos of allusion and quotation, and Walter Benjamin, whose unrealized
> ideal project was the writing of a book which was pure quotation (in
> the good sense). -- the general idea being thoroughgoing quotation, the
> art of quotation represented in full. These were great writers and
> great teachers because they so well realised the intercontextuality of
> language that they attempted to thematize and radicalize it.
Two writers whom I have not read. I probably should.
> Graham is on the absolute opposite end of the spectrum. He does
> quotation, but the original context is irrelevant (so long as the
> allusion is amusing, impressive, or otherwise profitable). He does not
> care what was going on in the original text, whether it's the Bible, or
> Wittgenstein, or whatever. He knows the Bible and Wittgenstein are
> smart, so he'll quote them to sound smart. That's not a smart guy;
> that's not even somebody who knows trivia, really. (That would cheapen
> the concept of trivia; with trivia you at least know *something*.)
Graham would seem to know a lot of things, though. Up until my current
project he probably knew early Eliot a lot better than I did, for
instance.
> This particular example, spectacular though it be, might be apocryphal,
> but NYTimes writer Thomas Friedman writes these kinds of sentences
> pretty regularly: "The dirty dogs kneed him in the balls when his back
> was turned." Please note here the triply-mixed metaphor. (And while of
> course he's not quoting anyone in particular, one can say that he's
> quoting or immitating idiomatic expressions.)
I dig Friedman. Bonus points here.
> In this case, the writer is what an anthropologist might call
> "pre-literary": the meaning is there, and it's sort-of hard-wired to
> the expression, but the expression is not self-reflexive enough to jive
> the two levels. In the case of Thomas Friedman, yes he's an insane
> caveman.
As I said, I dig Friedman.
> > How *is* language "supposed
> > to be used"?
>
> Communication. It is, literally, "supposed" (by the addressee) to be
> used for communication. When one uses language for another purpose, one
> betrays an implicit contract, with the addressee, which supposes that
> language is for communication.
>
> What exactly communication is -- well the discussion can become
> complicated, but it rests on a certain respect for community which
> false-communication betrays, to the detriment of us all.
Implicit contracts always make me twitchy. Perhaps this is the
consequence of having been an idependent contractor. How does
communication require a respect for community? Sure, I recognize that
the words share a common (heh) root, but...
> > Are you so very sure it's a fight? I think you're the only one here
> > coming out swinging.
>
> Whether or not you believe that Graham's public self-fellating is a
> violence against the community, I doubt you will say that
> self-fellating is, in itself, a fight.
Given my published IF ouevre--or "irv" as Lethem would put it--no. I'd
regard it as a Triumph of the Will. Particularly in cases, such as that
referenced in _Clerks_, where it proves fatal.
> But yes, it's definitely worth
> the time to point out that "high pretendin'" of any sort is aggressive
> to community, especially when it hides itself behind the aegis of
> "opinion."
Oh, man, are you *so gonna hate* the game I'm working on.
Adam