[LSJ] The New Allies Ruling - Herald voting question
Jozxyqk
But what about this business with the Herald of Topheth calling votes
with Charming Lobby?
If the Rafastio Ghoul is considered a vampire for the effects of
Burst of Sunlight, then is the Herald considered a vampire during any
referendum he calls?
Here's a list of specific questions:
- Can you choose Herald of Topheth as your vampire for Ancient Influence, if
he calls it?
(might be useful since it acts as a vampire of capacity 5)
- Can the Herald call Banishment on a vampire of capacity < 5 ?
- Can the Herald call the votes to burn cards that say "can be burned by
a referendum called by any vampire"?
- What happens when Herald calls Free States Rant? Does he have 5 points
to allocate? (It's already been ruled that since he's sectless, he's
Independent)
- Is the Herald considered an ally if it calls Kindred Segregation, for
the purpose of its effect?
- Actually, this one isn't about the Herald, but I'm just going down the line
of Political Action cards: Can the Peace of Khetamon be used to choose an
ally that is in torpor (i.e. the aforemenitoned Rafastios)? If so, what
happens?
- Does the Herald burn a life/blood if it calls The Final Nights and it fails?
What if it passes?
- Can the Herald play Voter Captivation? If so, can the blood gained go above
its "as a vampire of capacity 5" capacity?
- Is it limited to 5 blood (supposing it had some additional life) to burn
if it plays Awe?
Thanks.
Derek Ray
ruling... so that all of you can quit bitching about how it made your
poor corner-case Rafastio Ghoul/Burst deck unplayable, instead of simply
suck-ass. Let's see how many of these I can wing correctly.
In message <zc_A8.89385$WV1.26...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>,
Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> mumbled something about:
>If the Rafastio Ghoul is considered a vampire for the effects of
>Burst of Sunlight, then is the Herald considered a vampire during any
>referendum he calls?
No. He simply plays Charming Lobby as a vampire, which itself causes a
referendum to be called. He can't call a referendum by himself.
>Here's a list of specific questions:
>
>- Can you choose Herald of Topheth as your vampire for Ancient Influence, if
> he calls it?
> (might be useful since it acts as a vampire of capacity 5)
No. He's not a vampire, he just plays CL as a vampire.
>- Can the Herald call Banishment on a vampire of capacity < 5 ?
I'd say no. He's only a vampire for purposes of the CL, and allies have
no age relative to vampires.
>- Can the Herald call the votes to burn cards that say "can be burned by
> a referendum called by any vampire"?
No, since those votes don't require Presence. If he plays a CL and
names that vote, then he could.
>- What happens when Herald calls Free States Rant? Does he have 5 points
> to allocate? (It's already been ruled that since he's sectless, he's
> Independent)
He's not a vampire for purposes of the FSR, only the Charming Lobby.
>- Is the Herald considered an ally if it calls Kindred Segregation, for
> the purpose of its effect?
Yes.
>- Actually, this one isn't about the Herald, but I'm just going down the line
> of Political Action cards: Can the Peace of Khetamon be used to choose an
> ally that is in torpor (i.e. the aforemenitoned Rafastios)? If so, what
> happens?
"Choose a vampire in torpor", not an ally. Rafastio is only a vampire
while playing cards that require THA.
>- Does the Herald burn a life/blood if it calls The Final Nights and it fails?
> What if it passes?
Not a vampire in either instance, so no.
>- Can the Herald play Voter Captivation? If so, can the blood gained go above
> its "as a vampire of capacity 5" capacity?
Yes; it's a Presence card. Yes, since the blood doesn't drain off until
after the Voter Cap's effect is finished (and therefore the Herald is no
longer a vampire).
>- Is it limited to 5 blood (supposing it had some additional life) to burn
> if it plays Awe?
If it spends all its blood, it will burn and fizzle the action. But it
can spend as much blood as it wants on an Awe at inferior.
--
How tough was that, kids?
Now stop your crying, stop your threatening to quit the game, and all
the rest of the crap, and deal with the ruling, same as you dealt with
all the others. For god's sake, I have NEVER seen such a bunch of whiny
babies in my life over something that's not going to affect you in the
slightest bit. Someone played a Rotschreck deck in a game earlier today
and you know what? It functioned just the same as it always did.
If you want to quit the game, quit the game. But quitting because you
didn't like a ruling that's so out in left field it hardly matters at
all? That sounds JUST like "If we can't play by my rules, I'm taking my
ball and going home." Christ.
What a bunch of pussies.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
tetragrammaton
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:hmv8dugo1pe9hcdlr...@4ax.com...
> IANALSJ, but let's just see how easy it is to understand the new
> ruling... so that all of you can quit bitching about how it made your
> poor corner-case Rafastio Ghoul/Burst deck unplayable, instead of simply
> suck-ass. Let's see how many of these I can wing correctly.
>
Are u in the RT, Derek ?
> If you want to quit the game, quit the game. But quitting because you
> didn't like a ruling that's so out in left field it hardly matters at
> all? That sounds JUST like "If we can't play by my rules, I'm taking my
> ball and going home." Christ.
This is clearly not the case.
People just got pissed by unnecessary rulings addenda.
If you think otherwise, please explain how the new rulings about:
- the functionality of force of will with change of target
- allies playing "as a vampires"
- combat ends untap/other-than-untap effects, happening at different time by
now.
- the now "interrupting" effect of psyche vs rotschreck (and the like)
could benenfit the game either reducing
the rulings/clarifications list, or
allowing a semplification in handling the effects involved.
So far, no proof has been made about the utility of such rulings.
Please explain.
Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
Derek Ray
"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
about:
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:hmv8dugo1pe9hcdlr...@4ax.com...
>> IANALSJ, but let's just see how easy it is to understand the new
>> ruling... so that all of you can quit bitching about how it made your
>> poor corner-case Rafastio Ghoul/Burst deck unplayable, instead of simply
>> suck-ass. Let's see how many of these I can wing correctly.
>
>Are u in the RT, Derek ?
No, I am not.
>> If you want to quit the game, quit the game. But quitting because you
>> didn't like a ruling that's so out in left field it hardly matters at
>> all? That sounds JUST like "If we can't play by my rules, I'm taking my
>> ball and going home." Christ.
>
>This is clearly not the case.
No, actually, it clearly IS the case, from some people's postings.
Including your own.
>People just got pissed by unnecessary rulings addenda.
Unnecessary is your opinion.
>If you think otherwise, please explain how the new rulings about:
>
>- the functionality of force of will with change of target
Makes perfect sense to me. "Cancel the action" means the action doesn't
resolve. How complicated can it be?
>- allies playing "as a vampires"
Couldn't care less. Slightly unintuitive as regards to allies now being
able to send themselves to torpor; slightly easier with regards to the
Herald being able to play Charming Lobby, something much more likely to
happen.
>- combat ends untap/other-than-untap effects, happening at different time by
>now.
Fine, whatever. I'll play it either way. I don't see it causing any
major changes to the game, since the only two cards that matter where
this ruling is concerned are Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking.
>- the now "interrupting" effect of psyche vs rotschreck (and the like)
Couldn't care less. It's a little weird to split the effects of a
single card like that, but it's not a bad thing that Rotshit and
Illusions of the Kindred now actually have a minor weakness. In
general, it will almost never come up, and it is somewhat intuitive as
far as card text on Psyche/TT is concerned.
>could benenfit the game either reducing
>the rulings/clarifications list, or
These rulings/clarifications simply replace other rulings/clarifications
that were already in existence. So no new ones have been added.
>allowing a semplification in handling the effects involved.
Siren's Lure and the crap that followed for almost a month from THAT
discussion is now greatly simplified. Timing on Psyche! and TT is
greatly simplified.
Allies playing discipline cards are no more complicated than they were
prior to this. The trick is not to lose yourself in delusions about the
"concept" of the game, and instead to just read the cards.
>So far, no proof has been made about the utility of such rulings.
And none is necessary. This is not a democracy, and that's a damn good
thing, too; y'all have just demonstrated just how BADLY mob rule sucks.
vermillian
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:hmv8dugo1pe9hcdlr...@4ax.com...
> > IANALSJ, but let's just see how easy it is to understand the new
> > ruling... so that all of you can quit bitching about how it made your
> > poor corner-case Rafastio Ghoul/Burst deck unplayable, instead of simply
> > suck-ass. Let's see how many of these I can wing correctly.
> >
>
> Are u in the RT, Derek ?
>
> > If you want to quit the game, quit the game. But quitting because you
> > didn't like a ruling that's so out in left field it hardly matters at
> > all? That sounds JUST like "If we can't play by my rules, I'm taking my
> > ball and going home." Christ.
>
> This is clearly not the case.
> People just got pissed by unnecessary rulings addenda.
And then, because they think its 'uneccesary' they decide to take
their ball and go home.
> So far, no proof has been made about the utility of such rulings.
Proof? What kind of PROOF do you want? A histogram? Of WHAT? How do
you prove utility? its a ruling, and it doesn't matter WHAT the ruling
is, as long as its been made and people everywhere in tournaments play
by it. They're just cards going to places and doing things and
functioning differently in certain cases. What's so hard about this to
accept? Its CHANGE.
~SV
LSJ
>
> IANALSJ, but let's just see how easy it is to understand the new
> ruling... so that all of you can quit bitching about how it made your
> poor corner-case Rafastio Ghoul/Burst deck unplayable, instead of simply
> suck-ass. Let's see how many of these I can wing correctly.
>
> In message <zc_A8.89385$WV1.26...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>,
> Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> mumbled something about:
>
> >If the Rafastio Ghoul is considered a vampire for the effects of
> >Burst of Sunlight, then is the Herald considered a vampire during any
> >referendum he calls?
>
> No. He simply plays Charming Lobby as a vampire, which itself causes a
> referendum to be called. He can't call a referendum by himself.
If he plays Charming Lobby and the action succeeds, then he calls a
referendum. This may be "by himself" or not, depending on whether you
consider the use of Charming Lobby to be "by himself" or not.
> >Here's a list of specific questions:
> >
> >- Can you choose Herald of Topheth as your vampire for Ancient Influence, if
> > he calls it?
> > (might be useful since it acts as a vampire of capacity 5)
>
> No. He's not a vampire, he just plays CL as a vampire.
Yes. He plays CL as a vampire, which, as part of being resolved, leads to him
calling (in this case) an Ancient Influence as a vampire which, as part of
being resolved, can choose him as a vampire.
> >- Can the Herald call Banishment on a vampire of capacity < 5 ?
>
> I'd say no. He's only a vampire for purposes of the CL, and allies have
> no age relative to vampires.
Yes, since he's playing Banishment (via Charming Lobby) as a vampire of
capacity 5.
> >- Can the Herald call the votes to burn cards that say "can be burned by
> > a referendum called by any vampire"?
>
> No, since those votes don't require Presence. If he plays a CL and
> names that vote, then he could.
Correct.
> >- What happens when Herald calls Free States Rant? Does he have 5 points
> > to allocate? (It's already been ruled that since he's sectless, he's
> > Independent)
>
> He's not a vampire for purposes of the FSR, only the Charming Lobby.
If he uses CL to call the FSR, then 5 points are to be allocated.
> >- Is the Herald considered an ally if it calls Kindred Segregation, for
> > the purpose of its effect?
>
> Yes.
If he uses Charming Lobby to call Kindred Segregation as a vampire, then no.
> >- Actually, this one isn't about the Herald, but I'm just going down the line
> > of Political Action cards: Can the Peace of Khetamon be used to choose an
> > ally that is in torpor (i.e. the aforemenitoned Rafastios)? If so, what
> > happens?
>
> "Choose a vampire in torpor", not an ally. Rafastio is only a vampire
> while playing cards that require THA.
Can't choose an ally with PoK, right.
> >- Does the Herald burn a life/blood if it calls The Final Nights and it fails?
> > What if it passes?
>
> Not a vampire in either instance, so no.
Yes in both cases.
> >- Can the Herald play Voter Captivation? If so, can the blood gained go above
> > its "as a vampire of capacity 5" capacity?
>
> Yes; it's a Presence card. Yes, since the blood doesn't drain off until
> after the Voter Cap's effect is finished (and therefore the Herald is no
> longer a vampire).
Correct.
> >- Is it limited to 5 blood (supposing it had some additional life) to burn
> > if it plays Awe?
>
> If it spends all its blood, it will burn and fizzle the action. But it
> can spend as much blood as it wants on an Awe at inferior.
Correct. Any vampire with capacity of 5 can burn as much blood as it likes
to Awe, even more than 5 if it has somehow managed to accumulate more blood
than capacity without the excess draining off.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
The Lasombra
>- What happens when Herald calls Free States Rant?
>- Does he have 5 points to allocate?
> If he uses CL to call the FSR, then 5 points are to be allocated.
Try 3.
Pertinent Card Text:
Free States Rant
"Allocate X points among one or more ready vampires,
where X is half of the capacity of the acting vampire (rounded up)."
Herald of Topheth
"as a vampire with a capacity of 5."
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
tetragrammaton
> In message <Sp6B8.9407$US3.2...@twister1.libero.it>,
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
> about:
>
> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >news:hmv8dugo1pe9hcdlr...@4ax.com...
> >> IANALSJ, but let's just see how easy it is to understand the new
> >> ruling... so that all of you can quit bitching about how it made your
> >> poor corner-case Rafastio Ghoul/Burst deck unplayable, instead of
simply
> >> suck-ass. Let's see how many of these I can wing correctly.
> >
> >Are u in the RT, Derek ?
>
> No, I am not.
>
> >> If you want to quit the game, quit the game. But quitting because you
> >> didn't like a ruling that's so out in left field it hardly matters at
> >> all? That sounds JUST like "If we can't play by my rules, I'm taking
my
> >> ball and going home." Christ.
> >
> >This is clearly not the case.
>
> No, actually, it clearly IS the case, from some people's postings.
> Including your own.
>
> >People just got pissed by unnecessary rulings addenda.
>
> Unnecessary is your opinion.
>
My opinion is good as yours, i think, be it necessary or unnecessary.
So please stop to write as a fascist here, if you want to discuss
with other people that have a different opinion than yours.
> >If you think otherwise, please explain how the new rulings about:
> >
> >- the functionality of force of will with change of target
>
> Makes perfect sense to me. "Cancel the action" means the action doesn't
> resolve. How complicated can it be?
>
> >- allies playing "as a vampires"
>
> Couldn't care less.
The fact that you don't care less isn't explaining anything, you see.
The fact that you don't care about allies entering in torpor don't explain
anything, other people care.
> Slightly unintuitive as regards to allies now being
> able to send themselves to torpor; slightly easier with regards to the
> Herald being able to play Charming Lobby, something much more likely to
> happen.
>
> >- combat ends untap/other-than-untap effects, happening at different time
by
> >now.
>
> Fine, whatever.
Fine as unnecessary.
So it is another rulings adding to the long list.
> I'll play it either way. I don't see it causing any
> major changes to the game,
In fact, i was not pointing anything about major change to the game,
i'm just saying that some of new rulings are just redundant as
unnecessary.
> since the only two cards that matter where
> this ruling is concerned are Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking.
>
> >- the now "interrupting" effect of psyche vs rotschreck (and the like)
>
> Couldn't care less.
Again your only point is that you don't care about the rulings.
That is not an argument.
> It's a little weird to split the effects of a
> single card like that, but it's not a bad thing that Rotshit and
> Illusions of the Kindred now actually have a minor weakness.
Ah, but psyche and-the-like have a big advantage by now.
> In
> general, it will almost never come up, and it is somewhat intuitive as
> far as card text on Psyche/TT is concerned.
>
> >could benenfit the game either reducing
> >the rulings/clarifications list, or
>
> These rulings/clarifications simply replace other rulings/clarifications
> that were already in existence.
? Untrue
> So no new ones have been added.
>
Untrue too
> >allowing a semplification in handling the effects involved.
>
Eh? In your twisted mind, maybe.
> Siren's Lure and the crap that followed for almost a month from THAT
> discussion is now greatly simplified. Timing on Psyche! and TT is
> greatly simplified.
>
> Allies playing discipline cards are no more complicated than they were
> prior to this. The trick is not to lose yourself in delusions about the
> "concept" of the game, and instead to just read the cards.
I read the cards, and i read the rules.
The rulings handle differently allies playing theft of vitae from allies
playing burst of sunlight.
In the first case, the ruling makes the card to "read" the ally as an ally,
even while the card he/she plays is resolving (and he/she takes more
life than his/her "capacity");
in the latter, the ruling make the card to "read" the ally as a vampire,
while
he/she takes the agg damage.
>
> >So far, no proof has been made about the utility of such rulings.
>
> And none is necessary. This is not a democracy,
Indeed, you think as a fascist.
Anyway no, is no democracy here, however
v:tes is a trading card game, and we're consumers,
so if we get unsettled by the official decisions for the game
(be them rulings, marketing, whatever)
then we're free to argue and discuss about those decision here.
>and that's a damn good
> thing, too; y'all have just demonstrated just how BADLY mob rule sucks.
>
The fact that the rulings on allies is already put on the list for revision
is demonstrates enough, i think.
Emiliano
> --
tetragrammaton
"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:f987c6cd.02050...@posting.google.com...
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Sp6B8.9407$US3.2...@twister1.libero.it>...
> > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:hmv8dugo1pe9hcdlr...@4ax.com...
> > > IANALSJ, but let's just see how easy it is to understand the new
> > > ruling... so that all of you can quit bitching about how it made your
> > > poor corner-case Rafastio Ghoul/Burst deck unplayable, instead of
simply
> > > suck-ass. Let's see how many of these I can wing correctly.
> > >
> >
> > Are u in the RT, Derek ?
> >
> > > If you want to quit the game, quit the game. But quitting because you
> > > didn't like a ruling that's so out in left field it hardly matters at
> > > all? That sounds JUST like "If we can't play by my rules, I'm taking
my
> > > ball and going home." Christ.
> >
> > This is clearly not the case.
> > People just got pissed by unnecessary rulings addenda.
>
> And then, because they think its 'uneccesary' they decide to take
> their ball and go home.
>
> > So far, no proof has been made about the utility of such rulings.
>
> Proof? What kind of PROOF do you want? A histogram? Of WHAT? How do
> you prove utility?
I play with rules, hear the comments of my playgroup,
discuss the rules/rulings here, seeying how effective a
ruling may be.
>its a ruling, and it doesn't matter WHAT the ruling
> is, as long as its been made and people everywhere in tournaments play
> by it. They're just cards going to places and doing things and
> functioning differently in certain cases. What's so hard about this to
> accept? Its CHANGE.
Good and common sense changes would be welcome, i'm sure.
But this time, i'm sorry, is not the case.
Emiliano
Derek Ray
about:
>> >People just got pissed by unnecessary rulings addenda.
>>
>> Unnecessary is your opinion.
>
>My opinion is good as yours, i think, be it necessary or unnecessary.
>So please stop to write as a fascist here, if you want to discuss
>with other people that have a different opinion than yours.
Godwin's Law again so soon? I win.
The minute you start calling people fascists, you lose any right to have
your arguments taken seriously, ...not that there were any in the first
place, it's just Emiliano crying some more.
In case you haven't noticed, you've spent at least the last year
bitching, pissing, moaning, and making noise about every ruling you
possibly could. And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously?
You think I'm a fascist? Fuck you. I think you're a crying, whiny
little needle-dicked, palefaced, lifeless pussy who will wheedle and beg
for every edge he can get, and if things don't go his way, will cry and
whine some more. Because that's all I've EVER heard from you on here,
is crying and whining and HUGE ITALIAN TEARS about how oh, the game is
so terrible, oh, oh, i have to learn rulings to play, oh, i have to pass
on the rulings to others, oh, poor little me, oh, i don't agree with
this ruling, oh, oh, hey, i am a prince, oh, look at me, i am important
now, but nobody listens to me, oh no no no. Fuck off already.
FYI, I don't give a shit how many times the ally thing goes back on the
Rules Team list for review. It's still not going to make a damn bit of
difference in the game as a whole; it's just going to turn one
inherently sucky deck (rafastio ghouls/burst of sunlight) either more or
less sucky, depending on how it comes out. I'm not personally attached
to the ruling. I just can't understand why all of you get so bent out
of shape over it. Are you all SUCH fanboys at heart?
Derek Ray
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> referendum to be called. He can't call a referendum by himself.
>
>If he plays Charming Lobby and the action succeeds, then he calls a
>referendum. This may be "by himself" or not, depending on whether you
>consider the use of Charming Lobby to be "by himself" or not.
"by himself" = playing the political action card without using another
card, say, a Charming Lobby, to facilitate it.
>> No. He's not a vampire, he just plays CL as a vampire.
>
>Yes. He plays CL as a vampire, which, as part of being resolved, leads to him
>calling (in this case) an Ancient Influence as a vampire which, as part of
>being resolved, can choose him as a vampire.
So the referendum is part of the PA's resolution, not part of the action
as a whole's resolution and simply triggered by the PA?
"...It does not include any continuing effects granted by the card
(after its resolution)"
LSJ
> "LSJ" mistyped:
> >- What happens when Herald calls Free States Rant?
> >- Does he have 5 points to allocate?
>
> > If he uses CL to call the FSR, then 5 points are to be allocated.
>
> Try 3.
>
> Pertinent Card Text:
>
> Free States Rant
> "Allocate X points among one or more ready vampires,
> where X is half of the capacity of the acting vampire (rounded up)."
>
> Herald of Topheth
> "as a vampire with a capacity of 5."
Ack! I was duped. Thanks for the correction.
LSJ
>
> In message <3CD583D2...@white-wolf.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>
> >Derek Ray wrote:
> >>
> >> referendum to be called. He can't call a referendum by himself.
> >
> >If he plays Charming Lobby and the action succeeds, then he calls a
> >referendum. This may be "by himself" or not, depending on whether you
> >consider the use of Charming Lobby to be "by himself" or not.
>
> "by himself" = playing the political action card without using another
> card, say, a Charming Lobby, to facilitate it.
OK. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood the phrasology.
> >> No. He's not a vampire, he just plays CL as a vampire.
> >
> >Yes. He plays CL as a vampire, which, as part of being resolved, leads to him
> >calling (in this case) an Ancient Influence as a vampire which, as part of
> >being resolved, can choose him as a vampire.
>
> So the referendum is part of the PA's resolution, not part of the action
> as a whole's resolution and simply triggered by the PA?
>
> "...It does not include any continuing effects granted by the card
> (after its resolution)"
Right.
Part of the resolution is "this vampire calls...".
lactamaeon
> > thing, too; y'all have just demonstrated just how BADLY mob rule sucks.
> >
>
> The fact that the rulings on allies is already put on the list for revision
> is demonstrates enough, i think.
The ruling, as I understand it, is on the list for revision because
someone (Josh Duffin I believe?) suggested what might turn out to be a
better way to do it, not because 90,000 people shouted it down.
Lactamaeon.
tetragrammaton
> In message <01hB8.13583$US3.3...@twister1.libero.it>,
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
> about:
>
> >> >People just got pissed by unnecessary rulings addenda.
> >>
> >> Unnecessary is your opinion.
> >
> >My opinion is good as yours, i think, be it necessary or unnecessary.
> >So please stop to write as a fascist here, if you want to discuss
> >with other people that have a different opinion than yours.
>
> Godwin's Law again so soon? I win.
>
> The minute you start calling people fascists, you lose any right to have
> your arguments taken seriously, ...not that there were any in the first
> place, it's just Emiliano crying some more.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, you've spent at least the last year
> bitching, pissing, moaning, and making noise about every ruling you
> possibly could.
? No, i didn't noticed, Thank you for tracking these, anyway.
> And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously?
>
So far, i got this poblem only with you.
> You think I'm a fascist?
Hope that you are not; anyway, you argue here as one.
"I don't care" "I could not care less"
are just the adagios of fascist's way of mind.
> Fuck you.
Thanks.
> I think you're a crying, whiny
> little needle-dicked, palefaced, lifeless pussy who will wheedle and beg
> for every edge he can get, and if things don't go his way, will cry and
> whine some more. Because that's all I've EVER heard from you on here,
> is crying and whining and HUGE ITALIAN TEARS about how oh, the game is
Sure, you must be drunk.
I discussed, whined, "beg" (?) for arguments
i found (with other people) important for the game.
The fact that YOU didn't like them (as different opionions than yours)
to be discussed here is your problem.
I just asked (as in the past) to not overtalk the way you do with others,
since
this is just a game.
> so terrible, oh, oh, i have to learn rulings to play, oh, i have to pass
> on the rulings to others, oh, poor little me, oh, i don't agree with
> this ruling, oh, oh, hey, i am a prince, oh, look at me, i am important
> now, but nobody listens to me, oh no no no. Fuck off already.
>
Well, maybe you're a great one with the rules, but not
at drawing's other profiles.
I'm just pissed enough of unnecessary rulings, and, above all, by
person like you boasting the only-right-truth approach with the game,
that is "i don't care a damn about the rulings, fuck you if you do".
> FYI, I don't give a shit how many times the ally thing goes back on the
> Rules Team list for review. It's still not going to make a damn bit of
> difference in the game as a whole;
It does, and is for that reason that we're discussing the thing.
If you don't care a damn, give a shit, then jsut leave alone
other interested in the topic.
>it's just going to turn one
> inherently sucky deck (rafastio ghouls/burst of sunlight) either more or
> less sucky, depending on how it comes out. I'm not personally attached
> to the ruling. I just can't understand why all of you get so bent out
> of shape over it. Are you all SUCH fanboys at heart?
If you're not attached to the rules, that's fine, i respect you.
Just respect others that are (like me).
Emiliano
> --
Derek Ray
about:
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:gl8bdugljaepm49gd...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Godwin's Law again so soon? I win.
>>
>> The minute you start calling people fascists, you lose any right to have
>> your arguments taken seriously, ...not that there were any in the first
>> place, it's just Emiliano crying some more.
Hey, by the way, this is a serious statement. If you're going to run
about babbling about fascism, then I'm going to keep telling you to go
fuck yourself, because you're a stupid-ass sniveling little punk who
can't hack reality.
>> And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously?
>
>So far, i got this poblem only with you.
Uh, that's what YOU think.
>> You think I'm a fascist?
>
>Hope that you are not; anyway, you argue here as one.
>"I don't care" "I could not care less"
>are just the adagios of fascist's way of mind.
Hey, and here we go again with the fascist bullshit. Let's give you
another big FUCK YOU from the peanut gallery, and point out that I (and
many others) will never, ever, take your arguments seriously as long as
you keep posting this 100% USRDA crap here.
You wouldn't have the balls to say this to anyone in person; why are you
pretending you have the balls over a computer?
>> I think you're a crying, whiny
>> little needle-dicked, palefaced, lifeless pussy who will wheedle and beg
>> for every edge he can get, and if things don't go his way, will cry and
>> whine some more. Because that's all I've EVER heard from you on here,
>> is crying and whining and HUGE ITALIAN TEARS about how oh, the game is
>
>Sure, you must be drunk.
Wrong. I don't like people who resort to hyperbole and outright
slander/libel when they can't manage to come up with useful responses to
arguments.
Specifically, "fascist". This tactic (and the closely-related one of
calling someone a Nazi) has been around for well over ten years now
(longer than you've been out of puberty), and the entire purpose is to
demonize me in hopes of garnering crowd support. The proper response is
to completely ignore the person, invoke Godwin's Law, and move on. I'm
a little more irritable than that these days, and I'm out of patience
with all the BULLSHIT that comes up from all you fanboys out there, so
I'm failing to ignore you: I'm just ignoring your arguments. I could
waste my time responding, but why? You won't listen; your head is too
firmly up your ass to hear.
>since this is just a game.
Then why does it matter OH SO MUCH that you can't play one suck-ass
corner-case deck anymore, and that two cards got a little bit more
powerful against one card (Rotschreck)?
>Well, maybe you're a great one with the rules, but not
>at drawing's other profiles.
I wouldn't say that. I got one concept wrong in my message, which
messed up about 5 of my guesses. But I would say I'm pretty damn
accurate in painting you as a whiny-ass anal-retentive fanboy.
>I'm just pissed enough of unnecessary rulings, and, above all, by
Who the fuck are you to decide "unnecessary"? This is my point. IT IS
NOT YOUR JOB to decide what is or isn't necessary. YOUR JOB, as a
PRINCE, is to DEAL WITH IT and COMMUNICATE it as best as possible to
your playgroup, WHETHER OR NOT YOU FUCKING LIKE IT.
IF you cannot handle this, then PERHAPS you should resign your
Princeship and turn it over to someone who can actually do the job
without all the foot-stamping, pissing and moaning.
>person like you boasting the only-right-truth approach with the game,
>that is "i don't care a damn about the rulings, fuck you if you do".
No, I don't care if you care about the rulings, and I don't care if you
discuss them with LSJ. If you notice, I had a brief two-sentence
discussion with him myself there to clarify things.
I just care that you throw your hands up, threaten to quit the game, and
threaten to not use the rulings in official tournaments (none of which
have any place in rational discussion) as leverage for your
disagreement. This is the sort of foot-stamping,
take-my-ball-and-go-home shit that we all... well, at least SOME of
us... left behind in third grade!
>> FYI, I don't give a shit how many times the ally thing goes back on the
>> Rules Team list for review. It's still not going to make a damn bit of
>> difference in the game as a whole;
>
>It does, and is for that reason that we're discussing the thing.
No, really, it doesn't. You said yourself that it didn't:
"In fact, i was not pointing anything about major change to the game,
i'm just saying that some of new rulings are just redundant as
unnecessary."
So since it doesn't matter that much, why all the goddamn histrionics
about it? Jesus Christ, man, wake the fuck up and look at yourself. I
don't really like the fact that allies can go to torpor either; note
that I called it "unintuitive", which it is. However, I realise that
there are better things in this world to have a hissy-fit about, and
that the "allies can go to torpor" thing actually DOES simplify several
other rulings that were in place, something that you totally fail to
realize and in fact outright deny in your previous post. BUT YOU ARE
WRONG, AS USUAL.
Not the least of which is clearing up the confusion about the Herald
being able to play Charming Lobby; I have a deck which has a Herald in
it, and has Charming Lobbies in it, and has Free States Rant in it. It
is not inconceivable that my Herald might at some point call a FSR with
CL.
There have ALWAYS been rulings regarding allies playing cards as
vampires; the original stuff was poorly written, and so the rulings were
necessary. These rulings replace the others. There have ALWAYS been
several rulings regarding Psyche! and TT, because of the nature of the
cards; those are now simplified to one ruling.
>If you don't care a damn, give a shit, then jsut leave alone
>other interested in the topic.
When you actually start discussing the topic AND listening to what
you're told on the topic, then I may consider leaving you alone. These
days it seems you're full of a lot of foot-stamping and fascist jokes.
>> of shape over it. Are you all SUCH fanboys at heart?
>
>If you're not attached to the rules, that's fine, i respect you.
>Just respect others that are (like me).
You aren't worthy of any respect, toad. Nobody who resorts to the "ooo
you are talking bad to me, you must be a fascist" tactic is worthy of
respect. You're going to have to earn it some other way.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD583D2...@white-wolf.com...
> Derek Ray wrote:
> > In message <zc_A8.89385$WV1.26...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>,
> > Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> mumbled something about:
> > >- Does the Herald burn a life/blood if it calls The Final Nights and it
fails?
> > > What if it passes?
> >
> > Not a vampire in either instance, so no.
>
> Yes in both cases.
Does this avoid the difficulty allies have with "burning
blood"? The Final Nights effect isn't a cost, so isn't
handled by the Herald's card text. Even though the Herald
has played Charming Lobby/Final Nights "as a vampire", he
*is* still an ally and has life, not blood, so should (I
think) ignore this "burn blood" effect.
Josh
nalsj either
LSJ
Yes, the card text on allies that play cards as vampires is lacking.
They treat all blood loss/gain (not just blood costs and blood gain)
from the effect of the card as life loss/gain.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
tetragrammaton
> In message <umtB8.14672$5k4.3...@twister2.libero.it>,
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
> about:
>
> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >news:gl8bdugljaepm49gd...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Godwin's Law again so soon? I win.
> >>
> >> The minute you start calling people fascists, you lose any right to
have
> >> your arguments taken seriously, ...not that there were any in the first
> >> place, it's just Emiliano crying some more.
>
> Hey, by the way, this is a serious statement. If you're going to run
> about babbling about fascism,
The babbling is just yours, dude.
About fucking, pissed fanboy, etcetera.
I just answered properly to your attitude.
>then I'm going to keep telling you to go
> fuck yourself, because you're a stupid-ass sniveling little punk who
> can't hack reality.
>
> >> And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously?
> >
> >So far, i got this poblem only with you.
>
> Uh, that's what YOU think.
>
Ah, nice, so you're talking for the whole game community here.
> >> You think I'm a fascist?
> >
> >Hope that you are not; anyway, you argue here as one.
> >"I don't care" "I could not care less"
> >are just the adagios of fascist's way of mind.
>
> Hey, and here we go again with the fascist bullshit. Let's give you
> another big FUCK YOU from the peanut gallery, and point out that I (and
> many others) will never, ever, take your arguments seriously as long as
> you keep posting this 100% USRDA crap here.
>
> You wouldn't have the balls to say this to anyone in person; why are you
> pretending you have the balls over a computer?
>
You keep on putting the discussion on personal basis,
that is clearly the sign of your lacks of any argument.
> >> I think you're a crying, whiny
> >> little needle-dicked, palefaced, lifeless pussy who will wheedle and
beg
> >> for every edge he can get, and if things don't go his way, will cry and
> >> whine some more. Because that's all I've EVER heard from you on here,
> >> is crying and whining and HUGE ITALIAN TEARS about how oh, the game is
> >
> >Sure, you must be drunk.
>
> Wrong. I don't like people who resort to hyperbole and outright
> slander/libel when they can't manage to come up with useful responses to
> arguments.
Me? Nice startegy: you just put on me what you're just doing here:
putting the discussion on an overheated level with a series of "fuck you
fanboy,
who cares about the rulings, is not your job to deem them unnecessary".
>
> Specifically, "fascist".
If you dont' want to be treated like one, then lower the tone of discussion.
I asked you to do so.
> This tactic (and the closely-related one of
> calling someone a Nazi) has been around for well over ten years now
> (longer than you've been out of puberty), and the entire purpose is to
> demonize me in hopes of garnering crowd support. The proper response is
> to completely ignore the person, invoke Godwin's Law, and move on. I'm
> a little more irritable than that these days, and I'm out of patience
> with all the BULLSHIT that comes up from all you fanboys out there, so
> I'm failing to ignore you: I'm just ignoring your arguments. I could
> waste my time responding, but why? You won't listen;
That is your opinion, and yours alone.
I discussed with others, and i changed my mind on some issues;
sometimes i managed to make my point to be seen, like
in the atomic bloodhunt topic.
>your head is too
> firmly up your ass to hear.
Thanks, again.
>
> >since this is just a game.
>
> Then why does it matter OH SO MUCH that you can't play one suck-ass
> corner-case deck anymore, and that two cards got a little bit more
> powerful against one card (Rotschreck)?
Indeed, i was discussing these matters (as other), then you came
with your boastin' teasin' way of explaining the "true thing",
i answered to you accordinly.
> >Well, maybe you're a great one with the rules, but not
> >at drawing's other profiles.
>
> I wouldn't say that. I got one concept wrong in my message, which
> messed up about 5 of my guesses. But I would say I'm pretty damn
> accurate in painting you as a whiny-ass anal-retentive fanboy.
>
Thanks, once more.
> >I'm just pissed enough of unnecessary rulings, and, above all, by
>
> Who the fuck are you to decide "unnecessary"?
I think it is the right of anyone to give opinion here, isn't ?
> This is my point. IT IS
> NOT YOUR JOB to decide what is or isn't necessary. YOUR JOB, as a
> PRINCE, is to DEAL WITH IT and COMMUNICATE it as best as possible to
> your playgroup, WHETHER OR NOT YOU FUCKING LIKE IT.
>
You're confusing things, i'm here as a player that plays
the game.
> IF you cannot handle this, then PERHAPS you should resign your
> Princeship and turn it over to someone who can actually do the job
> without all the foot-stamping, pissing and moaning.
Thanks, i know which are my jobs.
> >person like you boasting the only-right-truth approach with the game,
> >that is "i don't care a damn about the rulings, fuck you if you do".
>
> No, I don't care if you care about the rulings, and I don't care if you
> discuss them with LSJ. If you notice, I had a brief two-sentence
> discussion with him myself there to clarify things.
>
> I just care that you throw your hands up, threaten to quit the game, and
> threaten to not use the rulings in official tournaments
I never threatened to not use such rulings in official tournaments, sorry,
you're exchanging me with another person.
>(none of which
> have any place in rational discussion) as leverage for your
> disagreement. This is the sort of foot-stamping,
> take-my-ball-and-go-home shit that we all... well, at least SOME of
> us... left behind in third grade!
>
> >> FYI, I don't give a shit how many times the ally thing goes back on the
> >> Rules Team list for review. It's still not going to make a damn bit of
> >> difference in the game as a whole;
> >
> >It does, and is for that reason that we're discussing the thing.
>
> No, really, it doesn't. You said yourself that it didn't:
>
> "In fact, i was not pointing anything about major change to the game,
> i'm just saying that some of new rulings are just redundant as
> unnecessary."
>
> So since it doesn't matter that much, why all the goddamn histrionics
> about it? Jesus Christ, man, wake the fuck up and look at yourself. I
> don't really like the fact that allies can go to torpor either; note
> that I called it "unintuitive", which it is. However, I realise that
> there are better things in this world to have a hissy-fit about, and
> that the "allies can go to torpor" thing actually DOES simplify several
> other rulings that were in place, something that you totally fail to
> realize and in fact outright deny in your previous post. BUT YOU ARE
> WRONG, AS USUAL.
Tell me how it should simplyfing things, then.
It's clear that allowing the Allies to be affected from their
own cards "as a vampire", and not as an ally just
calls for more and more clarifications.
Before, any reference to "vampire" (aggravated damage, for example)
was simply ignored.
> Not the least of which is clearing up the confusion about the Herald
> being able to play Charming Lobby;
What confusion?
It always been stated
that "one cannot attempt what can't be done",
so the Herald could not attempt the CL since it could not
call the referendum, since it is not a vampire.
>I have a deck which has a Herald in
> it, and has Charming Lobbies in it, and has Free States Rant in it. It
> is not inconceivable that my Herald might at some point call a FSR with
> CL.
It was, of course.
Now that silly thing has been ruled possible trought and trought,
so i agree: it is concevaible.
>
> There have ALWAYS been rulings regarding allies playing cards as
> vampires; the original stuff was poorly written,
Poorly written?
Maybe, but clear enough, i think.
The ally plays the card as a vamp, but it's not a vamp, even "while" he/she
plays it.
Well, that was before, of course.
>and so the rulings were
> necessary. These rulings replace the others.
Not true, the ruling adds to the other,
the ally *is* a vampire only in front of the cards he's playing.
So, the old rules stands still, for all of the other cards that still
consider him/her just an ally.
For example, two rafastio ghoul opposing in combat, and both
striking with Burst of sunlight, would receive the agg damage just
by their own card, which is a pretty weird occourance.
> There have ALWAYS been
> several rulings regarding Psyche! and TT, because of the nature of the
> cards; those are now simplified to one ruling.
>
Actually, i didn't say a thing against the ruling about
"An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is
already a "to be resolved later" combat.
Since that is pretty good, and truly semplifies the thing.
I'm against *some* of the other recent rulings, that's all.
> >If you don't care a damn, give a shit, then jsut leave alone
> >other interested in the topic.
>
> When you actually start discussing the topic AND listening to what
> you're told on the topic, then I may consider leaving you alone. These
> days it seems you're full of a lot of foot-stamping and fascist jokes.
The fascist attitude it's just yours, Derek.
Teasing and overtalking on a "personal" basis, saying
"i'm the only one that keep the truth" is just that.
>
> >> of shape over it. Are you all SUCH fanboys at heart?
> >
> >If you're not attached to the rules, that's fine, i respect you.
> >Just respect others that are (like me).
>
> You aren't worthy of any respect, toad.
Once more, thanks.
> Nobody who resorts to the "ooo
> you are talking bad to me, you must be a fascist" tactic is worthy of
> respect.
So, whorty of respect should be your tactic, instead?
That long list of "fuck you fanboy"?
Ok.
Emiliano
<snip>
> --
Derek Ray
about:
>> Hey, and here we go again with the fascist bullshit. Let's give you
>> another big FUCK YOU from the peanut gallery, and point out that I (and
>> many others) will never, ever, take your arguments seriously as long as
>> you keep posting this 100% USRDA crap here.
>>
>> You wouldn't have the balls to say this to anyone in person; why are you
>> pretending you have the balls over a computer?
>
>You keep on putting the discussion on personal basis,
YOU are the one who started talking about a fascist attitude.
YOU are the one who complained that I wasn't giving you any respect.
YOU are the one who has pissed and moaned about the way I said things,
instead of paying much attention to what was said.
YOU wanted to take it here; well, it's here now, bitch, and you better
fucking deal with it. Again, you wouldn't have the balls to call
someone a fascist in person; WHY do you pretend that you have the balls
and say it behind a screen? Come on now, let's hear it.
>that is clearly the sign of your lacks of any argument.
You deserve no response, and will get none, until you quit babbling
about fascism AND retract some statements made. You're a fucking
Italian, for god's sake; you should KNOW about fascism first-hand in
your history classes, and instead you're crying about it because I
called you a naughty boo-boo? There is no comparison, dude. Get some
education, and then learn to not throw the word around where it isn't
warranted.
>> Wrong. I don't like people who resort to hyperbole and outright
>> slander/libel when they can't manage to come up with useful responses to
>> arguments.
>
>Me? Nice startegy: you just put on me what you're just doing here:
You. "Fascist". YOU, bitch. You brought the word in, you started the
crying; now fucking deal with it, you spineless coward.
>> This tactic (and the closely-related one of
>> calling someone a Nazi) has been around for well over ten years now
>> (longer than you've been out of puberty), and the entire purpose is to
>> demonize me in hopes of garnering crowd support. The proper response is
>> to completely ignore the person, invoke Godwin's Law, and move on. I'm
>> a little more irritable than that these days, and I'm out of patience
>> with all the BULLSHIT that comes up from all you fanboys out there, so
>> I'm failing to ignore you: I'm just ignoring your arguments. I could
>> waste my time responding, but why? You won't listen;
>
>That is your opinion, and yours alone.
No, it seems obvious to me that you'd rather just call me a fascist and
complain that I'm not being nice to you. So tell me, what happens in
Italy when someone calls someone else a fascist in person, Emiliano? Do
they then have a nice calm relaxing discussion about the issues?
Convenient how you completely ignore all this, isn't it? Is that
because you're a toothless monkey? Or because you're too scared to own
up and admit that maybe you shouldn't be throwing around such big words?
Henrik Isaksson
Who is this Derek guy anyway? Where does his anger come from? Why is he
always pissing and moaning about other people's posts? Where did he learn
that foul language? So many questions, so few answers! I, personally, could
live perfectly allright without these neverending flamewars, but who's
asking me anyway?
--
Henrik Isaksson
Derek Ray
"Henrik Isaksson" <hen...@nissamedia.net> mumbled something about:
><snip everything>
>
>Who is this Derek guy anyway? Where does his anger come from? Why is he
I'm me. Derek, specifically. I don't work for White Wolf. I'm not on
the Rules Team. I'm not a Prince. I just play the damn game.
I get angry when I see people being stupid and forcibly inflicting their
stupidity on others. Emiliano qualifies. He's been being stupid for at
least a year now, probably more. I don't recall that I've ever seen him
post anything where he wasn't disagreeing about a ruling. I do recall
that I've seen him repeatedly post those disagreements over and over
even when he was directly issued a ruling saying "It is this way, and
this is why".
He doesn't seem to accept simple statements of "This is why [X] happens.
He wants to go back and argue the 'why' endlessly. It reminds me a lot
of a five-year old child asking "but why not?" Eventually, the correct
response is: "Because I said so." LSJ is far too nice to simply cut
people off short that way, and this gives people like Emiliano an
opening to continue badgering LSJ endlessly on minutiae. And it REALLY
pisses me off, because people like Emiliano are the ones who really need
to be told "SHUT UP AND DEAL WITH IT"... so that maybe they'll learn
that life is not pretty and they don't always get their way.
>always pissing and moaning about other people's posts? Where did he learn
>that foul language? So many questions, so few answers! I, personally, could
What, you've never heard those words before? I got more.
I'm perfectly capable of posting without profanity, as history (and
Google) will show. I use the profanity to indicate the level of respect
I have for the other person. In Emiliano's case, you can probably guess
what I think of him, especially after he started playing the Nazi card.
In your case, I don't know you at all, so you get the unsaturated
version; everyone is clueful until proven bozo.
>live perfectly allright without these neverending flamewars, but who's
>asking me anyway?
He could end it at any time by issuing a simple apology and/or
retraction of certain statements made. He's managed to get on my last
nerve, so I'm afraid that nothing less will do. I'm perfectly willing
to discuss the issues in question, although my opinion of the situation
as a whole was also fairly succinctly stated elsewhere; it's so
corner-case as to be almost totally irrelevant, except that now allies
can go to torpor and so all the fanboys are up in arms over it because
it's not logical. Well, NO, it's not logical. Thank God it's a card
game, and not the RPG, huh? We don't HAVE to be logical here, and
sometimes to make the game not go "splat", we have to be illogical.
Do I agree with it? (shrug) I wouldn't have made that ruling, myself.
However, it is here. It has a solid, thought-out foundation behind it.
Deciding rulings is a job for one person (with a council of a few) for a
good reason: it's so that things get decided, not blathered about for
centuries. This means that I have to suck it up and deal with it,
whether or not I agree, and move on. What this also means is that there
really is a right or wrong interpretation, ...and it's what he says it
is. He does an excellent job of not using the "because I said so"
defense, but I personally think he should've used it more often in the
past, just to not encourage people like Emiliano who take undue
advantage of his NOT using it.
I wish more people were mature enough to comprehend this. Just because
you get to talk to the net.rep himself doesn't mean the net.rep is going
to value your opinion more than anyone else's. I get to see the net.rep
in person every so often (tournaments in the southeast, etc), and
believe me, this is true; if I'm right, he'll tell me I'm right. If I'm
wrong, he'll tell me I'm wrong, and why (witness my attempt at
interpreting rulings earlier). It has everything to do with whether or
not what I'm saying is correct, and nothing to do with... well, with
anything else at all, including whether or not I just contested his
vampire with the .44 and Rack and Blood Doll and Vast Wealth.
Which is why Emiliano pisses me off so much. He thinks he's right.
He's not; he's wrong. But instead of trying to figure out why he was
wrong and learning from it, he spends his time arguing that he really
WAS right, and clearly LSJ didn't think it through. After more than a
year of this, can you see where someone might be a little irritated?
Ben Peal
> Who is this Derek guy anyway? Where does his anger come from? Why is he
> always pissing and moaning about other people's posts? Where did he learn
> that foul language?
Hey, Lasombra Jeff, could you add this to the V:TES FAQ?
;)
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
Xian
"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message
news:bf72a12e.02050...@posting.google.com...
> Henrik Isaksson wrote:
> > Who is this Derek guy anyway? Where does his anger come from? Why is he
> > always pissing and moaning about other people's posts? Where did he learn
> > that foul language?
>
> Hey, Lasombra Jeff, could you add this to the V:TES FAQ?
I dunno, the tip from ELDB could just be added:
"Derek Ray won't actually flame you if you provide reasons. Unless they're
boneheaded reasons."
I like that one. :) Though the original set of questions *is* really good.
Maybe I'll just link the google post on my webpage. Heh.
Xian
tetragrammaton
> In message <qvBB8.17825$5k4.4...@twister2.libero.it>,
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
> about:
>
> >> Hey, and here we go again with the fascist bullshit. Let's give you
> >> another big FUCK YOU from the peanut gallery, and point out that I (and
> >> many others) will never, ever, take your arguments seriously as long as
> >> you keep posting this 100% USRDA crap here.
> >>
> >> You wouldn't have the balls to say this to anyone in person; why are
you
> >> pretending you have the balls over a computer?
> >
> >You keep on putting the discussion on personal basis,
>
> YOU are the one who started talking about a fascist attitude.
?Untrue, i asked politely to explain your points of wiev.
>
> YOU are the one who complained that I wasn't giving you any respect.
>
Yes, in fact is just what you did, and what you're still doing.
But i was not complaining anything, just making that noticed to you.
> YOU are the one who has pissed and moaned about the way I said things,
Pissed ? Yes, because i hate the angry attitude like yours.
> instead of paying much attention to what was said.
Attention ?
So far, your only points were that you didn't care
about the rulings, and that i (among other people) was so a fanboy-sucking
for doing different, or thinking different as you do.
>
> YOU wanted to take it here; well, it's here now, bitch, and you better
> fucking deal with it. Again, you wouldn't have the balls to call
> someone a fascist in person; WHY do you pretend that you have the balls
> and say it behind a screen? Come on now, let's hear it.
I don't pretend anything.
If we would be in person, and you would argue
with me the way you did are you're doing,
i would call you fascist the same.
>
> >that is clearly the sign of your lacks of any argument.
>
> You deserve no response, and will get none, until you quit babbling
> about fascism AND retract some statements made.
> You're a fucking
> Italian,
Ok, nice, so you're throwing in some racist-backed
sentences. Just fine.
And somwewhere else here you're calling for some education.
Bah.
> for god's sake; you should KNOW about fascism first-hand in
> your history classes, and instead you're crying about it because I
> called you a naughty boo-boo? There is no comparison, dude. Get some
> education.
Ah, you call for education now?
Then start showing some respect for people thinking
different form you, and, i'm sure, you will not treated as
you're deserving right now..
> and then learn to not throw the word around where it isn't
> warranted.
Warranted ?
I think i asked to you politely, in the first place, about some points
with the new rulings.
Your answer in the first place was that you didn't care about those changes,
and that other people interested in the argument (like me), were
silly-fanboys, annoying you with useless crying.
>
> >> Wrong. I don't like people who resort to hyperbole and outright
> >> slander/libel when they can't manage to come up with useful responses
to
> >> arguments.
> >
> >Me? Nice startegy: you just put on me what you're just doing here:
>
> You. "Fascist". YOU, bitch. You brought the word in, you started the
> crying; now fucking deal with it, you spineless coward.
"I" started crying ?
YOU was the first to brought that my opionion was unnecessary,
without even knowing what points i could made about the actual stuff.
>
> >> This tactic (and the closely-related one of
> >> calling someone a Nazi) has been around for well over ten years now
> >> (longer than you've been out of puberty), and the entire purpose is to
> >> demonize me in hopes of garnering crowd support. The proper response
is
> >> to completely ignore the person, invoke Godwin's Law, and move on. I'm
> >> a little more irritable than that these days, and I'm out of patience
> >> with all the BULLSHIT that comes up from all you fanboys out there, so
> >> I'm failing to ignore you: I'm just ignoring your arguments. I could
> >> waste my time responding, but why? You won't listen;
> >
> >That is your opinion, and yours alone.
>
> No, it seems obvious to me that you'd rather just call me a fascist and
> complain that I'm not being nice to you.
So far, i didn't complained about anything.
I just made you to realize how hard you deal with people
that don't share the same taste/vision about the game's stuff as you do.
> So tell me, what happens in
> Italy when someone calls someone else a fascist in person, Emiliano? Do
> they then have a nice calm relaxing discussion about the issues?
I don't know what happens in america when a person
says that "here is no democracy"...here the natural answer to such
statetement it's that it is a fascist answer, and i made you realize that.
Please note, also, that i asked you just to stop "writing as a fascist",
that is a significant difference from deeming you fascist trought and
trought.
Even though, few lines above, you're arguing in a racist way too.
> Convenient how you completely ignore all this, isn't it? Is that
> because you're a toothless monkey? Or because you're too scared to own
> up and admit that maybe you shouldn't be throwing around such big words?
>
"Big" words?
Big as one (like you) stating in the first place that a different opinion
than yours
is unnecessary, without EVEN knowing what this opinion is about.
Big as throwing in a series of "fuck you, silly fanboy" for a damn ruling
discussion.
You just did that ,hoping to cut the discussion by drowning it in a series
of fascist and racist offenses, that's your choiche, but
don't expect to be taken seriously, or, at least,
expect to be treated accordingly.
Emiliano
> --
Kevin M.
>
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:cbsddusuc8sn6aups...@4ax.com...
> > In message <qvBB8.17825$5k4.4...@twister2.libero.it>,
> > "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
> > about:
[snip tet vs. Derek discussion that I have no interest in]
> Please note, also, that i asked you just to stop "writing as a fascist",
> that is a significant difference from deeming you fascist trought and
> trought.
tet, in the same post that you asked Derek to stop "writing as a facist" you
also said "Indeed, you think as a fascist." So you DID deem him a facist. So
stop saying you didn't.
>
> Emiliano
Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Derek Ray
about:
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:cbsddusuc8sn6aups...@4ax.com...
>>
>> YOU are the one who started talking about a fascist attitude.
>Yes?
>
>?Untrue, i asked politely to explain your points of wiev.
Politely does not include calling someone a fascist.
>> YOU are the one who complained that I wasn't giving you any respect.
>>
>Yes, in fact is just what you did, and what you're still doing.
Because you deserve none, worm.
>> YOU are the one who has pissed and moaned about the way I said things,
>
>Pissed ? Yes, because i hate the angry attitude like yours.
I don't care for your "everything should be my way" attitude either.
>> YOU wanted to take it here; well, it's here now, bitch, and you better
>> fucking deal with it. Again, you wouldn't have the balls to call
>> someone a fascist in person; WHY do you pretend that you have the balls
>> and say it behind a screen? Come on now, let's hear it.
>
>I don't pretend anything.
>If we would be in person, and you would argue
>with me the way you did are you're doing,
>i would call you fascist the same.
This indicates a lack of forethought, and a visible lack of any
experience with the real world... and what happens when someone throws
emotionally charged words such as "fascist" around in arguments.
Do you ever leave your house?
>> >that is clearly the sign of your lacks of any argument.
>>
>> You deserve no response, and will get none, until you quit babbling
>> about fascism AND retract some statements made.
>
>> You're a fucking
>> Italian,
>
>Ok, nice, so you're throwing in some racist-backed
And here is more bullshit, and yet another emotionally charged word
thrown in without any forethought or comprehension.
Are you an Italian? Yes? Good. Now that we have established that, we
can go on to the presumption, which is that because you are an Italian,
you should have learned an AWFUL LOT about fascism in your history
classes... seeing as your country got a first-hand view of it so long
ago, and the European education is so often touted to be superior to the
American.
This is not to imply that modern-day Italy these days is even remotely
fascist; it's not, nor did I ever say anything such.
But frankly, unless you were outside smoking dope through all your
history classes, you would have some major difficulty NOT absorbing some
details of what TRUE fascism is... and talking down to someone because
you don't like their attitude or opinions sure as hell isn't even CLOSE
to fascism. I know that in America, the details of Pearl Harbor and
WWII are pretty much shoved down our throats. I can't imagine that it's
any different in Italy.
>sentences. Just fine. And somwewhere else here you're calling for some education.
>Bah.
That makes two apologies and retractions you owe me, worm.
>> for god's sake; you should KNOW about fascism first-hand in
>> your history classes, and instead you're crying about it because I
>> called you a naughty boo-boo? There is no comparison, dude. Get some
>> education.
>
>Ah, you call for education now?
>Then start showing some respect for people thinking
>different form you, and, i'm sure, you will not treated as
> you're deserving right now..
Treated as what? From who, a worm? I don't care how worms treat me.
If the worm wants to own up and cough up some apologies, I might be able
to respect the worm a bit more. But in the meantime, the worm hasn't
shown that it even understands the basics of how to communicate with
others.
>> and then learn to not throw the word around where it isn't
>> warranted.
>
>Warranted ?
>I think i asked to you politely, in the first place, about some points
>with the new rulings.
>Your answer in the first place was that you didn't care about those changes,
>and that other people interested in the argument (like me), were
>silly-fanboys, annoying you with useless crying.
No, only those people who posted with a knee-jerk condemnation of the
new rulings, without bothering to even understand why they were put in
place (I bet you still don't), what rulings they replace (I know you
don't), and why it was necessary (you don't), and why it's necessary to
do things with one person making rulings instead of listening to a mob
of screaming fanboys (you definitely don't).
>"I" started crying ?
Yeah. You.
>YOU was the first to brought that my opionion was unnecessary,
> without even knowing what points i could made about the actual stuff.
Well, frankly, Emiliano, your opinion is unnecessary, since your opinion
and proposed changes are solely based on "because this is the way I
think it should be".
It doesn't matter what you think it should be. I don't know when you'll
ever get that through your head, and I'm not sure it's even possible for
you to. If you notice, what I thought it should be was wrong when I
tried to wing the rulings. This means that I was wrong. This means I
deal with it, and learn what it really should be. It doesn't mean I
badger LSJ and post a bunch of bullshit because I happen to think
differently. If you have arguments that are well-grounded in the rules
and a good understanding of them, that's great. But when your arguments
get rebutted (as LSJ has done many times in the past), answered
directly, and are not based on a good understanding of the rules, then
yes, it's completely unnecessary. It's a waste of space and time.
>So far, i didn't complained about anything.
>I just made you to realize how hard you deal with people
>that don't share the same taste/vision about the game's stuff as you do.
I tried being nice to you, long ago. You don't listen when people are
nice to you. I have to hit you over the head with a verbal bat to get
you to respond and understand things. I still don't think you
understand some things, and I doubt you ever will.
>> So tell me, what happens in
>> Italy when someone calls someone else a fascist in person, Emiliano? Do
>> they then have a nice calm relaxing discussion about the issues?
>
>I don't know what happens in america when a person
>says that "here is no democracy"...
What makes you think there's any democracy here, Emiliano?
This is a newsgroup, on USENET. The newsgroup is basically anarchy, as
NOBODY has control.
The rulings process? The rulings process are not a democracy. You get
no vote regarding rulings. I get no vote. Most of us get no vote. Not
even the Rules Team gets votes; they just get opinions. LSJ is the only
one who gets a vote. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
It is a benevolent dictatorship. I say "benevolent" because LSJ is
actually willing to listen, respond, and explain why he makes rulings.
However, it is still a dictatorship; what LSJ says, goes.
>here the natural answer to such
> statetement it's that it is a fascist answer, and i made you realize that.
No, you just made me realize that you haven't got a fucking clue as to
what's happening around you, and you're willing to say anything to
maintain your wildly incorrect worldview.
>Please note, also, that i asked you just to stop "writing as a fascist",
>that is a significant difference from deeming you fascist trought and
>trought.
No, not really. The word doesn't belong.
If I were knocking on your door at 3am with jackboots, ready to take you
away for what you'd written? THEN the word would belong. But I'm
simply talking down to you. No, the word really doesn't belong,
Emiliano. I don't know what world you live in that using such words in
such a VASTLY inappropriate context is a good thing, but I'm glad I
don't live there too.
>Even though, few lines above, you're arguing in a racist way too.
No, not really. I debunked that up above, too.
>"Big" words?
>Big as one (like you) stating in the first place that a different opinion
>than yours
>is unnecessary, without EVEN knowing what this opinion is about.
I don't have to know what your opinion is about to realize that it's not
going to be very meaningful. I've got a lot of experience reading your
opinions. These days, I mostly hit "next" and ignore you. It is worth
noting that the origin of this thread was me, replying to Joxsruqiyfkrf,
and you felt the need to respond to my message. Perhaps my message
struck home and you saw yourself reflected there...
>Big as throwing in a series of "fuck you, silly fanboy" for a damn ruling
>discussion.
That's because a lot of you dumb-ass fanboys need to be told you're
being fanboys, or you'll fail to understand.
>You just did that ,hoping to cut the discussion by drowning it in a series
>of fascist and racist offenses, that's your choiche, but
Long since disproven. Still waiting for the apology you owe me.
Chris Arthur
> >> You're a fucking
> >> Italian,
> >
> >Ok, nice, so you're throwing in some racist-backed
>
> And here is more bullshit, and yet another emotionally charged word
> thrown in without any forethought or comprehension.
>
> Are you an Italian? Yes? Good. Now that we have established that, we
> can go on to the presumption, which is that because you are an Italian,
> you should have learned an AWFUL LOT about fascism in your history
> classes... seeing as your country got a first-hand view of it so long
> ago, and the European education is so often touted to be superior to the
> American.
>
> This is not to imply that modern-day Italy these days is even remotely
> fascist; it's not, nor did I ever say anything such.
>
> But frankly, unless you were outside smoking dope through all your
> history classes, you would have some major difficulty NOT absorbing some
> details of what TRUE fascism is... and talking down to someone because
> you don't like their attitude or opinions sure as hell isn't even CLOSE
> to fascism. I know that in America, the details of Pearl Harbor and
> WWII are pretty much shoved down our throats. I can't imagine that it's
> any different in Italy.
The unpleasant side of a country's history is often omitted or glossed
over in school curricula. Your assumptions about the Italian education
system could be incorrect.
[snip]
> I tried being nice to you, long ago. You don't listen when people are
> nice to you. I have to hit you over the head with a verbal bat to get
> you to respond and understand things. I still don't think you
> understand some things, and I doubt you ever will.
>
I wonder if your style alienates more people than it convinces. What
do you think? Does it matter?
Chris.
Andrew S. Davidson
>tet, in the same post that you asked Derek to stop "writing as a facist" you
>also said "Indeed, you think as a fascist." So you DID deem him a facist.
Saying that X is acting as Y is not the same as saying that X is Y -
that's one of the central points in this matter. In any case, as
Derek styles himself the "Jackbooted Thug of Atlanta" and regularly
rubbishes democracy, he shouldn't be surprised if his posturing is
taken at face value.
Derek led off his barrage of ad homs in this thread with the insult,
"What a bunch of pussies." This is more subtle than "fascist" and I'm
not sure I fully grasp the innuendo. Is he calling the dissenters
women, cats or cunts? I'm not sure which is worse ...
Andrew
Tony
Cool.
Tony
Literary Thug
tetragrammaton
> In message <agZB8.25220$US3.5...@twister1.libero.it>,
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
> about:
>
> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >news:cbsddusuc8sn6aups...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> YOU are the one who started talking about a fascist attitude.
> >Yes?
> >
> >?Untrue, i asked politely to explain your points of wiev.
>
> Politely does not include calling someone a fascist.
>
Ah, but that was after, my friend.
Before you came kindly with "useless opinion is yours",
"couldn't care less about x, y, z" , hiding your attitude behind "here
is no democracy" etcetera.
All because they are points that you don't care about, or agree with, at
all.
> >> YOU are the one who complained that I wasn't giving you any respect.
> >>
> >Yes, in fact is just what you did, and what you're still doing.
>
> Because you deserve none, worm.
>
Thanks.
> >> YOU are the one who has pissed and moaned about the way I said things,
> >
> >Pissed ? Yes, because i hate the angry attitude like yours.
>
> I don't care for your "everything should be my way" attitude either.
>
My way ?
No, actually i just think that, putting myself the discussion on the
underground level of your
nice list of kindly words, you could fell more confortable, a thing that i
will not do.
The fact i called you that way it's just by being
bored, in the end, by your useless mindless rudity, a thing
which you enjoy so much, apparently.
> >> YOU wanted to take it here; well, it's here now, bitch, and you better
> >> fucking deal with it. Again, you wouldn't have the balls to call
> >> someone a fascist in person; WHY do you pretend that you have the balls
> >> and say it behind a screen? Come on now, let's hear it.
> >
> >I don't pretend anything.
> >If we would be in person, and you would argue
> >with me the way you did are you're doing,
> >i would call you fascist the same.
>
> This indicates a lack of forethought, and a visible lack of any
> experience with the real world...
Yes, you're the one that do the right way.
> and what happens when someone throws
> emotionally charged
Emotional ?
How you deem this nice series of mindless offenses you're throwing a me?
Coldly detached?
So far, the only true emotional approach i can see is your.
>words such as "fascist" around in arguments.
>
> Do you ever leave your house?
>
> >> >that is clearly the sign of your lacks of any argument.
> >>
> >> You deserve no response, and will get none, until you quit babbling
> >> about fascism AND retract some statements made.
> >
> >> You're a fucking
> >> Italian,
> >
> >Ok, nice, so you're throwing in some racist-backed
>
> And here is more bullshit, and yet another emotionally charged word
> thrown in without any forethought or comprehension.
Ah, apparently you got some problem with "emotional"
words, then.
Above all, if they make you
to understand the hell that you throw in here sometimes.
>
> Are you an Italian? Yes? Good. Now that we have established that, we
> can go on to the presumption, which is that because you are an Italian,
> you should have learned an AWFUL LOT about fascist in your history
> classes...
Indeed, it's what i've done.
Indeed, sometimes you argue as a rude, mindless fascist, but only because
you choose to do so, when not in accord with someone's else opinion.
Again, i just made that noticed to you.
But, instead of listening just a bit, you keep
on arguing as that stereotype, drowning the discussion in a series of
useless
offenses.
Maybe, you're too used at playing this character here.
>seeing as your country got a first-hand view of it so long
> ago, and the European education is so often touted to be superior to the
> American.
>
> This is not to imply that modern-day Italy these days is even remotely
> fascist; it's not, nor did I ever say anything such.
>
No, you didn't ? you just called me "fucking italian", that
is, deeming the person fucking along with his Nationality.
Just fine.
> But frankly, unless you were outside smoking dope through all your
> history classes, you would have some major difficulty NOT absorbing some
> details of what TRUE fascism is... and talking down to someone because
> you don't like their attitude or opinions
Opinion ?
Which opionion ?
Please note that i asked your opinion,
and you just answered with a series of "i couldn't care less".
Since you don't care, you deem other's opinion worthless, useless, and that,
it's under everyone's eyes.
So, as you deal with (some)others as with childish rabble ranting useless
opionions,
i do with you the same.
Thought this situation it's pretty weird, since you, somewhere else,
are stating that the (ally) ruling itself it's pretty unintuitive,
and that you won't have done it yourself, that is,
the same opinion i was trying to discuss about this damn rulings stuff.
>sure as hell isn't even CLOSE
> to fascism. I know that in America, the details of Pearl Harbor and
> WWII are pretty much shoved down our throats. I can't imagine that it's
> any different in Italy.
>
> >sentences. Just fine. And somwewhere else here you're calling for some
education.
> >Bah.
>
> That makes two apologies and retractions you owe me, worm.
>
Should i start to count the ones you owe me, then we would not
end this easily.
> >> for god's sake; you should KNOW about fascism first-hand in
> >> your history classes, and instead you're crying about it because I
> >> called you a naughty boo-boo? There is no comparison, dude. Get some
> >> education.
> >
> >Ah, you call for education now?
> >Then start showing some respect for people thinking
> >different form you, and, i'm sure, you will not treated as
> > you're deserving right now..
>
> Treated as what? From who, a worm? I don't care how worms treat me.
But you care if they must beg their apologies to you ?
Strange.
> If the worm wants to own up and cough up some apologies, I might be able
> to respect the worm a bit more. But in the meantime, the worm hasn't
> shown that it even understands the basics of how to communicate with
> others.
>
> >> and then learn to not throw the word around where it isn't
> >> warranted.
> >
> >Warranted ?
> >I think i asked to you politely, in the first place, about some points
> >with the new rulings.
> >Your answer in the first place was that you didn't care about those
changes,
> >and that other people interested in the argument (like me), were
> >silly-fanboys, annoying you with useless crying.
>
> No, only those people who posted with a knee-jerk condemnation of the
> new rulings,
?Again, that's untrue; i didn't said anything against the eagles sight
errata, for example.
And i was trying to discuss that making *just* some effects interruptable
in front of others complicates the matter, instead of simplify it.
But that too, isn't worthy of any respect, since you don't care, is right?
Please note also that more than once i said that LSJ work is great,
even though i argued with him (or other) on few occasions.
The fact that i can appear stubborn on some issue is just
because if i'm not REALLY convinced, then i will never
see the reason for going on with the "official" aspect of the game
(rulings).
And since some rkłulings matters are enough complicated to deal with,
the non-english aspect matters too (much like you can "burn" 0 counters to
untap and take control of the minion).
I would agree with you if i had thrown in a series of hyperbolic
offenses (much as you've done here and elsewhere) during some
of the few prolonged discussions i held.
So far, i can't recall any real offense.
I just focused your attention right now on your unconstructive way of
dealing with others not sharing the same game's perspectives as you do.
But a "fuck u Derek, who are u to deal the way you do" would have been
somewhat
your natural way to deal the matter, so i need some other way to make you
realize
the thing.
>without bothering to even understand why they were put in
> place (I bet you still don't),
About the points made, no, i still (along with others) can't see
any reason behind intruducing changing/adding SOME of the
(new) rulings.
The only point made it's "consistency" "errata clutting",
that would be true if we would got lot of valid examples.
The only examples made are about the herald playing CL,
and the stuff about siren's lure.
It is enough?
Clearly, for a lot of people isn't.
An errata (like the one on GT i tried to discussed elsewhere)
would suffice, if that was deemed necessary at all.
I think that such utility can be proven just by a thing, a this point:
how long will be the official errata. rule and clarification list, after
june 1.
That will tell better of any other discussion here
if (some of) the new rulings really clut the that list.
> what rulings they replace (I know you
> don't), and why it was necessary (you don't), and why it's necessary to
> do things with one person making rulings instead of listening to a mob
> of screaming fanboys (you definitely don't).
>
> >"I" started crying ?
>
> Yeah. You.
>
> >YOU was the first to brought that my opionion was unnecessary,
> > without even knowing what points i could made about the actual stuff.
>
> Well, frankly, Emiliano, your opinion is unnecessary, since your opinion
> and proposed changes
Proposed changes ? What are you talking about ?
Our long-gone discussion on Wake With Evening freshness?
> are solely based on "because this is the way I
> think it should be".
Tell me a thing:
do you propose things that are solely based on
"that's the way the official think makes it be" ?
It's obvious that if one proposes a "change" (opinion), then
it comes form his/her personal playgrounds and way
of thinking.
>
> It doesn't matter what you think it should be. I don't know when you'll
> ever get that through your head, and I'm not sure it's even possible for
> you to. If you notice, what I thought it should be was wrong when I
> tried to wing the rulings. This means that I was wrong. This means I
> deal with it, and learn what it really should be. It doesn't mean I
> badger LSJ and post a bunch of bullshit because I happen to think
> differently. If you have arguments that are well-grounded in the rules
> and a good understanding of them, that's great. But when your arguments
> get rebutted (as LSJ has done many times in the past), answered
> directly, and are not based on a good understanding of the rules, then
> yes, it's completely unnecessary. It's a waste of space and time.
>
> >So far, i didn't complained about anything.
> >I just made you to realize how hard you deal with people
> >that don't share the same taste/vision about the game's stuff as you do.
>
> I tried being nice to you, long ago. You don't listen when people are
> nice to you.
If that's my fault, i apologize.
Thought it's hard to remember any
"try" to be "kindly" by you.
I just can remember (with you) an heated discussion about
Shy and Snelly, doing over and over the same art again.
> I have to hit you over the head with a verbal bat to get
> you to respond and understand things. I still don't think you
> understand some things, and I doubt you ever will.
>
> >> So tell me, what happens in
> >> Italy when someone calls someone else a fascist in person, Emiliano?
Do
> >> they then have a nice calm relaxing discussion about the issues?
> >
> >I don't know what happens in america when a person
> >says that "here is no democracy"...
>
> What makes you think there's any democracy here, Emiliano?
>
> This is a newsgroup, on USENET. The newsgroup is basically anarchy, as
> NOBODY has control.
>
> The rulings process? The rulings process are not a democracy. You get
> no vote regarding rulings. I get no vote. Most of us get no vote. Not
> even the Rules Team gets votes; they just get opinions. LSJ is the only
> one who gets a vote. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
Maybe you can see somewhere another thread just discussing
about this kind of "no-democracy" about the RT and the rules.
Then you can understand that many players don't like so much this way of
keeping
the rulings, above all when some (though not all) of the rulings call
for exaggerated sub-effect specializations, nitpicking, and the like.
Maybe you' ll say once more, "who cares" ?
Some do (like me), some other don't (like you).
Respect is the keyword.
>
> It is a benevolent dictatorship. I say "benevolent" because LSJ is
> actually willing to listen, respond, and explain why he makes rulings.
> However, it is still a dictatorship; what LSJ says, goes.
>
> >here the natural answer to such
> > statetement it's that it is a fascist answer, and i made you realize
that.
>
> No, you just made me realize that you haven't got a fucking clue as to
> what's happening around you, and you're willing to say anything to
> maintain your wildly incorrect worldview.
"World wiev" ?
Now it's you that give me the impression to never leave your home.
Here it's no "worldwiev " at all, just an approach to v:tes as a game.
>
> >Please note, also, that i asked you just to stop "writing as a fascist",
> >that is a significant difference from deeming you fascist trought and
> >trought.
>
> No, not really. The word doesn't belong.
>
> If I were knocking on your door at 3am with jackboots, ready to take you
> away for what you'd written? THEN the word would belong. But I'm
> simply talking down to you.
Ah, so "your" words, your way of arguing, don't belong to that.
Sorry for letting that unnoticed.
But, since this is a forum, i can't see other method for one of "expressing
as X".
> No, the word really doesn't belong,
> Emiliano. I don't know what world you live in that using such words in
> such a VASTLY inappropriate context is a good thing, but I'm glad I
> don't live there too.
>
> >Even though, few lines above, you're arguing in a racist way too.
>
> No, not really. I debunked that up above, too.
>
> >"Big" words?
> >Big as one (like you) stating in the first place that a different opinion
> >than yours
> >is unnecessary, without EVEN knowing what this opinion is about.
>
> I don't have to know what your opinion is about to realize that it's not
> going to be very meaningful. I've got a lot of experience reading your
> opinions. These days, I mostly hit "next" and ignore you. It is worth
> noting that the origin of this thread was me, replying to Joxsruqiyfkrf,
> and you felt the need to respond to my message.
Yes, because it was another post filled with "come on, boy, now
i'll show you how simple the rulings are, and how you're silly
to not make my point".
> Perhaps my message
> struck home and you saw yourself reflected there...
>
? Eh ?
I just noted the fact that a lot of people
didn't got a damn clue about this new "ally" rulings
(and about the combat ends plus "untap" or "other effect" too).
> >Big as throwing in a series of "fuck you, silly fanboy" for a damn ruling
> >discussion.
>
> That's because a lot of you dumb-ass fanboys need to be told you're
> being fanboys, or you'll fail to understand.
So, you see, you're mockering again the stereotype's
teacher of Balilla's schoolchildren.
Want to know the real problem ?
It is that you're not going to told anything to anyone the way you do,
you'll need to break in their home and beat their head up,
given your way of arguing.
You just make people to alienate from your point wiev.
But, after all, maybe your answering motto to this is
"i don't care", "me ne frego", isn't ?
>
> >You just did that ,hoping to cut the discussion by drowning it in a
series
> >of fascist and racist offenses, that's your choiche, but
>
> Long since disproven. Still waiting for the apology you owe me.
>
Wait and see, then.
Emiliano
> --
Derek Ray
<5D0999F168FADBEE.F3422F80...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about:
>On Tue, 7 May 2002 19:39:06 -0500, Kevin M. wrote:
>
>>tet, in the same post that you asked Derek to stop "writing as a facist" you
>>also said "Indeed, you think as a fascist." So you DID deem him a facist.
>
>Saying that X is acting as Y is not the same as saying that X is Y -
>that's one of the central points in this matter. In any case, as
>Derek styles himself the "Jackbooted Thug of Atlanta" and regularly
>rubbishes democracy, he shouldn't be surprised if his posturing is
>taken at face value.
Two falsehoods in one troll! Not bad, Andrew.
First; I do not, and have never rubbish democracy; I simply point out
that the rulings process is not a democracy. This is a fact. I also
point out that mob rule sucks; this is also a fact.
Second; where have you ever seen me sign a post "Jack-Booted Thug of
Atlanta"? I think you've added some words on that don't belong,
there...
>"What a bunch of pussies." This is more subtle than "fascist" and I'm
>not sure I fully grasp the innuendo. Is he calling the dissenters
>women, cats or cunts? I'm not sure which is worse ...
The interpretation is left to the reader.
Derek Ray
chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) mumbled something about:
>> This is not to imply that modern-day Italy these days is even remotely
>> fascist; it's not, nor did I ever say anything such.
>>
>> But frankly, unless you were outside smoking dope through all your
>> history classes, you would have some major difficulty NOT absorbing some
>> details of what TRUE fascism is... and talking down to someone because
>> you don't like their attitude or opinions sure as hell isn't even CLOSE
>> to fascism. I know that in America, the details of Pearl Harbor and
>> WWII are pretty much shoved down our throats. I can't imagine that it's
>> any different in Italy.
>
>The unpleasant side of a country's history is often omitted or glossed
>over in school curricula. Your assumptions about the Italian education
>system could be incorrect.
Then my earlier suggestion that he "get educated" is appropriate.
>I wonder if your style alienates more people than it convinces. What
>do you think? Does it matter?
I don't give a damn. It's USENET. 90% of USENET is crap.
In-person relations matter far more to me than USENET ever will.
LAF
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>:
> >Saying that X is acting as Y is not the same as saying that X is Y -
> >that's one of the central points in this matter. In any case, as
> >Derek styles himself the "Jackbooted Thug of Atlanta" and regularly
> >rubbishes democracy, he shouldn't be surprised if his posturing is
> >taken at face value.
>
> Two falsehoods in one troll! Not bad, Andrew.
>
> First; I do not, and have never rubbish democracy; I simply point out
> that the rulings process is not a democracy. This is a fact. I also
> point out that mob rule sucks; this is also a fact.
>
> Second; where have you ever seen me sign a post "Jack-Booted Thug of
> Atlanta"? I think you've added some words on that don't belong,
> there...
Actually here are a few examples:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=t4o00tsp6rkngmk3g7irbmkqg8k2ko55j9%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=vuir2tkp10hcj43g4bndt4abv5q1omjq37%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=1m3j3tos46qb6eql77lgc69ac6lunui9t6%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=f0qeqsoqmgpqp596i7oq9g8kgac1r7e59n%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=9sst2tsf1cerb1sjf3mdf1fp06a8la84t2%404ax.com
Just being helpful!
Jameson
not a big fan of Andrew *OR* Derek
Noal McDonald
> Second; where have you ever seen me sign a post "Jack-Booted Thug of
> Atlanta"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=o99irs8poi97qu13717ie3fhb4e8fv1r9f%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1m3j3tos46qb6eql77lgc69ac6lunui9t6%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=uik73tsq6rf3o54t27o2cadplp1p3j86s1%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9df5qsco7oj9c0vocq8aokojrib58v8tce%404ax.com
and so on...to Jun 10 2000, which I believe is the first one:
Hope this helps! :-D
Regards,
Noal
Derek Ray
dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) mumbled something about:
>Hope this helps! :-D
Hm. I was under the impression I always just signed it "Thug". =) Oh
well. Make that ONE falsehood, then.
Chris Berger
"Henrik Isaksson" <hen...@nissamedia.net> wrote in message
news:ab78jj$g2c06$1...@ID-135400.news.dfncis.de...
atop his grossly misshapen body. Perhaps he has a penis for a head. The
possibilities are endless, although something, of course, makes him terribly
insecure, and prone to explosive diarrhea of the mouth.
Thank you for taking time out from this thread for psychoanalysis. Not that
tetragrammaton isn't a whining sniveling little snot. ;) This is just the
argument where both sides are wrong and it's all entertainment for the
spectators.
Raille
Derek Ray wrote:
>
> What a bunch of pussies.
Every one needs one, however.
Raille
Raille
Chris Berger wrote:
> Thank you for taking time out from this thread for psychoanalysis. Not that
> tetragrammaton isn't a whining sniveling little snot. ;) This is just the
> argument where both sides are wrong and it's all entertainment for the
> spectators.
Which remindes me.
I need more popcorn and a beer.
Raille
Raille
Derek Ray wrote:
> >I wonder if your style alienates more people than it convinces. What
> >do you think? Does it matter?
>
> I don't give a damn. It's USENET. 90% of USENET is crap.
>
You should, it implies that 90% of your own posts are crap.
Raille
Derek Ray
Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> mumbled something about:
And it implies that 90% of yours are, too.
Just because I post crap doesn't mean I don't think it's still crap.
Derek Ray
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about:
>tetragrammaton isn't a whining sniveling little snot. ;) This is just the
>argument where both sides are wrong and it's all entertainment for the
>spectators.
Technically, this is true. If I wanted to actually come out looking
half decent in this argument, I would've shut up long ago.
But I was annoyed, and I'm having fun now. :)
Derek Ray
repetition of "is not!", "is too!", but camouflaged with a lot larger
words, and you don't actually seem to be comprehending some things i'm
saying or the turns of phrase i'm using... not surprising.
I could waste a LOT of time using words of two or fewer syllables to get
my point across, but I don't think you're capable of understanding,
frankly. Suffice it to say that I will continue to post as I see fit,
with the attitude that I see fit, and I will not be feeling sorry for it
to ANYONE, much less any Italian fanboys who might get in the way in the
future. About all I've realized out of this is that you seem to smoke a
lot more crack than I thought you did.
However, there does remain one last thing to be cleared up (it might
well be the only thing you understood about the message):
In message <hraC8.27971$US3.6...@twister1.libero.it>,
"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
about:
>Maybe you can see somewhere another thread just discussing
> about this kind of "no-democracy" about the RT and the rules.
>Then you can understand that many players don't like so much this way of
>keeping the rulings, above all when some (though not all) of the rulings call
>for exaggerated sub-effect specializations, nitpicking, and the like.
They don't have to like it. They just have to suck it up and deal with
it. What these players REALLY don't like is that they aren't involved
in the ruling decisions at all, they don't feel important enough, and
they feel like they could do a better job. Some say it out in the open.
Some camouflage it behind nit-picking against every ruling that's out
there. Some take the alternate track of pestering LSJ about the
existence of the Rules Team. But pretty much, it's a "hey, it's MY TURN
to be in charge, why don't i get a turn?" sort of thing.
Some of us don't give a fuck whether we're involved in the ruling
decisions; we just play the damn game.
These players aren't interested in any sort of democracy regarding the
rules, because that would involve a lot of people who DON'T post to the
newsgroup and whose opinion they don't know -- they just want to be in
charge themselves.
Players with more of a clue would realize that democratic rulings would
have left the game in a broken state long ago, as all the power combos
NEVER got fixed... because we'd all get outvoted by the munchkins.
There are a lot more munchkins out there than you think.
>Wait and see, then.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
Derek Ray
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about:
>They don't have to like it. They just have to suck it up and deal with
>it. What these players REALLY don't like is that they aren't involved
>in the ruling decisions at all, they don't feel important enough, and
>they feel like they could do a better job. Some say it out in the open.
>Some camouflage it behind nit-picking against every ruling that's out
>there. Some take the alternate track of pestering LSJ about the
>existence of the Rules Team. But pretty much, it's a "hey, it's MY TURN
>to be in charge, why don't i get a turn?" sort of thing.
>
>Some of us don't give a fuck whether we're involved in the ruling
>decisions; we just play the damn game.
>
>These players aren't interested in any sort of democracy regarding the
Clarification: "These players", here, refers to the players I was
discussing in the first paragraph, not the ones who just play the damn
game. Just realized that.
Wes
(I'm not sure if you're referring to me here, as this post seems to be about
my 'Consensus' thread. I don't know if this is the case, but I'll respond in
my own defense in any case as I think this matter still needs a bit of
tinkering.)
> They don't have to like it. They just have to suck it up and deal with
> it. What these players REALLY don't like is that they aren't involved
> in the ruling decisions at all, they don't feel important enough, and
> they feel like they could do a better job.
I think LSJ does a great job and although I have had a few minor issues with
some things he has done or not done, by and large I can't think of a better
person for the job. I certainly wouldn't want the job myself, especially
after this past week.
Honestly, I think Lasombra's position is actually closer to the way I feel
about this. I just want to play the fucking game. I don't have a problem
with taking part in the design or testing aspect, but if it came down to
it... I'd really rather spend that time playing instead.
Having said that, I asked the questions about the rules team and how they
function because it seems there is a large discrepancy between the way RT
thinks this should be and what most everyone else thinks.
I agree with Robert Goudie that the players probably aren't privy to all the
factors involved with making such decisions, but I think this is actually
where some of the problems arise. Rather than including everyone in the
decision-making process (which would probably be tedious and inefficient to
say the least) we should strive to make sure that everyone understands *why*
the rulings are made in the first place.
I see that LSJ does try to answer everyone's questions and concerns, which
is admirable, but I don't see much of an effort to explain the reasoning
behind the decisions... or at least this one. The Rules Team can't speak up
unfortunately without exposing their true identities which leaves Scott in
the difficult position of having to bear the brunt of all these concerns,
some legitimate, some idiotic.
Rulings 'from above' tend to piss people off... especially if there's no
real explanation of why there even *needed* to be a ruling in the first
place. But I honestly don't know if there is any way to democratize the
process, or even if it needs democratizing. My initial questions were
sincere but I don't have any of the answers. Aside from the hub-bub
regarding this most recent ally ruling, things don't seem *that* bad to me.
And to quote another thread, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> Some take the alternate track of pestering LSJ about the
> existence of the Rules Team. But pretty much, it's a "hey, it's MY TURN
> to be in charge, why don't i get a turn?" sort of thing.
Well... I think it's possible to question the processes without ego entering
into the equation.
If we were all to get together and elect a person to fill LSJ's position, I
have no doubts that we would almost unanimously select LSJ (Talonz, your
objection is noted :) LSJ would definitely have my vote...
> Some of us don't give a fuck whether we're involved in the ruling
> decisions; we just play the damn game.
Fair enough. I'm probably closer to this position than the previous thread
implies.
> These players aren't interested in any sort of democracy regarding the
> rules, because that would involve a lot of people who DON'T post to the
> newsgroup and whose opinion they don't know -- they just want to be in
> charge themselves.
I certainly don't... I'd just make a big muck of it. The game would last
about a month before everyone quit in protest (though we would have lots of
kewl new kardz!)
> Players with more of a clue would realize that democratic rulings would
> have left the game in a broken state long ago, as all the power combos
> NEVER got fixed... because we'd all get outvoted by the munchkins.
> There are a lot more munchkins out there than you think.
Maybe... I'm not sure that they shouldn't have their say though. Rule by
consensus doesn't mean idiots rule. In a case like this it would probably
mean more like explaining to the idiots why the rules needed to be changed
in the first place. Probably not much fun though. In real-world politics,
I'm against any kind of top-down government. But in terms of this game... I
think I can live with it.
Regardless of these rulings, the game seems like more fun than it's ever
been and I for one am not about to quit.
Cheers,
WES
lactamaeon
>
> Raille
I suppose you're right, but oh, for those 10% ;)
Lactamaeon
Derek Ray
"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> mumbled something about:
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> They don't have to like it. They just have to suck it up and deal with
>> it. What these players REALLY don't like is that they aren't involved
>> in the ruling decisions at all, they don't feel important enough, and
>> they feel like they could do a better job.
>
>I think LSJ does a great job and although I have had a few minor issues with
>some things he has done or not done, by and large I can't think of a better
>person for the job. I certainly wouldn't want the job myself, especially
>after this past week.
I think that what people fail to realize is that LSJ is, barring the
occasional exception, extremely consistent in his approach to cards and
rulings thereof. It makes it pretty easy to guess what a ruling will be
for any given card. (note that my only mistake was guessing that a PA
wasn't part of the CL's resolution).
>Honestly, I think Lasombra's position is actually closer to the way I feel
>about this. I just want to play the fucking game. I don't have a problem
>with taking part in the design or testing aspect, but if it came down to
>it... I'd really rather spend that time playing instead.
Square on. I look at rulings like 5/1/02 and think "gee, I suppose that
might matter at some point" -- and the only reason it'll matter is
because I have a Baali deck with CLs in it, and I play a lot of Celerity
so I could conceivably run into my own Psyche! against Rotshit. Other
than that, the allies in torpor thing? Pfft. Big deal.
Allies have been able to send themselves to torpor forever with Mummify
(Shadow Court Satyr), and there wasn't any outcry after THAT ruling. It
leads one to the obvious conclusion that people are totally reacting
from personal bias; "OH NO, SOMETHING COOL HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM US".
Yep. The ability to make a grade-A nutpuncher has, indeed, been taken
away. However, if you'd like to do something USEFUL with the ghouls,
they're still available for use in a number of ways that won't send them
to torpor -- and because of this ruling, the Herald can now play
Charming Lobby, something which is actually an improvement and
contributes to a GOOD deck design.
>Having said that, I asked the questions about the rules team and how they
>function because it seems there is a large discrepancy between the way RT
>thinks this should be and what most everyone else thinks.
This certainly appears to be so.
>I agree with Robert Goudie that the players probably aren't privy to all the
>factors involved with making such decisions, but I think this is actually
This, also, is a near-certainty.
Hypothesis: those factors could include whether or not the Rules Team is
privy to the contents of the Camarilla set, and as such has future
potential issues in mind... and is repairing them now.
This is something none of us will know until the Cam set is released.
>where some of the problems arise. Rather than including everyone in the
>decision-making process (which would probably be tedious and inefficient to
>say the least) we should strive to make sure that everyone understands *why*
>the rulings are made in the first place.
That's walking into a mousetrap of Cyclopean proportions, though. You
don't answer the "why" of a five-year-old child with the real answer,
especially if you know he's not going to like the response. You give
him a simplified version of the answer, instead, and then stand by it.
Not that the vast majority of people here are five-year-old children (a
few notable exceptions spring to mind), but because we aren't privy to
the actual discussions and concerns faced by the Rules Team, we lack the
foundation from which to accurately assess the situation.
>Rulings 'from above' tend to piss people off... especially if there's no
>real explanation of why there even *needed* to be a ruling in the first
>place. But I honestly don't know if there is any way to democratize the
>process, or even if it needs democratizing. My initial questions were
(cringe) Horrible thought. Democracy is a great way to let issues die
on their own... could you imagine attempting to get a consensus among
people on the NG? Hell, we can't even agree on whether or not Hunting
Grounds suck, how are we going to make a decision about whether or not
Psyche! should beat Rotshit?
>sincere but I don't have any of the answers. Aside from the hub-bub
>regarding this most recent ally ruling, things don't seem *that* bad to me.
>And to quote another thread, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You'd wish others would realize this as well.
>> Some take the alternate track of pestering LSJ about the
>> existence of the Rules Team. But pretty much, it's a "hey, it's MY TURN
>> to be in charge, why don't i get a turn?" sort of thing.
>
>Well... I think it's possible to question the processes without ego entering
>into the equation.
Certainly! I wish it were possible for some people, too.
>If we were all to get together and elect a person to fill LSJ's position, I
>have no doubts that we would almost unanimously select LSJ (Talonz, your
>objection is noted :) LSJ would definitely have my vote...
I think if you gave people just a write-in box, you'd still end up with
LSJ, but you'd have a small ton of people with one or two votes
scattered all over creation -- mostly people voting for themselves and
their best friend helping them out.
You might have two or three with 10-15 votes; those would be the people
who through sheer charisma, a charming lobby, or maybe a disarming
presence ;), have managed to accumulate followers and hangers-on to
their opinions, and those followers and hangers-on holding firmly to the
opinion "CHANGE IS ALWAYS GOOD". It would be interesting to see,
really.
>> These players aren't interested in any sort of democracy regarding the
>> rules, because that would involve a lot of people who DON'T post to the
>> newsgroup and whose opinion they don't know -- they just want to be in
>> charge themselves.
>
>I certainly don't... I'd just make a big muck of it. The game would last
>about a month before everyone quit in protest (though we would have lots of
>kewl new kardz!)
See, I trust people who don't want to be in charge a lot more than I
trust people who DO want to be in charge. In fact, I don't trust people
who want to be in charge AT ALL, and I think those people should NEVER
be put in charge of anything, even organizing the weekend BBQ.
Anyone who volunteers "I think I'd do a good job of X" should never be
permitted near X. People who hide that they want to be in charge of X
are even worse; those are the snakes who will stab someone in the back
as soon as they can. (Setites with Celerity!)
And the ones who mean well are the WORST. They should just be shot.
>> Players with more of a clue would realize that democratic rulings would
>> have left the game in a broken state long ago, as all the power combos
>> NEVER got fixed... because we'd all get outvoted by the munchkins.
>> There are a lot more munchkins out there than you think.
>
>Maybe... I'm not sure that they shouldn't have their say though. Rule by
>consensus doesn't mean idiots rule. In a case like this it would probably
Actually, rule by consensus means nobody rules, and nothing actually
gets done. Committees suck. :)
Chris Arthur
>
>
> >I wonder if your style alienates more people than it convinces. What
> >do you think? Does it matter?
>
> I don't give a damn. It's USENET. 90% of USENET is crap.
That's pretty weak Derek. You've said yourself that other people's
posts make you angry:
"I get angry when I see people being stupid and forcibly inflicting
their
stupidity on others"
You don't care if you anger other people but you care if they anger
you?
>
> In-person relations matter far more to me than USENET ever will.
As they do for the rest of us but that doesn't mean that you can post
whatever you want to the newsgroup and expect it to have no impact on
other people.
Chris.
tetragrammaton
> In message <brgjduchbij1mpthu...@4ax.com>,
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about:
>
> >They don't have to like it. They just have to suck it up and deal with
> >it. What these players REALLY don't like is that they aren't involved
> >in the ruling decisions at all,
Derek, i' sure that if (some of the) rulings (like this "crowded" ally case)
were really simpler, then there had not been any lenghty discussion
(including ours) here.
For example, i still can't see the logic why an ally "playing as a vampire"
a card
get struck by agg damage of that card,
but the blood gained by playing another card
(always played as a vampire as a capacity of X)
does not drain off in excess of X as usual.
But that's another matter.
>they don't feel important enough, and
> >they feel like they could do a better job.
I don't know.
On the actual case, i just feel that things (on the ally matter)
could have been left the way they were before.
The only *consistent* result is that the Herald of Tophet *can*
now call a vote via charming lobby.
And consistency ends here.
> Some say it out in the open.
> >Some camouflage it behind nit-picking against every ruling that's out
> >there. Some take the alternate track of pestering LSJ about the
> >existence of the Rules Team. But pretty much, it's a "hey, it's MY TURN
> >to be in charge, why don't i get a turn?" sort of thing.
> >
> >Some of us don't give a fuck whether we're involved in the ruling
> >decisions; we just play the damn game.
> >
> >These players aren't interested in any sort of democracy regarding the
>
> Clarification: "These players", here, refers to the players I was
> discussing in the first paragraph, not the ones who just play the damn
> game. Just realized that.
Yes, got that.
Please note that i never pointed that a ruling
should be changed only because there's a "mob"
of unsatisfacted people arguing here (on the forum) against it.
I pointed just that some players (like) me
get discouraged (pissed off) when *some* rulings complicate
utterly the matter without any clear benefit for the game as a whole.
Some other players, like you, seem not to care too much,
and that's just fine.
I enraged just when you said that those different opinion (like mine)
were unnecessary, without even discussing the point.
Emiliano
> --
Derek Ray
>> I don't give a damn. It's USENET. 90% of USENET is crap.
>
>That's pretty weak Derek. You've said yourself that other people's
>posts make you angry:
Crap can still make you angry, even though it's crap.
>"I get angry when I see people being stupid and forcibly inflicting
>their stupidity on others"
>
>You don't care if you anger other people but you care if they anger
>you?
A slight misstatement; feel free to reread and try again.
One sense seems obvious, though; if you don't care, then you won't get
angry. The difference is that I recognize that USENET is crap, and calm
down rapidly. No, really. I walk away from the computer and poof!
USENET is gone, back into the world it came from, and I am out having
fun with other people in the real world, which I like a lot better than
USENET because the crap ratio is less.
Or at work, having a lot less fun than I could be. But the point
remains.
>> In-person relations matter far more to me than USENET ever will.
>
>As they do for the rest of us but that doesn't mean that you can post
I think that has yet to be established.
>whatever you want to the newsgroup and expect it to have no impact on
>other people.
Oh, I expect it to have PLENTY of impact. This doesn't prevent it (or
the aforementioned 90%) from being crap.
Chris Arthur
> angry. The difference is that I recognize that USENET is crap, and calm
> down rapidly.
It might be considerate to do that before you post.
> No, really. I walk away from the computer and poof!
> USENET is gone, back into the world it came from, and I am out having
> fun with other people in the real world, which I like a lot better than
> USENET because the crap ratio is less.
mmm...and the rest of us just live our lives through USENET?
>
> Or at work, having a lot less fun than I could be. But the point
> remains.
>
> >> In-person relations matter far more to me than USENET ever will.
> >
> >As they do for the rest of us but that doesn't mean that you can post
>
> I think that has yet to be established.
*sigh* you have a life and the rest of us don't?
>
> >whatever you want to the newsgroup and expect it to have no impact on
> >other people.
>
> Oh, I expect it to have PLENTY of impact. This doesn't prevent it (or
> the aforementioned 90%) from being crap.
I guess some of us post more crap than others
Chris.
Derek Ray
>> One sense seems obvious, though; if you don't care, then you won't get
>> angry. The difference is that I recognize that USENET is crap, and calm
>> down rapidly.
>
>It might be considerate to do that before you post.
I might care enough about USENET to do that sometime in the future.
>> No, really. I walk away from the computer and poof!
>> USENET is gone, back into the world it came from, and I am out having
>> fun with other people in the real world, which I like a lot better than
>> USENET because the crap ratio is less.
>
>mmm...and the rest of us just live our lives through USENET?
I don't know, Chris. Do you?
Do you find yourself taking USENET far too seriously?
Are you absolutely, 100% convinced that I'll suddenly realize what a
naughty boy I was being, and never post a bad word again?
Do you believe in fairies?
>> >As they do for the rest of us but that doesn't mean that you can post
>>
>> I think that has yet to be established.
>
>*sigh* you have a life and the rest of us don't?
Let's just say I have my suspicions about some of y'all.
>> Oh, I expect it to have PLENTY of impact. This doesn't prevent it (or
>> the aforementioned 90%) from being crap.
>
>I guess some of us post more crap than others
Yeah. Especially when we post messages like that last one.
Raille
Derek Ray wrote:
>
> In message <3CD9AC1D...@spamcop.net>,
> Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> mumbled something about:
>
> >Derek Ray wrote:
> >> >I wonder if your style alienates more people than it convinces. What
> >> >do you think? Does it matter?
> >>
> >> I don't give a damn. It's USENET. 90% of USENET is crap.
> >
> >You should, it implies that 90% of your own posts are crap.
>
> And it implies that 90% of yours are, too.
>
> Just because I post crap doesn't mean I don't think it's still crap.
>
Were all equals in the eyes of God. Or readers of the newsgroup.
Whichever is more appropriate.
Raille
Derek Ray
>Were all equals in the eyes of God. Or readers of the newsgroup.
>Whichever is more appropriate.
If this leads to an equation where
"readers of the newsgroup == God"
then i'm giving up math and going back to pot.
lactamaeon
> Whichever is more appropriate.
>
> Raille
*blink*
We are? Wow. Wonder how that happened.
Lactamaeon.
Chris Arthur
> >> angry. The difference is that I recognize that USENET is crap, and calm
> >> down rapidly.
> >
> >It might be considerate to do that before you post.
>
> I might care enough about USENET to do that sometime in the future.
hurrah!
[snip]
Raille
Derek Ray wrote:
>
> In message <3CDB2E4A...@spamcop.net>,
> Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> mumbled something about:
>
> >Were all equals in the eyes of God. Or readers of the newsgroup.
> >Whichever is more appropriate.
>
> If this leads to an equation where
>
> "readers of the newsgroup == God"
>
> then i'm giving up math and going back to pot.
Well according to christian mythology, Man is created in the image of
god, so readers of newsgroup = God.
Raille
LSJ
> Well according to christian mythology, Man is created in the image of
> god, so readers of newsgroup = God.
This isn't the forum for religion-bashing.
Take it to alt.flame or talk.religion, please.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> In message <3CDB2E4A...@spamcop.net>,
>> Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> mumbled something about:
>>
>> >Were all equals in the eyes of God. Or readers of the newsgroup.
>> >Whichever is more appropriate.
>>
>> If this leads to an equation where
>>
>> "readers of the newsgroup == God"
>>
>> then i'm giving up math and going back to pot.
>
>Well according to christian mythology, Man is created in the image of
>god, so readers of newsgroup = God.
SMOKE 'EM UP, Y'ALL!
Pass the bong.