Transferring out
Kevin M.
someone I'm chatting with just tried to make a point, suggesting to me "Why
take an action that you can't succeed with?"
Now that's funny. =)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"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
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Juggernaut1981
Because even if you don't succeed on the action you might be able to
Torn Signpost + IG + Pushing the Limit + Disarm/Pulled Fangs the
Toreador in your way...
Tehck
That bleed for six was successful...Your prey is down three pool and a
mpa now.
jy...@storageannex.com
Nothing like only pulling out one thing out of the entire discussion.
Not even bothering to inform the masses that the player has absolutely
no method of harming his prey, much less his minions. And that's not
nearly at all funny when you are playing a completely impotent deck.
So even the TS+IG, etc etc combo means nothing as well if you aren't
playing that deck. Not to mention prevent would make him just as
impotent.
Johannes Walch
> On May 14, 8:03 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> As part of a discussion to prove that transferring out is a good thing,
>> someone I'm chatting with just tried to make a point, suggesting to me "Why
>> take an action that you can't succeed with?"
>>
>> Now that's funny. =)
>>
>> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
>> "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
>> Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
>
> Nothing like only pulling out one thing out of the entire discussion.
> Not even bothering to inform the masses that the player has absolutely
> no method of harming his prey, much less his minions. And that's not
> nearly at all funny when you are playing a completely impotent deck.
Right, but I think it is good for the game if you stick around
nevertheless. It might not be fun, because you cant do much, but I find
it unfair/unsportsmanlike to deny a GW to someone who played the table
right just because people want to stand up and self-oust.
Extreme situation: one player has torporized and diablerized all other
minions on the table with his mighty multi-rush. Everybody is on low
pool. Of course people could self-oust in any manner to prevent him from
winning the game. But thats very unsportsmanlike, just like a race car
being several laps behind ramming the leader out of victory.
Even if I have been using the threat of self-oust as a tactical measure
myself (quite often actually) I would be happy if intentional self-oust
would be forbidden. Judges call if there is a question what is
intentional and what not (taking transfers obviously is, going
vast-wealth and doing from it not).
--
If playing against Cock all you need to
remember is: Don�t get caught by Cock.
LSJ
> I find
> it unfair/unsportsmanlike to deny a GW to someone who played the table
> right just because people want to stand up and self-oust.
Assuming we're talking about mechanics-wise-legal activity:
It's no more unfair/unsportsmanlike than denying someone else the GW by
pointlessly bleeding or blocking or being a poolsack.
A player has "played the table right" if she gets the player who would be in a
hopeless position either some reason not to self-oust or some reason to
self-oust, whichever benefits her. The player who didn't do so cannot be said to
have played the table right.
> Extreme situation: one player has torporized and diablerized all other
> minions on the table with his mighty multi-rush. Everybody is on low
> pool. Of course people could self-oust in any manner to prevent him from
> winning the game. But thats very unsportsmanlike
No, it isn't. That's the result of the mighty multi-rush player not playing the
table right (leaving certain players in hopeless situations too early).
>, just like a race car
> being several laps behind ramming the leader out of victory.
Not like that at all. Key difference: ramming is illegal (mechanics-of-the-game
violation).
Rehlow
>
> Nothing like only pulling out one thing out of the entire discussion.
> Not even bothering to inform the masses that the player has absolutely
> no method of harming his prey, much less his minions. And that's not
> nearly at all funny when you are playing a completely impotent deck.
>
I refuse to believe that any single player can possibly know what
every other player could possibly do at any time. No situation is
completely hopeless when it is your own turn and you could self-oust.
Something might happen that shakes up the table dynamic and now you
can play the game again and try and get more VPs.
I've seen plenty of players lose because they gave up too soon. I've
gone on to win VPs when the situation was dire. It doesn't happen
often, but it happens more than the zero chance you create by removing
yourself from the game.
Later,
~Rehlow
Chris Berger
> On May 15, 2:26 am, jy...@storageannex.com wrote:
>
>
> > Nothing like only pulling out one thing out of the entire discussion.
> > Not even bothering to inform the masses that the player has absolutely
> > no method of harming his prey, much less his minions. And that's not
> > nearly at all funny when you are playing a completely impotent deck.
>
> I refuse to believe that any single player can possibly know what
> every other player could possibly do at any time. No situation is
> completely hopeless when it is your own turn and you could self-oust.
> Something might happen that shakes up the table dynamic and now you
> can play the game again and try and get more VPs.
>
I agree with this, however I think that the threat of self-ousting has
to be available to combat the situation where someone wrecks you to
the point that you can't play the game anymore and expects you to sit
there and be a pool sack until he can get to you. If a prey decides
to whack all of my vamps into torpor and refuses to let me play the
game, then I need to at least have the *option* of self-ousting to a)
try to discourage that from happening, and b) let me go do something
else more fun than discarding one card every 15 minutes while watching
other people play V:TES. I won't always take advantage of the option
- I won't always threaten the self-oust, and I won't always go through
with it even when I threaten (if, frex, I can see some small glimmer
of hope, or the wrecking player repents or gets wrecked himself, or
something like that)... but I think the option is important.
Jay Kristoff
I agree with both Rehlow and Chris Berger. I have also seen
transfering out used to secure a Game Win by a player who had 2vps,
whose next prey was about to get a VP (and then a Game Win), all of
this with the time-out approaching.
Like it or not, the transfer out option needs to stay in the game.
Jay
Hyllan
> jy...@storageannex.com schrieb:
>
>
> > On May 14, 8:03 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> As part of a discussion to prove that transferring out is a good thing,
> >> someone I'm chatting with just tried to make a point, suggesting to me "Why
> >> take an action that you can't succeed with?"
>
> myself (quite often actually) I would be happy if intentional self-oust
> would be forbidden. Judges call if there is a question what is
> intentional and what not (taking transfers obviously is, going
> vast-wealth and doing from it not).
I agree with Johannes. 95% of all self-ousts I've seen have been
childish and unsportsmanlike. And a small percent have been
strategical kingmaking. If you're in a situation when all your minions
are in torpor from cross-table rush or have Sensory Deprivations or
something like that, that's the time to table-talk, not self-oust. Or
accept the fact that you built a bad deck, and spend the time until
the oust with thinking of ways to improve it. I think self-ousting
should be forbidden.
Though I have to admit I was seriously tempted to make a childish self-
oust 3 weeks ago when my prey played Temptation of Greater Power
backwards on turn 3, making me loose 14 of my 19 pool to keep Lady
Zara; the only vampire which gave me any hope of surviving my
dementation predator. I didn't self-oust and I didn't win the game,
but my prey didn't win either. Usually there is some justice in the
end when people fuck you cross-table or backwards.
henrik
> I agree with Johannes. 95% of all self-ousts I've seen have been
> childish and unsportsmanlike. And a small percent have been
> strategical kingmaking. If you're in a situation when all your minions
> are in torpor from cross-table rush or have Sensory Deprivations or
> something like that, that's the time to...
...get a new playgroup ^_^
95% of all situations where someone crosstable sends all your vampires
to torpor is childish and unsportsmanlike. Sounds more like grand prey/
predator plays like crap rather than the played getting rushed
building a bad deck.
Johann von Doom
> I have also seen
> transfering out used to secure a Game Win by a player who had 2vps,
> whose next prey was about to get a VP (and then a Game Win), all of
> this with the time-out approaching.
Was this a finals-table-only situation? I've seen people mention this
before (getting a GW with 2 VPs by transferring out), but my puny
brain hasn't ever been able to comprehend how that's possible, unless
prior standings come into play.
John Eno
The Lasombra
2-1-1-1-0 is a game win.
2-2-1-0-0 can be a tournament win.
I've done it by self-ousting.
Carpe noctem.
The Lasombra
Your best source of V:TES information.
Now also selling boxes and individual cards.
LSJ
ABCDE seated around a table.
A ousts B then C.
A can't oust D for some reason, and D seems capable of ousting E then A before
time is called, since both E and A are low on pool.
A thinks that D will not be able to oust E before time is called if D gets a fee
six pool boost.
So A self ousts to give E a six pool boost.
And E uses that pool to either pool sack or to influence sufficient resistance
to stay in the game until time is called.
End:
A 2
B 0
C 0
D 0.5
E 1.5
A gets the game win.
jy...@storageannex.com
So, according to you. No one is intelligent enough to come to a
conclusion based on the facts at a given table? Now, that is just
baloney. With good players and solid decks, it is very easy to
predict a game. But you can't do it right away. There is no way to
say on turn 3, so and so is going to sweep. Unless they are a very
very strong deck that just happens to be catching all the cards at the
right moment. Which isn't likely. However, after playing for at
least an hour in one game you should be able to have an understanding
of what each deck is capable of doing and how the others can respond
to them. And thereby predict certain events. Now, I'm not saying
that these are infallible because it is possible that something that
you haven't witness yet comes out of left field and changes the
dynamic. At which point you should take that into account and rethink
things.
In the past, I have quit too soon. But I've learned a lot since
then. Even managed to win a game where I shouldn't have even had a
chance. However due to the table dynamics and the fact that no one
wanted to see Arika Sleeze win, I managed to steal a win in this
instance. For the most part, I do not self oust unless I know for
sure that I am not capable of getting any more VPs than I already have
if any.
Another thing people have to realize is not everyone builds decks the
same. Just because you see a deck that is familiar to you. Doesn't
mean it's going to look exactly like all the others. Wait until you
see what it does before you make your judgments. And if you're
foolish enough to cripple an entire table with multi-rush. You
deserve not to get the sweep.
Johann von Doom
...
> A gets the game win.
Fair enough. I don't think I've ever seen this happen in actual play,
but at least I can grok the possibility now. Thanks.
John Eno
Daneel
wrote:
> As part of a discussion to prove that transferring out is a good thing,
> someone I'm chatting with just tried to make a point, suggesting to me
> "Why take an action that you can't succeed with?"
>
> Now that's funny. =)
Which part of it? Maybe it's a language issue but without context the only
thing hinting at funny is the word "funny" and the smiley at the end.
Sometimes it makes sense to attempt an action that seems impossible to
succeed (e.g. pave the way for a future action, create an opportunity
to harm the blocker), sometimes it doesn't.
The point is...?
--
Regards,
Daneel
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> thing hinting at funny is the word "funny" and the smiley at the end.
>
> Sometimes it makes sense to attempt an action that seems impossible to
> succeed (e.g. pave the way for a future action, create an opportunity
> to harm the blocker), sometimes it doesn't.
>
> The point is...?
Wait. So here you are, questioning Kevin for making a post that is
vague. And then criticizing me in another thread for questioning someone
for making a post that is vague.
Check. Just throwing that out there.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
henrik
> In article <oput1nnj06o6j...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> wrote:
>
> > Which part of it? Maybe it's a language issue but without context the only
> > thing hinting at funny is the word "funny" and the smiley at the end.
>
> > Sometimes it makes sense to attempt an action that seems impossible to
> > succeed (e.g. pave the way for a future action, create an opportunity
> > to harm the blocker), sometimes it doesn't.
>
> > The point is...?
>
> Wait. So here you are, questioning Kevin for making a post that is
> vague. And then criticizing me in another thread for questioning someone
> for making a post that is vague.
>
> Check. Just throwing that out there.
>
> Peter D Bakija
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff
I agree with him on both accounts :p
Didn't see the fun part in the post here, and a thread named
"Cardmaker Contest" doesn't strike me as spam at first sight at least.
There's been some sort of spam attack on the google group last week
though, which probably had something to do with your other post.
Peter D Bakija
<609232a6-6c75-4773...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Whatever works for you.
> Didn't see the fun part in the post here,
Ok. So it is questionable to make vague statements. Go on...
> and a thread named
> "Cardmaker Contest" doesn't strike me as spam at first sight at least.
That's you. All I was saying was that I looked at it, thought it could
have been spam, opened it up, and nothing in the post made it look less
like spam. 'Cause it was vague. So we continue to support the idea that
it is questionable to make vague statements. And someone criticizing
someone for making vague statements and then criticizing someone
different for criticizing someone for making vague statements doesn't
strike you as, I dunno, remotely ironic?
> There's been some sort of spam attack on the google group last week
> though, which probably had something to do with your other post.
Ya think?
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
henrik
> > and a thread named
> > "Cardmaker Contest" doesn't strike me as spam at first sight at least.
>
> That's you. All I was saying was that I looked at it, thought it could
> have been spam, opened it up, and nothing in the post made it look less
> like spam. 'Cause it was vague.
Sure, that's me. A link to http://manituanVTES.blogspot.com/ (my caps)
made me understand what it's about though.
But yeah. That's me.
> So we continue to support the idea that
> it is questionable to make vague statements. And someone criticizing
> someone for making vague statements and then criticizing someone
> different for criticizing someone for making vague statements doesn't
> strike you as, I dunno, remotely ironic?
Well, as I said I find Kevin's post here more vague than the
cardmaking contest. Otherwise I'd probably see the irony better.
Peter D Bakija
<cd3500e0-f353-49cf...@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
henrik <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, that's me. A link to http://manituanVTES.blogspot.com/ (my caps)
> made me understand what it's about though.
Yes. But the VTES wasn't capitalized and easy to miss. But then, I
didn't miss it, and didn't report it as spam. And consequently made a
friendly, non critical post suggesting that next time, he should make it
more clear that the link (and post) pertain to VTES. As it was easy
enough to miss. And, as noted, if you want someone to click on your
link, it is probably a good idea to quickly explain what the link goes
to (i.e. a poll on home made VTES cards, and not some comedy horror
porn). I was, again, pointing out that being vague is less optimal than
being not vague. And in this thread, Daneel was pointing out that being
vague is less optimal than being not vague. And in the other thread,
Daneel is hassling me for pointing out that being vague is less optimal
than being not vague.
> Well, as I said I find Kevin's post here more vague than the
> cardmaking contest. Otherwise I'd probably see the irony better.
Yeah, see, I found Kevin's post completely not vague. And thus, had no
need to have it further explained. Where the cardbuilder contest could
have used a sentence that read "Hey! Come vote on these home made VTES
cards!"
And the irony (which I'm not sure how you are missing) comes from:
-Thread A: Daneel criticizes Kevin for being vague.
-Thread B: Daneel criticizes me for criticizing someone for being vague.
Whether or not thread A is any more or less vague than thread B is
irrelevant to the irony. You can't criticize someone for being vague
(regardless of whether or not it is actually vague) and then criticize
someone else for criticizing someone for being vague (regardless of
whether or not it actually vague) without it being ironic.
See! Nothing is better than explaining why jokes are good!
henrik
> > Sure, that's me. A link tohttp://manituanVTES.blogspot.com/(my caps)
> > made me understand what it's about though.
>
> Yes. But the VTES wasn't capitalized and easy to miss. But then, I
> didn't miss it, and didn't report it as spam. And consequently made a
> friendly, non critical post suggesting that next time, he should make it
> more clear that the link (and post) pertain to VTES. As it was easy
> enough to miss. And, as noted, if you want someone to click on your
> link, it is probably a good idea to quickly explain what the link goes
> to (i.e. a poll on home made VTES cards, and not some comedy horror
> porn). I was, again, pointing out that being vague is less optimal than
> being not vague. And in this thread, Daneel was pointing out that being
> vague is less optimal than being not vague. And in the other thread,
> Daneel is hassling me for pointing out that being vague is less optimal
> than being not vague.
Yeah, not being vague is better than being vague. No questions there.
> > Well, as I said I find Kevin's post here more vague than the
> > cardmaking contest. Otherwise I'd probably see the irony better.
>
> Yeah, see, I found Kevin's post completely not vague. And thus, had no
> need to have it further explained. Where the cardbuilder contest could
> have used a sentence that read "Hey! Come vote on these home made VTES
> cards!"
>
> And the irony (which I'm not sure how you are missing) comes from:
>
> -Thread A: Daneel criticizes Kevin for being vague.
> -Thread B: Daneel criticizes me for criticizing someone for being vague.
>
> Whether or not thread A is any more or less vague than thread B is
> irrelevant to the irony. You can't criticize someone for being vague
> (regardless of whether or not it is actually vague) and then criticize
> someone else for criticizing someone for being vague (regardless of
> whether or not it actually vague) without it being ironic.
I'm not really missing the irony, I just don't find it ironic. I think
you're missing my point as well. And I really think this is out of
proportion, so this'll be my last here.
But anyway, I think it's all about me (and Daneel, I guess) not
finding the other post vague, while thinking this post is (and you
thinking the other way around).
And I do think that Daneels post in the other thread was more about
the irony (using that word'll bite me in the ass shortly, I suppose)
in your assumption that a post on a vtes newsgroup is spam rather than
something relevant to vtes. Can't really speak for him though.
> See! Nothing is better than explaining why jokes are good!
Oh, and while we're at the explanation part I'd love an explanation to
the funnyness in Kevin's post. I don't get it at all.
Peter D Bakija
<249a7392-1b4b-4858...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
henrik <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, not being vague is better than being vague. No questions there.
Good. So we are on the same page.
> I'm not really missing the irony, I just don't find it ironic.
Are you understand what "ironic" means?
Doing X and then criticizing someone else for doing exactly X is ironic.
> I think you're missing my point as well.
Maybe?
> And I really think this is out of proportion, so this'll be my last here.
Out of proportion? It is just a silly discussion that is mostly going on
'cause the NG is otherwise mostly dead right now. Other than the spam
posts. I'm just making sure you understand me.
> But anyway, I think it's all about me (and Daneel, I guess) not
> finding the other post vague, while thinking this post is (and you
> thinking the other way around).
Whether or not the other post is vague has no impact at all on the
ironic aspect of the discussion. I understand that you found Post A
vague and Post B not vague, and I found post A not vague and Post B
vague. What is important is that *someone* found the post in question
vague, I clearly thought it was vague (otherwise, I would not have
commented on the vaguenss of it. Man. You say "vague" enough, and it
loses all meaning).
> And I do think that Daneels post in the other thread was more about
> the irony (using that word'll bite me in the ass shortly, I suppose)
> in your assumption that a post on a vtes newsgroup is spam rather than
> something relevant to vtes. Can't really speak for him though.
Yeah, see, that wasn't ironic. That may very well have been why he was
commenting. But that isn't irony. That is something else completely.
> Oh, and while we're at the explanation part I'd love an explanation to
> the funnyness in Kevin's post. I don't get it at all.
See, Kevin found that someone suggesting "Why
take an action that you can't succeed with?" in the context of self
ousting is funny. 'Cause, I guess, you can't know that an action will
not succeed until you try it. And that self ousting based on information
that is in no way certain is silly.
Daneel
wrote:
> In article <oput1nnj...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> wrote:
>> Which part of it? Maybe it's a language issue but without context the
>> only
>> thing hinting at funny is the word "funny" and the smiley at the end.
>>
>> Sometimes it makes sense to attempt an action that seems impossible to
>> succeed (e.g. pave the way for a future action, create an opportunity
>> to harm the blocker), sometimes it doesn't.
>>
>> The point is...?
>
> Wait. So here you are, questioning Kevin for making a post that is
> vague. And then criticizing me in another thread for questioning someone
> for making a post that is vague.
>
> Check. Just throwing that out there.
For what it's worth - Mani's post didn't strike me as particularly vague.
Nor, for what it's worth, SPAM-mish. I wasn't criticizing you, I was just
genuinely surprised at your reaction.
Not only did Kevin M.'s post seem vague to me, even more I was under the
impression from the informal tone that some sort of reaction was expected
from the reader - I just wasn't sure what. Or whether the post was
supposed to be generally funny, only I was missing it, or whether it's
some inside joke that only those people will fully appreciate who
participated on the chat / know Kevin M.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> For what it's worth - Mani's post didn't strike me as particularly vague.
> Nor, for what it's worth, SPAM-mish. I wasn't criticizing you, I was just
> genuinely surprised at your reaction.
Heh. As noted, again, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere on
someone's part (I'm not quite sure if it is Mani or you or me :-)--I was
in no way trying to imply that Mani's post was spam. As it was not. It
was a completely legitimate post. Just, due to what I found to be
vagueness, I almost mistook it for spam (as upon initial perusal, it
looked like it could have been a sales spam, and not a post about VTES).
And was pointing out that Mani could have been more specific in his post
(which would have made more people pay attention *and* made it not look
like it might have been spam).
Peter D Bakija
> Are you understand what "ironic" means?
This was supposed to read "are you sure you understand what 'ironic'
means", and not as snark, but as a legitimate question.
henrik
> > I'm not really missing the irony, I just don't find it ironic.
>
> Are you understand what "ironic" means?
>
> Doing X and then criticizing someone else for doing exactly X is ironic.
I call it hipocrisy. Not a native english person though.
And irony has a rather meaning (or meanings).
> > And I really think this is out of proportion, so this'll be my last here.
>
> Out of proportion? It is just a silly discussion that is mostly going on
> 'cause the NG is otherwise mostly dead right now. Other than the spam
> posts. I'm just making sure you understand me.
Out of proportion as in noone meant anything big by either post (you,
me, Daneel etc). Somewhat interesting though, so I'll keep on posting.
> > And I do think that Daneels post in the other thread was more about
> > the irony (using that word'll bite me in the ass shortly, I suppose)
> > in your assumption that a post on a vtes newsgroup is spam rather than
> > something relevant to vtes. Can't really speak for him though.
>
> Yeah, see, that wasn't ironic. That may very well have been why he was
> commenting. But that isn't irony. That is something else completely.
I find it ironic. Same way (kinda) Romeo killing himself next to the
fake-dead Juliet is ironic.
> > Oh, and while we're at the explanation part I'd love an explanation to
> > the funnyness in Kevin's post. I don't get it at all.
>
> See, Kevin found that someone suggesting "Why
> take an action that you can't succeed with?" in the context of self
> ousting is funny. 'Cause, I guess, you can't know that an action will
> not succeed until you try it. And that self ousting based on information
> that is in no way certain is silly.
But you can know that an action won't succeed before you try it.
I agree that the argument sounds stupid though, at least when taken
out of context.
Johann von Doom
> Or whether the post was
> supposed to be generally funny, only I was missing it, or whether it's
> some inside joke that only those people will fully appreciate who
> participated on the chat / know Kevin M.
My reading of Kevin's post: If you think your position is so hopeless
that you might as well transfer out, how can it hurt to attempt an
action which might have even the smallest change of improving your
position before you give up? Taking that chance has no possibility of
hurting you, since you're about to quit anyway.
But I wasn't privy to the chat in question, so maybe I'm totally wrong
as to what Kevin's intent was.
John Eno
Daneel
wrote:
> In article <oput26ut...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> wrote:
>> For what it's worth - Mani's post didn't strike me as particularly
>> vague.
>> Nor, for what it's worth, SPAM-mish. I wasn't criticizing you, I was
>> just
>> genuinely surprised at your reaction.
>
> Heh. As noted, again, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere on
> someone's part (I'm not quite sure if it is Mani or you or me :-)--I was
> in no way trying to imply that Mani's post was spam. As it was not. It
> was a completely legitimate post. Just, due to what I found to be
> vagueness, I almost mistook it for spam (as upon initial perusal, it
> looked like it could have been a sales spam, and not a post about VTES).
> And was pointing out that Mani could have been more specific in his post
> (which would have made more people pay attention *and* made it not look
> like it might have been spam).
Sure, I get it, I know you realized that it wasn't spam (you wrote it in
your reply to his post). I was surprised because you wrote that it looked
vague and you considered reporting it as spam (because to me it appeared
like a valid, albeit brief, on-topic post). Hence my initial surprised
reply to your reply... :)
Having read your valid points concerning the included link, the brevity of
the post and the generic title, I can now see where you were coming from
when you suspected that the post may be spam. It didn't strike me as a
potential spam, but in the light of your points I can see how it could
have struck someone as a potential spam.
I was only explaining my thoughts in this post as a reply to your comment
about what you perceived to be an inconsistency in how I reacted to Kevin
M.'s post and to your reaction to Mani's post.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Peter D Bakija
<1e771150-4ca7-4b89...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
You could call it that too. But "hypocrisy" has a much harsher ring to
it than "ironic", i.e. calling someone's statement "hypocritical" is far
more likely to get a negative reaction than is calling it "ironic".