Why does everyone hate MSB?
Smagu
I can't seem to figure it out...
-- Smagu
Brandon Blackmoor
news:nSU57.11172$dC1.5...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> As the subject says, why?
> I can't seem to figure it out...
I didn't read his posts long enough to grow to hate him. What I don't get is
why anyone keeps reading them.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-07-20
Smagu
Brandon Blackmoor wrote in message
<9j96qb$mfs40$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>I didn't read his posts long enough to grow to hate him. What I don't get
is
>why anyone keeps reading them.
>
Ditto. I haven't been here that long either. But if he - for some reason or
other - offends people, why don't they just, oh, not read his posts! It's
like television. If you don't like a show, don't watch it.
He may be a little mean at times (didn't people stop caring about that in
grade school?), but for the most part his on-topic posts are intelligent.
Maybe people are just too sensitive...
-- Smagu
Varl
> As the subject says, why?
>
> I can't seem to figure it out...
Beats me. A long time ago, I killfiled him for some (typical) crass
statement he either made to me or to someone else, and then a few days
later, after reflection, I thought, "This is stupid. Why killfile the
guy for having an opinion?".
So, I took him off of it, and now leave it to the spammers and
pornopoppers who occasionally show face here and elsewhere. And as
belligerent and condescending as some of the posters on this ng can be,
if you just smile at them behind your monitors and nod your head up and
down like this.....and realize they have an opinion too, you'll have a
better attitude about people like that. Oh yeah, laughter works too. ;-)
--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.
Thomas Fleming
>As the subject says, why?
>
>I can't seem to figure it out...
>
>-- Smagu
Not everyone hates him. He's a bright guy, and while he's unapologetically
arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right. So while his attitude
is a tad unforgiving, his opinion is worth listening to most of the time.
If you're not a bonehead, it's even possible to disagree with him without
inviting a torrent of "bah's" and insults. I've done it.
-Thomas Fleming
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> He may be a little mean at times (didn't people stop caring
> about that in grade school?)
I certainly hope not.
> but for the most part his on-topic posts
This is true. It is also true that all of the cats living on the moon can
speak Spanish.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-07-20
Wayne Shaw
>statement he either made to me or to someone else, and then a few days
>later, after reflection, I thought, "This is stupid. Why killfile the
>guy for having an opinion?".
It depends on whether you're a compulsive responder like myself. I
very quickly concluded that Michael's irritation value exceeded his
information value, and that reading his stuff A) Took time and B)
Tended to suck me into entirely pointless debates with him that served
no purpose but to make me grumpy. So I killfiled him and moved on. I
do think the holy jihad some people have on him (Jeff Wilder comes to
mind) is pretty ridiculous, though.
Brandon Blackmoor
news:4b66d560442e2b3d...@spamfreenews.org...
>
> reading his stuff A) Took time and B) Tended to suck
> me into entirely pointless debates with him that served
> no purpose but to make me grumpy.
Yeah, life's too short to go around pissed off all the time. There's a
perverse pleasure in being righteously angry (hey, I'll admit it, I'm not
perfect), but ultimately it just isn't productive. So why waste the time?
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-07-20
Robert Scott Clark
>Smagu wrote in message ...
>>As the subject says, why?
>>
>>I can't seem to figure it out...
>>
>>-- Smagu
>
>Not everyone hates him. He's a bright guy, and while he's unapologetically
>arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right.
I wouldn't say usually, but the frequency is higher than most with his
particular personality defict.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Christopher Burke
news:3b6260f1...@news.newsfeeds.com:
>>Not everyone hates him. He's a bright guy, and while he's
>>unapologetically arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right.
>
> I wouldn't say usually, but the frequency is higher than most with his
> particular personality defict.
>
I consider him impatient - not arrogant. Sort of like a nutty professor that
just can't be bothered with anyone who knows less than him.
--
---
/* Christopher Burke - Spam Mail to cra...@hotmail.com
|*
\* Real mail to cburke(at)craznar(dot)com
Chip Bell
> As the subject says, why?
>
> I can't seem to figure it out...
>
> -- Smagu
Because he's almost always right. People hate that.
Because he's more than happy to let you know when you're wrong. People
REALLY hate that. No matter how much they need it.
It's amusing to no end to watch people throw fallacious arguments, weak
logic, and seriously misguided premises at him to try and prove him wrong.
Even the times I disagree with his stance, the people trying to 'take him
down a notch' always just sound like asses.
john v verkuilen
>Not everyone hates him. He's a bright guy, and while he's unapologetically
>arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right. So while his attitude
>is a tad unforgiving, his opinion is worth listening to most of the time.
>If you're not a bonehead, it's even possible to disagree with him without
>inviting a torrent of "bah's" and insults. I've done it.
That would be my experience.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
BlahBlahBlah
>Because he's almost always right. People hate that.
>Because he's more than happy to let you know when you're wrong. People
>REALLY hate that. No matter how much they need it.
>It's amusing to no end to watch people throw fallacious arguments, weak
>logic, and seriously misguided premises at him to try and prove him wrong.
>Even the times I disagree with his stance, the people trying to 'take him
>down a notch' always just sound like asses.
<applause> Well said, indeed!
MSB's posts are one of the reasons why I keep reading frp.dnd
Without him, this forum would be a much duller and less enlightening place.
"When some political or ecclesiastical pamphlet, or novel, or poem is making a
great commotion, you should remember that he who writes for fools always finds
a large public." - Schopenhauer
Cerberus AOD
Thing is, he also almost always _right_.
"Smagu" <she...@abacom.com> wrote in message
news:nSU57.11172$dC1.5...@wagner.videotron.net...
Cerberus AOD
"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote in message
news:9j96qb$mfs40$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de...
Duane VP
news:pgZ57.2100$oz3....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> "Thomas Fleming" <tsf...@clemson.edu> writes:
>
> >Not everyone hates him. He's a bright guy, and while he's
unapologetically
> >arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right. So while his
attitude
> >is a tad unforgiving, his opinion is worth listening to most of the time.
>
> >If you're not a bonehead, it's even possible to disagree with him without
> >inviting a torrent of "bah's" and insults. I've done it.
>
> That would be my experience.
Ditto. He almost always agrees with my own opinions and when it comes
to the facts of the rules he's never wrong.
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Karl Knechtel
> Because he's almost always right. People hate that.
Yes, but they also hate his response time when he's wrong...
> Because he's more than happy to let you know when you're wrong. People
> REALLY hate that. No matter how much they need it.
Most people do. I've grown to deal with it, quite well if I do say so myself.
I only wish others would, too.
> It's amusing to no end to watch people throw fallacious arguments, weak
> logic, and seriously misguided premises at him to try and prove him wrong.
> Even the times I disagree with his stance, the people trying to 'take him
> down a notch' always just sound like asses.
>
This I can definitely agree with. I can hardly count the number of times I
have been reading this newsgroup and thought, of a random poster, "I agree
with you, but your argument is utter bilge".
On a different note, one of the most likable things about MSB is his tolerance
of other people talking about him as if he can't read their posts. ;)
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
Alan D. Kohler
> Smagu wrote:
> Beats me. A long time ago, I killfiled him for some (typical) crass
> statement he either made to me or to someone else, and then a few days
> later, after reflection, I thought, "This is stupid. Why killfile the
> guy for having an opinion?".
It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another to shove it down the
throat of anyone who dares disagree with you.
-Alan
Alan D. Kohler
> Smagu wrote in message ...
> >As the subject says, why?
> >
> >I can't seem to figure it out...
> >
> >-- Smagu
>
> Not everyone hates him. He's a bright guy, and while he's unapologetically
> arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right. So while his attitude
> is a tad unforgiving, his opinion is worth listening to most of the time.
That really depends. He has a good grasp of the rules and a lot of
subjects. But once he digs in his heels, all rationality and
communication goes out the window. I once had him hound me for days on
a position that I did not hold (and repeatedly said so) because he had
to prove to me how WRONG the very concept of speed factors is --
ignoring that my entire approach had nothing to do with his standard
rant that he spews at any thread that opens on speed factors as soon
as it is open.
There are plenty of sharp people here who will actually survive you
not sharing their opinion (or at least were; I haven't been here for a
while.) Peter Seebach. Sea Wasp. Bradd Szonye. Phaedyme. A'koss.
Justin Bacon. Etc. Why waste your time, bandwidth, and stress with
MSB?
-Alan
Stephenls
> As the subject says, why?
> I can't seem to figure it out...
Well, I don't dislike his posts at all, but then again I'm an Official
MSB Sycophant.
I can only remember him being /really/ wrong /once/. I forget what it
was about, but it was him misunderstanding part of the 3e ruleset. He
actually recanted after a bit.
So, um, looking at the rest of the thread, mee too.
--
Stephenls
Geek
It's because they're stupid, that's why! That's why everyone does
everything! --Homer Simpson
Kevin
>
> I can't seem to figure it out...
I'm one person who doesn't hate him.
Everyone - one person != everyone :)
Thus your subject is false. :)
I will say that if my University physics professor had been MSB, I would've
switched from Engineering on day two. :) Fortunately, we talk about DND and
not physics formulae.
Regards,
Kevin
Stephenls
> I will say that if my University physics professor had been MSB, I
> would've switched from Engineering on day two. :) Fortunately, we talk
> about DND and not physics formulae.
I believe that the last time someone mentioned that MSB would make a
terrible teacher, he laughed out loud and made cryptic commends about
just why he doesn't suffer fools /online/.
Aaron Day
>
> I can only remember him being /really/ wrong /once/. I forget what it
> was about, but it was him misunderstanding part of the 3e ruleset. He
> actually recanted after a bit.
He's totally wrong about this Morale thing. I can't see why he's so against
using a die roll to help an overworked DM.
Aaron
Kevin
Dude. That's subjective. You can't be /wrong/ about something subjective.
Unless you want to tell me I don't like to eat chili? :)
Regards,
Kevin
Kevin
> I believe that the last time someone mentioned that MSB would make a
> terrible teacher, he laughed out loud and made cryptic commends about
> just why he doesn't suffer fools /online/.
Well. Suffice to say that I prefer not to suffer physics. :) Cool subject,
fascinating conclusions, wonderful little tricks (I love these!).
Can't do it to save my life.
Regards,
Kevin
Dave
> As the subject says, why?
>
> I can't seem to figure it out...
MSB delves into the logic behind what people say. When people come up with
ideas that trample said logic, he will point out their shortcomings with a
barrage of logic and sarcasm melded together. He's like Mr. Spock with an
attitude.
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
Brandon Blackmoor
news:qs167.6377$N21.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> MSB delves into the logic behind what people say.
Not in the posts that I read before I stopped reading them, and not in the
various snippets that people quote when replying to him. "Moron!" and "Bah!"
and "Yet another moron!" isn't logic. It might be amusing to watch the local
hobo curse the passersby, if that sort of thing entertains you, but
intelligent discourse it isn't.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-07-20
Stephenls
> Not in the posts that I read before I stopped reading them, and not in
> the various snippets that people quote when replying to him. "Moron!"
> and "Bah!" and "Yet another moron!" isn't logic. It might be amusing
> to watch the local hobo curse the passersby, if that sort of thing
> entertains you, but intelligent discourse it isn't.
MSB engages in intelligent conversation with those he deems intelligent.
--
Stephenls
"Sycophant, that's me."
Peter Seebach
He insults people, even when they're right, and insists that he insults
only sloppy thinking. In fact, he insults people who disagree with him.
He can't analyze a logical argument usefully, and, well, basically, he
has nothing to offer the group. You can get anything useful he has to offer
by reading something someone else wrote.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
+--- Need quality network services, server-grade computers, or a shell? ---+
v C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! v
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Peter Seebach
Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote:
>MSB engages in intelligent conversation with those he deems intelligent.
Yes... but if you disagree with him, and he can't successfully analyze
your argument, he doesn't think your intelligent. I'm pretty sure I'm
actually intelligent, but he's *convinced* I'm stupid.
Basically, he's a strong J type. Once he's made up his mind, nothing
will *EVER* change it. He's thus useless in a debate; he can't learn,
he won't learn, and he ridicules those who would waste time trying to teach
him.
Patrick and Jennifer Younts
Kevin <kob...@despicable.com> wrote in message
news:9ja7be$mnu3e$1...@ID-54973.news.dfncis.de...
Bah! You detest chili! RTFM!!!
>
>
Stephenls
> Yes... but if you disagree with him, and he can't successfully analyze
> your argument, he doesn't think your intelligent. I'm pretty sure I'm
> actually intelligent, but he's *convinced* I'm stupid.
> Basically, he's a strong J type. Once he's made up his mind, nothing
> will *EVER* change it. He's thus useless in a debate; he can't learn,
> he won't learn, and he ridicules those who would waste time trying to
> teach him.
For the record, I've seen him change his mind at least once. It might
have even been twice.
But yes, he does seem to have it in for you, something I find rather...
well, odd. I think you two have a fundamental difference in the way you
view the game, and its the sort of difference that can't be sorted out
because each of you has been using it as an axiom for so long that
you've forgotten it's even that.
--
Stephenls
dave brohman & shoshana bir
Or more often than not some goof tries to use a physics formula to
prove, why fireballs cant's work, why dragons can't fly and why the
person with whom they are arguing is an idiot. ;)
--
Budding RPG author: Relics & Rituals, Creature Collection II,
Vigil Watch: Warrens of the Ratmen
Check these out at: http://www.swordsorcery.com/
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> >Beats me. A long time ago, I killfiled him for some (typical) crass
> >statement he either made to me or to someone else, and then a few days
> >later, after reflection, I thought, "This is stupid. Why killfile the
> >guy for having an opinion?".
>
> very quickly concluded that Michael's irritation value exceeded his
> information value, and that reading his stuff A) Took time and B)
> Tended to suck me into entirely pointless debates with him that served
> no purpose but to make me grumpy. So I killfiled him and moved on.
Ditto.
> I do think the holy jihad some people have on him (Jeff Wilder
> comes to mind) is pretty ridiculous, though.
And ditto again.
I don't hate MSB by any stretch of the imagination, I just have found
that his self-righteousness and arrogance far outweigh anything he
has to say. I don't continue to deal with rude people in real life
and I certainly won't do so in usenet. And I don't care how often he
insists he's always right, it doesn't make it so.
For those who love him, more power to you. For those who hate him,
killfile and get over it.
Gaurelin
>
>I can't seem to figure it out...
Well, I don't particularly *hate* him, but I don't particularly care for his
methods, either. His opinions are fairly frequently based solidly, it's just
his opinionated shtick that I find annoying. His posts are easy enough to
read, if you remember to take him with a grain of salt (ok, maybe a shaker).
Gaurelin
"Merry meet, and merry part, that we may meet merrily again"
Sea Wasp
>
> "Thomas Fleming" <tsf...@clemson.edu> writes:
>
> >Not everyone hates him. He's a bright guy, and while he's unapologetically
> >arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right. So while his attitude
> >is a tad unforgiving, his opinion is worth listening to most of the time.
>
> >If you're not a bonehead, it's even possible to disagree with him without
> >inviting a torrent of "bah's" and insults. I've done it.
>
> That would be my experience.
Mine as well.
Note, however, that I've never in my life killfiled anyone (except as
an experiment to see if it actually worked).
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Varl
> > I will say that if my University physics professor had been MSB, I would've
> > switched from Engineering on day two. :) Fortunately, we talk about DND and
> > not physics formulae.
>
> Or more often than not some goof tries to use a physics formula to
> prove, why fireballs cant's work, why dragons can't fly and why the
> person with whom they are arguing is an idiot. ;)
Heh. Those are the best. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw in Dragon one issue
where the characters are arguing over the proper way to play an accountant,
engineer, or secretary.
--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.
Stephenls
> Note, however, that I've never in my life killfiled anyone
> (except as an experiment to see if it actually worked).
I killfiled Lacroix and Totalfuckingtroll. Other than that, same here.
SilentKG
>As the subject says, why?
>
>I can't seem to figure it out...
>
>-- Smagu
>
Because rather then explain something he insults....
Because when faced with historical and literary evidence he continues to assert
that his opinion is correct and better then that of an expert on the subject or
an eyewitness account.
Chip Bell
I happen to mildly disagree with his stance on Morale. I stated so once.
(With no response, but then there's a lot of chaff to hide it.) In essence,
I prefer not to forbid myself a tool that could be useful, even if I never
actually use it.
However, the arguments that are being used to 'prove' him wrong are just
laughable, ignorant, and childish for the most part, and that only serves to
firm his stance. Every DM that's using one of those bizarre justifications
is using morale roll for the WRONG reasons, and further convincing Michael
that there are no good reasons.
Chip Bell
"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote in message
news:9ja8eq$mpa62$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de...
That's impatience. Bah! is shorthand for "I've explained this a million
times already, and your ignorance does not justify me typing more than four
letters." Every single time he says some epithet, he has ALREADY made his
case, and it's ignored, or else the idiocy in the argument he's responding
to is self-apparent.
Chip Bell
"SilentKG" <sile...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010720205014...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
He does explain. Once, maybe twice. And when people just refuse to get it,
he loses patience.
nazgul
>
>Because when faced with historical and literary evidence he continues to assert
>that his opinion is correct and better then that of an expert on the subject or
>an eyewitness account.
This is a very common thing on Usenet. It should be called EGOnet instead. ;)
--
I knew I should've taken the blue pill!
Brandon Blackmoor
news:0W267.34$ka4...@newsfeed.intelenet.net...
>
>> Dude. That's subjective. You can't be /wrong/ about something subjective.
>> Unless you want to tell me I don't like to eat chili? :)
>
Welcome to the legions of chili-loving morons! Bah!
HADSIL
Gerald Katz
It's the players' game too!
CSR
Alan D. Kohler wrote in message ...
>"Thomas Fleming" <tsf...@clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:<9j9d60$lho$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>...
>> Smagu wrote in message ...
>> >As the subject says, why?
>> >
>> >I can't seem to figure it out...
>> >
>> >-- Smagu
>>
unapologetically
>> arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right. So while his
attitude
>> is a tad unforgiving, his opinion is worth listening to most of the time.
>
>subjects. But once he digs in his heels, all rationality and
>communication goes out the window. I once had him hound me for days on
>a position that I did not hold (and repeatedly said so) because he had
>to prove to me how WRONG the very concept of speed factors is --
>ignoring that my entire approach had nothing to do with his standard
>rant that he spews at any thread that opens on speed factors as soon
>as it is open.
>
>There are plenty of sharp people here who will actually survive you
>not sharing their opinion (or at least were; I haven't been here for a
>while.) Peter Seebach. Sea Wasp. Bradd Szonye. Phaedyme. A'koss.
>Justin Bacon. Etc. Why waste your time, bandwidth, and stress with
>MSB?
>
Yeah, "hate" is too strong a word.
But he takes every difference of opinion as a debate.
And he seems to feel he *must* win all 'debates'.
It's like the guy at the party that always turns the friendly party game
into a life or death contest of one upmanship. And if you don't want to
play with him you get insulted. Why bother? *shrug*
CSR
CSR
Brandon Blackmoor
news:20010720234241...@ng-fs1.news.cs.com...
>
> Michael must be having a laughing fit right now.
Let's hope so.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-07-20
Allen Wessels
> There are plenty of sharp people here who will actually survive you
> not sharing their opinion (or at least were; I haven't been here for a
> while.) Peter Seebach. Sea Wasp. Bradd Szonye. Phaedyme. A'koss.
> Justin Bacon. Etc. Why waste your time, bandwidth, and stress with
> MSB?
The issue isn't the personalities. The issue is the quality and
intensity of the criticism. If you really want to find out if your idea
is water tight, throw it into an MSB storm.
Many of the other participants are too civilized and pull their punches.
It also leaves me the option to unload a full charge knowing that he can
and does.
- Allen
Peter Seebach
Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>The issue isn't the personalities. The issue is the quality and
>intensity of the criticism. If you really want to find out if your idea
>is water tight, throw it into an MSB storm.
But this doesn't *tell* you anything. If he hates it, it could be flawed,
or it could be that he's having a bad day, or it could be that he didn't
actually read what you said, saw a key word for which he has a pre-programmed
rant, and went psycho.
There's no way to reliably extract useful analysis from him.
>Many of the other participants are too civilized and pull their punches.
Well, if that bugs you, I'll be sure not to next time I disagree with
you about something. :)
Peter Seebach
Chip Bell <ch...@efn.org> wrote:
>I happen to mildly disagree with his stance on Morale. I stated so once.
>(With no response, but then there's a lot of chaff to hide it.) In essence,
>I prefer not to forbid myself a tool that could be useful, even if I never
>actually use it.
Exactly. There are times when I just can't decide whether I think a creature
should be ready to back down. Just having a listed morale stat makes that
easier; it helps me evaluate how brave these things are *in general*.
Sometimes I might roll; more often, I might say "okay, 30% of these guys
would make that roll, so 70% run".
>However, the arguments that are being used to 'prove' him wrong are just
>laughable, ignorant, and childish for the most part, and that only serves to
>firm his stance.
Yes. And this, in a nutshell, is why he's useless. He can't distinguish
between a result for which there exists a bad argument, and a bad result.
His reasoning is that, if any invalid reasoning leads to a conclusion, that
all reasoning which leads there is wrong.
He is, of course, wrong.
>Every DM that's using one of those bizarre justifications
>is using morale roll for the WRONG reasons, and further convincing Michael
>that there are no good reasons.
I haven't read most of the thread, largely because I have yet to see anyone
arguing against morale who can manage a coherent argument. Arguing against
using it instead of thinking about circumstances, sure, but arguing against
the existance of the tool?
Jeff Heikkinen
> "john v verkuilen" <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:pgZ57.2100$oz3....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> > "Thomas Fleming" <tsf...@clemson.edu> writes:
> >
> > >Not everyone hates him. He's a bright guy, and while he's
> unapologetically
> > >arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right. So while his
> attitude
> > >is a tad unforgiving, his opinion is worth listening to most of the time.
> >
> > >inviting a torrent of "bah's" and insults. I've done it.
> >
> > That would be my experience.
>
> to the facts of the rules he's never wrong.
He has been shown to be demonstrably, officially wrong on them a number
of times lately, actually.
As another poster said, insisting one is "Nearly Always Right" (TM) does
not make it so. I'd say his success rate is around 60% of late, in the
cases I've paid attention to. That makes his claim, as I like to say,
"true, but only literally" - not often enough for me to consider him a
reliable source of information on the 3E rules. It's much better in the
cases that are clearly spelled out in the books, much worse in the ones
that aren't, like counterspelling from scrolls.
I'd like him better if his put-downs were more consistently original. He
needs to compare notes with Anne Robinson sometime.
Peter Seebach
Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote:
>For the record, I've seen him change his mind at least once. It might
>have even been twice.
Sure. But that's a sign of a deranged mind; competent thinkers change
their minds *lots*.
>But yes, he does seem to have it in for you, something I find rather...
>well, odd. I think you two have a fundamental difference in the way you
>view the game, and its the sort of difference that can't be sorted out
>because each of you has been using it as an axiom for so long that
>you've forgotten it's even that.
Oh, I can tell the differences. It's just not worth it, because he can't
hear anything I say.
I'm a tolerably well-trained thinker; I can use premises I don't like, and
reason from them correctly. MSB's big problem is that he's got a model
for the game, and he believes that all rules must support his model, or be
errors. He's not able to understand that the model should be *adapted* to
the rules.
e.g., the AoO for full-round-actions thing. He has entirely misunderstood
the point of AoO, and thus can't understand *why* he's wrong. He will never
accept that the problem is not that the rules are stupid, it's that he
doesn't know why AOO are there.
I think the big source of the vitriol is the alignment wars; he is convinced
that a Good character could never condone a law that included a death penalty,
and it's just plain not so in D&D. D&D Good is a lot more violent than MSB
is emotionally ready for it to be. :)
Peter Seebach
Chip Bell <ch...@efn.org> wrote:
>That's impatience. Bah! is shorthand for "I've explained this a million
>times already, and your ignorance does not justify me typing more than four
>letters."
Except that sometimes, he uses it when his explanation was wrong.
>Every single time he says some epithet, he has ALREADY made his
>case, and it's ignored, or else the idiocy in the argument he's responding
>to is self-apparent.
Or his case was flawed, and he is unable to stop being mad long enough to
actually *think it through*.
That's what I eventually killfiled him for; inability to check his work.
Peter Seebach
Jeff Heikkinen <jeffh.re...@home.com> wrote:
>He has been shown to be demonstrably, officially wrong on them a number
>of times lately, actually.
Yes, and, most importantly, due to *stupid* readings - things that make no
sense at all unless he's already made up his mind before he looks, and then
reads everything so as to carefully agree with him.
>"true, but only literally" - not often enough for me to consider him a
>reliable source of information on the 3E rules. It's much better in the
>cases that are clearly spelled out in the books, much worse in the ones
>that aren't, like counterspelling from scrolls.
Yes. Especially in cases where you have to think about the model, and put
words from multiple places together, he tends to botch.
Chip Bell
"Peter Seebach" <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
news:3b590747$0$325$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> In article <tlhp83r...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Chip Bell <ch...@efn.org> wrote:
> >That's impatience. Bah! is shorthand for "I've explained this a million
> >times already, and your ignorance does not justify me typing more than
four
> >letters."
>
> Except that sometimes, he uses it when his explanation was wrong.
>
> >Every single time he says some epithet, he has ALREADY made his
> >case, and it's ignored, or else the idiocy in the argument he's
responding
> >to is self-apparent.
>
> Or his case was flawed, and he is unable to stop being mad long enough to
> actually *think it through*.
>
> That's what I eventually killfiled him for; inability to check his work.
>
Examples? Saying he's wrong doesn't make it so.
Dave
news:9ja8eq$mpa62$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de...
> news:qs167.6377$N21.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> >
> > MSB delves into the logic behind what people say.
>
> Not in the posts that I read before I stopped reading them, and not in the
> various snippets that people quote when replying to him. "Moron!" and
"Bah!"
> and "Yet another moron!" isn't logic. It might be amusing to watch the
local
> hobo curse the passersby, if that sort of thing entertains you, but
> intelligent discourse it isn't.
He was right-on saying those things to you (along with nearly all the other
thread participants) concerning someone's custom character generation
method. If you do a poor job reading something, he will bring it to your
attention in a most unseemly manner. Moral of the story is put some effort
into what you post rather than posting whatever half-assed idea that pops
into someone's mind.
FTR, I am certainly no member of the MSB fan club. A simple search on
google will see the flame wars between us over and over again. Then again,
1e and 2e had its share of quirks to deal with while 3e seems to be a lot
more inheritantly logical with less quirks to worry about.
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
Jeff Heikkinen
> Dude. That's subjective. You can't be /wrong/ about something subjective.
Now if only MSB would come to understand that...
(I think intellectually he does; maybe I should have said "if only MSB
would come to behave like someone who understands that...")
CSR
Jeff Heikkinen wrote in message ...
Oh, he does. But it can take half a dozen posts to get him to realize that
you were talking about a subjective 'feel' of the game when he decided to
jump in un invited and call you a fuzzy headed idiot. And when he does
realize, with his typical good grace, he proceeds to leave the parting
insult that this is no place for a subjective discussion, and you shouldn't
be wasting *his* time.
But hey, he got all of us to waste bandwidth talking about him, didn't he?
Peter Seebach
AoO and full round actions: MSB claimed that if you approached someone
who was casting a full-round spell, you got an AoO on them, because casting
provokes AoO. False; you only provoke AoO when you *take* an action, not
later during it. Furthermore, you only get AoO *in response* to things
done *not on your turn*.
Counterspells from scrolls: The DMG says that casting from a scroll is just
like casting from a slot. The phrase used is "... a spell cast the normal
way". MSB concluded that this obviously meant "as opposed to a modified
casting", rather than "as opposed to being different from casting from a
slot", and thus that you couldn't counterspell from a scroll. Once again,
he was wrong.
Haste and slow cancelling each other: MSB says you obviously get a save.
The official ruling is that negation does not allow saves or spell resistance;
if one spell cancels another, they just cancel out, totally, even if one had
a longer duration, and no one gets any kind of save or spell resistance.
Alignment: MSB says a lawful good character cannot legitimately condone
a death penalty. Once again, Wizards says otherwise. MSB insists that
Wizards agreed with me because of "bias" in my questions, but has never
bothered to ask himself, or contribute "unbiased" questions, or otherwise
do anything that could *possibly* lead to a ruling that he couldn't dismiss
out of hand without analysis.
I'm sure other people remember others. In all of these cases, MSB continued,
after it was pointed out that the official ruling from Wizards contradicted
him, to assert that he was right and they were wrong. In all three cases,
he has shown no ability to even *comprehend* the opposing model of the game.
He has his model, and if his model describes a game that is to D&D what
Schildt's writing is to C, well, that's fine by him. He's right, Wizards
is wrong, and there's no room for further discussion.
He's a kook. A mild one, perhaps, and one who is not wrong all *that*
often... but there is *NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL* between how he acts when he's
wrong and how he acts when he's right. Actually, that's not true; he offers
better arguments when he's right. :)
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> He was right-on saying those things to you (along with nearly
> all the other thread participants) concerning someone's
> custom character generation method.
I have no clue what you are talking about. I wasn't referring to any thread
in particular, and I wasn't referring to any responses he may have made to
me. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever having a conversation with him.
I killfiled him based on how he responded to other people.
> If you do a poor job reading something, he will bring it to your
> attention in a most unseemly manner.
A metal detector that beeps at *everything* is useless, even if it does
consistently beep at metal.
Enough of this. Regardless of what I think about someone, I think it's
dishonorable to go on at length like this picking apart their flaws in
public, especially if (as in this case) I wouldn't see their replies. I
probably shouldn't have participated at all, but what's done is done. It
ends here.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-07-21
Jeff Heikkinen
> "Thomas Fleming" <tsf...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>
> >Smagu wrote in message ...
> >>As the subject says, why?
> >>
> >>I can't seem to figure it out...
> >>
> >>-- Smagu
> >
> >arrogant and rude in his posts, he's usually right.
>
> particular personality defict.
>
This, I can agree with.
(That applies whether you meant to say "defect" or "deficit". I can't
tell...)
Chip Bell
> In article <tli2hkg...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Chip Bell <ch...@efn.org> wrote:
> >Examples? Saying he's wrong doesn't make it so.
>
> AoO and full round actions: MSB claimed that if you approached someone
> who was casting a full-round spell, you got an AoO on them, because
casting
> provokes AoO. False; you only provoke AoO when you *take* an action, not
> later during it. Furthermore, you only get AoO *in response* to things
> done *not on your turn*.
You know, I could have sworn there was an an example in the PHB where an
attack of opportunity itself provoked an AoO from the target, but I can't
find it now. Was I dreaming?
[snip counterspell example]
> Haste and slow cancelling each other: MSB says you obviously get a save.
> The official ruling is that negation does not allow saves or spell
resistance;
> if one spell cancels another, they just cancel out, totally, even if one
had
> a longer duration, and no one gets any kind of save or spell resistance.
This is a case where I can see that the designers intended it so, but they
really should have been explicit in the book.
> Alignment: MSB says a lawful good character cannot legitimately condone
> a death penalty. Once again, Wizards says otherwise. MSB insists that
> Wizards agreed with me because of "bias" in my questions, but has never
> bothered to ask himself, or contribute "unbiased" questions, or otherwise
> do anything that could *possibly* lead to a ruling that he couldn't
dismiss
> out of hand without analysis.
In this case, it's not a rule issue, especially now in 3e where alignment
isn't the straighjacket it used to be. (Your true neutral pixie isn't siding
with the underdogs! Away with your experience! Bwahahaha!)
> I'm sure other people remember others. In all of these cases, MSB
continued,
> after it was pointed out that the official ruling from Wizards
contradicted
> him, to assert that he was right and they were wrong. In all three cases,
> he has shown no ability to even *comprehend* the opposing model of the
game.
> He has his model, and if his model describes a game that is to D&D what
> Schildt's writing is to C, well, that's fine by him. He's right, Wizards
> is wrong, and there's no room for further discussion.
The official rulings from Wizards often do contradict what's written in the
books. It wouldn't be such a big deal if they'd keep their errata updated
better.
But then, I'm used to the Games Workshop method of writing any old rule, and
just assuming players will magically understand how the game's supposed to
be played. More than once the GW designers have been mystified that players
play by the printed rules instead of the actual rules. Neither here nor
there, though.:)
Stephenls
> You know, I could have sworn there was an an example in the PHB where
> an attack of opportunity itself provoked an AoO from the target, but I
> can't find it now. Was I dreaming?
Two commoners stand side-by-side. One punches the other. The punch is
an unarmed attack that provokes an AoO. The other commoner takes his
AoO as a punch. The punch is an attack that provokes an AoO from the
first commoner.
Or can't you use an unarmed attack to take an AoO?
Jeff Heikkinen
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> > Note, however, that I've never in my life killfiled anyone
> > (except as an experiment to see if it actually worked).
>
> I killfiled Lacroix and Totalfuckingtroll. Other than that, same here.
>
Knifenu, for me, (was he the same guy?) but never MSB, who I have rather
mixed feelings about. Nor Terry Austin or Aristotle, both of whom I
***DID*** intensely dislike at one time. (Aristotle has improved a whole
lot since then, though).
Allen Wessels
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> But this doesn't *tell* you anything. If he hates it, it could be
> flawed,
> or it could be that he's having a bad day, or it could be that he didn't
> actually read what you said, saw a key word for which he has a
> pre-programmed
> rant, and went psycho.
>
> There's no way to reliably extract useful analysis from him.
Of course there is. His rant does not prevent you from analyzing his
arguments and the weaknesses of your idea illuminated by them.
The idea here is that he shoots from angles you might not be familiar
with.
I understand that you may not have the patience to wade through the BS.
I don't find it that much of a chore.
> >Many of the other participants are too civilized and pull their punches.
>
> Well, if that bugs you, I'll be sure not to next time I disagree with
> you about something. :)
It doesn't bug me, but the result of "reasonable people can agree to
disagree" is not what I am usually shooting for.
I am usually looking for two things in these discussions: 1) do I hold a
defensible point of view, and 2) why is "the other guy" so wrong-headed?
Admittedly I'll play devil's advocate just for grins.
- Allen
Chip Bell
"Stephenls" <step...@dccnet.com> wrote in message
news:3B592BD1...@dccnet.com...
> Chip Bell wrote:
>
> > You know, I could have sworn there was an an example in the PHB where
> > an attack of opportunity itself provoked an AoO from the target, but I
> > can't find it now. Was I dreaming?
>
> Two commoners stand side-by-side. One punches the other. The punch is
> an unarmed attack that provokes an AoO. The other commoner takes his
> AoO as a punch. The punch is an attack that provokes an AoO from the
> first commoner.
>
> Or can't you use an unarmed attack to take an AoO?
No, that doesn't work because punching only provokes AoO from an ARMED
opponent.
I think the setup was 'Bob the spellcaster starts casting a spell, Hank the
unarmed peasant throws a punch, Bob bonks Hank on the head with his staff.'
See, this is an example of a phenomena that follows me around. I read
something, and then when I'm not paying attention the text changes
retroactively so that it always said something else.:)
Jeff Wilder
| I do think the holy jihad some people have on him (Jeff Wilder
| comes to mind) is pretty ridiculous, though.
First, there's nothing holy about me.
Second, "jihad"? I flamed Micheal to a crisp once, to show him
that (1) there are people who won't back down from him or kiss
his ass, and (2) some of those people are better at being nasty
than he is.
Since then ... ? Nothing. He hasn't done anything to deserve a
second napalming, that I've seen. (Of course, I don't read all
of his posts.)
Don't get me wrong -- I'm a little flattered than one epic flame
is a "jihad," but it's a little disconcerting, too.
--
Jeff Wilder wil...@REMOVETHISlogrus.com San Francisco, CA
* Delete the REMOVETHIS in the email address to reply. *
"I'm tellin' you guys: suin' people kicks ass." -- Eric Cartman
Jeff Wilder
person is far sadder and more pathetic than Michael could ever
be.
Speaking personally, until I figured Michael out, he annoyed me
vastly because he's very nearly incapable of admitting he's
wrong. He often confuses fact and opinion, and seems oblivious
to the simple truth that two arguments can be diametrically
opposed and yet both be derived logically.
In short, he annoyed me because Michael is ME, before I grew up,
went to law school, and discovered that though they're rare,
there ARE people in the world who are as smart as I am.
So why don't I killfile him? Two reasons:
First, for the same reasons he used to annoy me, now he amuses
me.
Second, when he's not making an ass of himself, his contribution
to the newsgroup is valuable. His non-bah posts have a good
content to crap ratio, unlike folks like, say, Bob Baldwin,
Michael's Sphinctersniffer. Baldy could disappear from the
newsgroup and nobody'd even notice; Michael's absence would at
least be noticed, if not mourned.
Michael Scott Brown
> >Examples? Saying he's wrong doesn't make it so.
>
> AoO and full round actions: MSB claimed that if you approached someone
> who was casting a full-round spell, you got an AoO on them, because
casting
> provokes AoO. False; you only provoke AoO when you *take* an action, not
> later during it. Furthermore, you only get AoO *in response* to things
> done *not on your turn*.
Naughty, naughty Peter. Talking smack from behind his killfile with a
little cleverly adjusted history . . .
None of these paradigms he cites were established in the existing rules
at the time. Hell, I'm not even sure they do now. The *existing* rules
stated that AoO's are *the* mechanic for punishing increased vulnerability.
Casting wizards have increased vulnerability the whole time they're casting.
Full-round casting wizards are therefore vulnerable for a whole round. It's
absurd that they're vulnerable to bonus attacks when they *start* casting
but not a second later.
Given the rules we *had*, this conclusion was *right*, UNTIL the Sage
contradicted his own established fundamentals, of course.
> Counterspells from scrolls: The DMG says that casting from a scroll is
just
> like casting from a slot. The phrase used is "... a spell cast the normal
> way". MSB concluded that this obviously meant "as opposed to a modified
> casting", rather than "as opposed to being different from casting from a
> slot", and thus that you couldn't counterspell from a scroll. Once again,
> he was wrong.
Either interpretation was valid given the rules we *had*.
The Sage came down on one side of the matter.
> Haste and slow cancelling each other: MSB says you obviously get a save.
> The official ruling is that negation does not allow saves or spell
resistance;
> if one spell cancels another, they just cancel out, totally, even if one
had
> a longer duration, and no one gets any kind of save or spell resistance.
The official ruling by the Sage directly contradicted the rules we
*had*.
> Alignment: MSB says a lawful good character cannot legitimately condone
> a death penalty.
Ooh, double naughty. The *ideal* of Good doesn't support death
penalties. But people can make compromises. Supporting a death penalty
would be such a compromise for a LG character. It would not be ideal,
however.
> Once again, Wizards says otherwise. MSB insists that
> Wizards agreed with me because of "bias" in my questions,
Ahem - I'm hardly the only one who called him on this. Petie asked
extremely vague and out of context questions.
> I'm sure other people remember others. In all of these cases, MSB
continued,
> after it was pointed out that the official ruling from Wizards
contradicted
> him, to assert that he was right and they were wrong.
Hey! Here's another Peter Lie - what I asserted was that their decisions
were INCONSISTENT and pointed out exactly why.
Peter's entire basis for asserting that Michael is "often wrong" amounts
to my being contradicted by (what, four?) *changes to the rules* in arenas
where there was argument over their interpretation. Until the modifications
were made, my conclusions were always the ones most strongly supported by
the mechanics we had available at the time.
Petie *hates* admitting that, however. I am instead stubborn and
unreasonable, and surely not worth listening to because I don't give any
respect to weaker arguments (ie; his, which are often dismissed on account
of their sucking. The only way he was able to be "right" is to have
benefitted on these occasions from effectively random Sage rulings).
Extra bonus points, kiddies. Compare the # of times I've been overruled
to the number of times I haven't.
Often wrong, eh?
It's wonderful to see that Petie's mathematical skills are as sharp as
the rest of his reason.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael must be having a laughing fit right now.
Damnned skippy!
-Michael
Peter Seebach
Jeff Heikkinen <jeffh.re...@home.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't say usually, but the frequency is higher than most with his
>> particular personality defict.
>This, I can agree with.
Me too! I can certainly see why people read MSB's posts; he's not wrong
all the time, or even necessarily *most* of the time.
He's "almost always right" when there's no work involved but looking up the
one, unambiguous, rule in the book and quoting it. When there's interactions
between rules, he reads one rule, interprets it, and sticks to that
interpretation no matter what anything else says.
The problem is that, from the perspective of useful debate about interesting
rules, he's not very good, even though he's right on most of the things he
talks about.
Thus, the interesting result that, the more vitriolic he gets, the better
the chances that he's actually *wrong*.
Peter Seebach
Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <3b5905c3$0$325$3c09...@news.plethora.net>,
>se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>> But this doesn't *tell* you anything. If he hates it, it could be
>> flawed,
>> or it could be that he's having a bad day, or it could be that he didn't
>> actually read what you said, saw a key word for which he has a
>> pre-programmed
>> rant, and went psycho.
>> There's no way to reliably extract useful analysis from him.
>Of course there is. His rant does not prevent you from analyzing his
>arguments and the weaknesses of your idea illuminated by them.
But he doesn't always *HAVE* any arguments! e.g., in the slow/haste/dispel
thread, I saw a number of replies to MSB's posts, and he never once really
got past "it says saving throw, therefore there's a save".
>The idea here is that he shoots from angles you might not be familiar
>with.
I haven't seen it happen much. Feel free to point out examples of actual
arguments in his posts, it's theoretically possible that they're out there.
>I understand that you may not have the patience to wade through the BS.
>I don't find it that much of a chore.
It's a bit of a chore, and it encourages antisocial behavior. Reading
MSB's posts is like coming running every time a kid has a tantrum; it
makes the problem worse.
>It doesn't bug me, but the result of "reasonable people can agree to
>disagree" is not what I am usually shooting for.
Oh, that. Yeah, I hate that. I'm not looking to find out whether my
point of view *could* be accepted; I'm trying to find out whether it *HAS*
to be.
>I am usually looking for two things in these discussions: 1) do I hold a
>defensible point of view, and 2) why is "the other guy" so wrong-headed?
>Admittedly I'll play devil's advocate just for grins.
Me too. The best way to really learn about something is to argue both sides
against someone competent.
Peter Seebach
Chip Bell <ch...@efn.org> wrote:
>You know, I could have sworn there was an an example in the PHB where an
>attack of opportunity itself provoked an AoO from the target, but I can't
>find it now. Was I dreaming?
I don't think so, but during someone else's AoO, it's no longer "your turn",
it's the interruption of your turn while someone else's AoO is resolved.
>[snip counterspell example]
>> Haste and slow cancelling each other: MSB says you obviously get a save.
>> The official ruling is that negation does not allow saves or spell
>resistance;
>> if one spell cancels another, they just cancel out, totally, even if one
>had
>> a longer duration, and no one gets any kind of save or spell resistance.
>This is a case where I can see that the designers intended it so, but they
>really should have been explicit in the book.
I wouldn't have minded them being explicit, but I think it was obvious enough.
>In this case, it's not a rule issue, especially now in 3e where alignment
>isn't the straighjacket it used to be. (Your true neutral pixie isn't siding
>with the underdogs! Away with your experience! Bwahahaha!)
Exactly; the problem is, he thinks it *is* a rule issue.
>The official rulings from Wizards often do contradict what's written in the
>books. It wouldn't be such a big deal if they'd keep their errata updated
>better.
I think there's several categories:
* changes to rules (e.g., polyself only lets you take one form per
casting)
* errata (correcting rules that were intended correctly, but gotten
wrong)
* clarifying (something like the counterspell from scrolls question)
* inventing a new rule to answer a question not addressed
None of these can be correctly construed as "contradicting" the rules; that
would imply *error*.
Of course, there is always:
* Skip forgot his coffee
as a category of Sage Advice. I got one of these early on; the holy avenger's
holy bonus was listed as 1d6, and I asked, and Skip said it was right; it
turns out he misunderstood Monte, and it should have been 2d6, and this got
straightened out in a bit.
The difference between my handling and MSB's is that I assume Skip has been
drinking his morning coffee before writing anything unless it has serious
consistency problems *with the existing rules*. MSB assumes that Skip is
wrong if a ruling is inconsistent *with MSB's model*.
I change my model in response to rulings and errata. This seems to be the
correct strategy.
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> In article <3B58ADB2...@dccnet.com>,
> Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote:
> >MSB engages in intelligent conversation with those he deems intelligent.
>
> Yes... but if you disagree with him, and he can't successfully analyze
> your argument, he doesn't think your intelligent. I'm pretty sure I'm
> actually intelligent, but he's *convinced* I'm stupid.
>
> Basically, he's a strong J type. Once he's made up his mind, nothing
> will *EVER* change it. He's thus useless in a debate; he can't learn,
> he won't learn, and he ridicules those who would waste time trying to teach
> him.
And he's so steadfast in his resolve that he is always right that he
actually manages to convince other people that he is always right as
well.
--
Budding RPG author: Relics & Rituals, Creature Collection II,
Vigil Watch: Warrens of the Ratmen
Check these out at: http://www.swordsorcery.com/
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> > Note, however, that I've never in my life killfiled anyone
> > (except as an experiment to see if it actually worked).
>
> I killfiled Lacroix and Totalfuckingtroll. Other than that, same here.
And let us not forget Knifenu.
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> "SilentKG" <sile...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010720205014...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> > >From: "Smagu" she...@abacom.com
> >
> > >As the subject says, why?
> > >
> > >I can't seem to figure it out...
> > >
> > >-- Smagu
> > >
> >
> >
> > Because when faced with historical and literary evidence he continues to
> assert
> > that his opinion is correct and better then that of an expert on the
> subject or
> > an eyewitness account.
>
> He does explain. Once, maybe twice. And when people just refuse to get it,
> he loses patience.
Just because someone disagrees with him doesn't mean they don't "Get
it".
And just cos he's saying it doesn't mean that it is correct.
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> In article <awessels-1B0DA0...@news.pacbell.net>,
> Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >The issue isn't the personalities. The issue is the quality and
> >intensity of the criticism. If you really want to find out if your idea
> >is water tight, throw it into an MSB storm.
>
> But this doesn't *tell* you anything. If he hates it, it could be flawed,
> or it could be that he's having a bad day, or it could be that he didn't
> actually read what you said, saw a key word for which he has a pre-programmed
> rant, and went psycho.
Or it could just be that he is wrong.
john v verkuilen
> Note, however, that I've never in my life killfiled anyone (except as
Neither have I, in fact, except to see if it works.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
john v verkuilen
>I happen to mildly disagree with his stance on Morale. I stated so once.
>(With no response, but then there's a lot of chaff to hide it.) In essence,
>I prefer not to forbid myself a tool that could be useful, even if I never
>actually use it.
Oh, don't get me wrong--I disagree with Michael on tons of stuff, including
the morale thing. When you're in academe you get used to dealing with
people who strongly hold opinions not your own... or you get out. :) Still
doesn't mean you don't find the experience frustrating sometimes.
john v verkuilen
>Stephenls wrote:
>>
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>> > Note, however, that I've never in my life killfiled anyone
>> > (except as an experiment to see if it actually worked).
>>
>> I killfiled Lacroix and Totalfuckingtroll. Other than that, same here.
>And let us not forget Knifenu.
The French Canadian guys from several years ago were the worst. Though,
as someone else said at the time, I'll remember "boulshitte" forever.... :)
Then there was Poison. Lots of trolls on this group over the years. They
come and go.
However, as flamey as this place gets, it's *NOTHING* compared to the flame-
fest that is rec.music.makers.guitar....
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>On 21 Jul 2001 03:42:41 GMT, had...@cs.com (HADSIL) (if that IS his
>real name) spewed:
>
>>Michael must be having a laughing fit right now.
>
>He should... a thread like this is like the ultimate confirmation that
>you are "someone" on a newsgroup.
Well, he is. He posts frequently, is actively involved in many
threads, and evokes strong reactions from many if not most posters.
My personal feelings that he's obnoxious out of any need or utility
doesn't change that.
Stephenls
> Knifenu, for me, (was he the same guy?) but never MSB, who I have
> rather mixed feelings about. Nor Terry Austin or Aristotle, both of
> whom I ***DID*** intensely dislike at one time. (Aristotle has
> improved a whole lot since then, though).
I don't think I ever saw Knifenu, but I know that Lacroix and
Totalfuckingtroll were one and the same. It wasn't the flamage that
bothered me that much about him, though.
What bothered me is what happened after he left. Someone (Peter
Seebach?) got Lacroix booted from his ISP for violating the Terms of
Service act, and then the group was one big cencorship argument for
/weeks/. And then Totalfuckingtroll showed up after it had died down
and started the whole thing /again/. And this was before the group was
as big as it is now, so the number of people posting the the censorship
debates was noticeably decreasing the usefull message volueme. Ugh.
Peter Seebach
Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote:
>What bothered me is what happened after he left. Someone (Peter
>Seebach?) got Lacroix booted from his ISP for violating the Terms of
>Service act, and then the group was one big cencorship argument for
>/weeks/.
I don't even recall whether I complained, but I know that a number of people
did. Note that it wasn't "his ISP"; it was just his Hotmail account.
Peter Seebach
>Seebach?) got Lacroix booted from his ISP for violating the Terms of
>Service act, and then the group was one big cencorship argument for
>/weeks/.
I went back and looked. I didn't send so much as a single complaint. I
just argued that the people who did so were probably correct, and were
certainly not "censors".
Stephenls
> I went back and looked. I didn't send so much as a single complaint.
> I just argued that the people who did so were probably correct, and
> were certainly not "censors".
Ah. So who actually did? I always thought they were in the right, too.
Allen Wessels
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> But he doesn't always *HAVE* any arguments! e.g., in the
> slow/haste/dispel
> thread, I saw a number of replies to MSB's posts, and he never once
> really
> got past "it says saving throw, therefore there's a save".
How can you be sure they quoted the core argument?
> I haven't seen it happen much. Feel free to point out examples of actual
> arguments in his posts, it's theoretically possible that they're out
> there.
I don't keep track of things that way. He certainly quotes from the
book and gives examples. Admittedly the arguments are often of the
"here's an example that backs me up and one that counters your theory -
*THINK*" form.
> It's a bit of a chore, and it encourages antisocial behavior. Reading
> MSB's posts is like coming running every time a kid has a tantrum; it
> makes the problem worse.
Antisocial behavior is its own encouragement. The only really good
counter is acting consistently in a social behavior and hope that long
term effects will nudge the goober.
> Oh, that. Yeah, I hate that. I'm not looking to find out whether my
> point of view *could* be accepted; I'm trying to find out whether it
> *HAS*
> to be.
Ah. Then we're done, because it never *has* to be. Arguments are like
Jello.
> Me too. The best way to really learn about something is to argue both
> sides
> against someone competent.
Yep. Last time I did it, MSB painted me *sheep*.
Every post is an adventure with him here.
- Allen
guppy
> As the subject says, why?
>
> I can't seem to figure it out...
I think he's usually got good points to make, when he makes them.
Occasionally (OK, fairly regularly) someone will post a question or
opinion that apparently insults his intelligence. Then he generally
insults them.
Someone upthread said that he only insults people when he's already
explained something a few times and doesn't feel like he should have
the patience to do so once again. Yet, somehow, if he insults
someone, and they respond by flaming him, he's got plenty of time to
waste hurling additional insults, which does nothing to further
illustrate and illuminate his position.
Really, if he's said so before and doesn't want to repeat himself, why
doesn't he come up with a "Best of RGFD: The Collected Wisdom of MSB"
website, and simply refer newbies and morons to the appropriate links?
I respect most of his opinions, and I generally find his
cantankerousness to be more amusing than grating, but I think he could
be nicer and it wouldn't hurt him any. (Maybe he's still operating
under the 1e rules about XP penalties for alignment changes, and
doesn't want to risk losing a level... *smirk*)
----guppy
Malachias Invictus
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
news:3b5910ec$0$319$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> In article <tli2hkg...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Chip Bell <ch...@efn.org> wrote:
> >Examples? Saying he's wrong doesn't make it so.
>
> AoO and full round actions: MSB claimed that if you approached someone
> who was casting a full-round spell, you got an AoO on them, because
casting
> provokes AoO. False; you only provoke AoO when you *take* an action, not
> later during it.
That is silly. That is the same as saying, "You can get the drop on someone
who is taking a shit, but *only* when he begins taking a shit. If you
happen by in the middle of the shit, you cannot get the drop on him." If
you are going to make a person vulnerable while performing certain acts
(such as spellcasting), it should be the entire time he is engaging in the
vulnerable behavior.
> I'm sure other people remember others. In all of these cases, MSB
continued,
> after it was pointed out that the official ruling from Wizards
contradicted
> him, to assert that he was right and they were wrong.
Since I do not believe in the infallibility of WotC, I do not see this as an
absurd position to take.
> He's a kook.
You know, slamming someone from behind a killfile is pretty damned cowardly.
If you are going to hide behind a killfile, you should keep your mouth shut
about that person. If you want to tangle with a person, then you should be
man enough to read their responses.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Peter Seebach
Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote:
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>> I went back and looked. I didn't send so much as a single complaint.
>> I just argued that the people who did so were probably correct, and
>> were certainly not "censors".
>Ah. So who actually did? I always thought they were in the right, too.
Dunno. Probably a dozen or more separate people, and no easy way to identify
which complaint "did" it - indeed, with most ISP's, it's not meaningful to
ask which complaint they were responding to.
Peter Seebach
Allen Wessels <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <3b59a3fe$0$319$3c09...@news.plethora.net>,
>se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>> But he doesn't always *HAVE* any arguments! e.g., in the
>> slow/haste/dispel
>> thread, I saw a number of replies to MSB's posts, and he never once
>> really
>> got past "it says saving throw, therefore there's a save".
>How can you be sure they quoted the core argument?
Observation has taught me that people trying to argue a point, who are
not MSB, will quote the relevant arguments, not the padding.
>I don't keep track of things that way. He certainly quotes from the
>book and gives examples. Admittedly the arguments are often of the
>"here's an example that backs me up and one that counters your theory -
>*THINK*" form.
Yeah. But sometimes they're poor examples, and the reason for which
they're poor has been pointed out... He doesn't respond to counterarguments.
>> Oh, that. Yeah, I hate that. I'm not looking to find out whether my
>> point of view *could* be accepted; I'm trying to find out whether it
>> *HAS*
>> to be.
>Ah. Then we're done, because it never *has* to be. Arguments are like
>Jello.
I'm a math guy. I believe in proof.
>> Me too. The best way to really learn about something is to argue both
>> sides
>> against someone competent.
>Yep. Last time I did it, MSB painted me *sheep*.
Exactly. I'd rather argue with people who are able to argue correctly than
with MSB.
Theoretically, of course, it's *possible* that he is able to argue correctly,
and simply chooses not to.
Malachias Invictus
Kevin <kob...@despicable.com> wrote in message
news:9ja7be$mnu3e$1...@ID-54973.news.dfncis.de...
> "Aaron Day" <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote in message
> > He's totally wrong about this Morale thing. I can't see why he's so
> > against using a die roll to help an overworked DM.
>
> Dude. That's subjective. You can't be /wrong/ about something subjective.
> Unless you want to tell me I don't like to eat chili? :)
If you follow the logic of the morale supporters, you would have to roll for
it ;-)
Malachias Invictus
As the subject says, why?
Look at the percentage of posts in the "Why does everyone hate MSB?" thread
that are authored by Mr. Seebach. Someone seems more than a little bit
obsessed.
Peter Seebach
Malachias Invictus <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>> who was casting a full-round spell, you got an AoO on them, because
>casting
>> provokes AoO. False; you only provoke AoO when you *take* an action, not
>> later during it.
>That is silly.
Not if you understand the point of the AoO rules.
>That is the same as saying, "You can get the drop on someone
>who is taking a shit, but *only* when he begins taking a shit. If you
>happen by in the middle of the shit, you cannot get the drop on him."
You don't get an *AoO*. You get to attack, if you want. You just don't
get an *extra* attack.
>If
>you are going to make a person vulnerable while performing certain acts
>(such as spellcasting), it should be the entire time he is engaging in the
>vulnerable behavior.
The purpose of AoO is to make sure that, if you cast spells in combat, people
can take pot shots at you. There is no need to give people AoO when it's
already their turn; they can just plain attack. The system only hands out
AoO at the point when you take an action.
Perhaps more interestingly, one of the examples he gave was that, since firing
a missile weapon provokes AoO, if you do a full attack with a bow, you should
"provoke" AoO from anyone who comes near you during the rest of the round.
So, I take a round of shots, drop the bow (free action) and draw a mace (free
action if I have quick draw). Now, on your turn, you approach me, see that
the bow is lying on the floor, and get an extra attack. Huh? Doesn't
make sense.
>Since I do not believe in the infallibility of WotC, I do not see this as an
>absurd position to take.
WotC can be wrong about all sorts of things, but not about *their* game.
>If you are going to hide behind a killfile,
I'm not "hiding" in any way. It's hiding if you're anonymous. I'm not.
>you should keep your mouth shut
>about that person. If you want to tangle with a person, then you should be
>man enough to read their responses.
I'm not "tangling" with MSB. I'm ignoring him, and I'm quite willing to read
the flames I get for it. I just ignore him, no matter what he's saying,
because he is simply too fucking stupid to be worth my time. (He may,
actually, be "intelligent", but since he's unwilling to apply any intelligence
he may have, for all practical purposes, he's stupid.)
This isn't some kind of ritual duel. This is a recreational activity; I
am reading and posting to usenet because it's fun. Reading MSB's posts isn't
fun, so I don't do it.
Allen Wessels
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> I'm a math guy. I believe in proof.
The usenet world is orthogonal to proof.
> Exactly. I'd rather argue with people who are able to argue correctly
> than
> with MSB.
>
> Theoretically, of course, it's *possible* that he is able to argue
> correctly,
> and simply chooses not to.
The nature of the net is such that coming to agreement requires
cooperation from both sides.
That this rarely occurs is the root of all flamewar.
- Allen
Hunter
>"Aaron Day" <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote in message
>> Stephenls wrote:
>> >
>> > I can only remember him being /really/ wrong /once/. I forget what it
>> > was about, but it was him misunderstanding part of the 3e ruleset. He
>> > actually recanted after a bit.
>>
>> He's totally wrong about this Morale thing. I can't see why he's so
>against
>> using a die roll to help an overworked DM.
>
>Dude. That's subjective. You can't be /wrong/ about something subjective.
>Unless you want to tell me I don't like to eat chili? :)
But he is saying that if you like chili you are wrong and have no taste (stupid,
moronic, lazy.... when talking about morale or random character generation).
Hunter
>In article <3B58ADB2...@dccnet.com>,
>Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote:
>>MSB engages in intelligent conversation with those he deems intelligent.
>
>Yes... but if you disagree with him, and he can't successfully analyze
>your argument, he doesn't think your intelligent. I'm pretty sure I'm
>actually intelligent, but he's *convinced* I'm stupid.
>
>Basically, he's a strong J type. Once he's made up his mind, nothing
>will *EVER* change it. He's thus useless in a debate; he can't learn,
>he won't learn, and he ridicules those who would waste time trying to teach
>him.
I've proved this in a thread. Points I made and he dismissed as wrong, he
accepted from others. This pointed out that he wasn't actually reading what
was written, but only what he wanted to read.
Hunter
I personally don't hate him; eventhough he has a habit reacting to what I say,
instead of actually reading it. In areas that are not subjective or abstract I
usually trust his judgement. But in the areas that are he can't see that there
can be equally right answers. He is being a classic engineer. I've known EE
people that are worse than him in this way.
Hunter
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>
>
>Kevin <kob...@despicable.com> wrote in message
>news:9ja7be$mnu3e$1...@ID-54973.news.dfncis.de...
>> "Aaron Day" <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote in message
>
>> > He's totally wrong about this Morale thing. I can't see why he's so
>> > against using a die roll to help an overworked DM.
>>
>> Dude. That's subjective. You can't be /wrong/ about something subjective.
>> Unless you want to tell me I don't like to eat chili? :)
>
>If you follow the logic of the morale supporters, you would have to roll for
>it ;-)
>
Only for the first bite and taking 10/20 would be allowed :)
Preitsma
"Hate" is a pretty strong word. If there are people around here who
actually do hate him, I find that pretty incomprehensible, too.
However, I do hold him in a small amount of contempt and pity. IMHO
his biggest problem is that he appears utterly incapable of
entertaining the notion that he might be wrong about anything. Even
when you have dismantled his argument piece by piece, he'll still keep
frothing and insulting and squealing that he's *obviously* right like
a small child throwing a tantrum. (If you want, I can show an
example.)
Another big problem is that he's very quick to insult people, turning
peaceful discussions into name-calling wastes, as if it were a heinous
crime to *dare* to disagree with The Great MSB. Which wouldn't be
half as much of a problem if he was capable of seeing when he was
wrong. (If you want, I can show an example.)
As part of this, he seems to be convinced that not only is he always
right, he's always *obviously* right, and anyone who either doesn't
agree with or can't immediately see his pet opinion is a drooling
moron. Because of this foolish notion, he's got a sad tendency of
making claim after claim without backing any of them up, and then
getting all bothered when people don't immediately agree with his
utterly unsubstantiated opinions. (If you want, I can show an
example.)
This is not to say he's always wrong, or even usually wrong - I
neither know nor care what his correctness-ratio is. Indeed, he can
be both reasonable and possessed of interesting insights at times.
The problem is, he's woefully unreasonable far too often for me to pay
much attention to him. YMMV - this is simply based on what I've seen
of his interactions with others and myself, and it's always possible
those have been a biased sample that have unfairly characterized him.
> It's amusing to no end to watch people throw fallacious arguments, weak
> logic, and seriously misguided premises at him to try and prove him wrong.
> Even the times I disagree with his stance, the people trying to 'take him
> down a notch' always just sound like asses.
Ironically, in the discussions I've had with him, the fallacious
arguments, weak logic, and seriously misguided premises have largely
been his, and I can point you to examples if you like. (If you want,
I can show you an example.)
Sometimes trying to take him down a notch works - in the huge thread
about alignment before this one (~6 months ago?), I stepped in because
he was being a jerk, and his argument wasn't even sound. I
systematically dismantled his argument, piece by piece, until he had
nothing left. And I note he's been conspicuously absent from this
round of alignment discussion.
Your mileage may vary, of course, but I don't think anyone is above
displaying basic civility and a willingness to re-evaluate their
positions. There's no shame in being wrong, only in being unwilling
to admit it.
-P
Peter Seebach
>that are authored by Mr. Seebach. Someone seems more than a little bit
>obsessed.
I write a huge amount in any thread I participate in. For that matter,
I've been through a fair amount of this discussion a few times, so I have
a handful of relevant examples handy.