PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
I'm saying this because...
May 22nd 2000, 03:41 CEST by andy

If our dearest Uncle Jeet can write about himself then I guess I can too, so here goes: I'm a Nazi. Hitler is my hero. I hate all blacks and Jews and I want them dead. The ZOG conspiracy? I wrote the book! The Turner Diaries is my Bible.

There, I've said it. Finally. What a relief to have it out in the open.



It's a load of rubbish, of course, but it's relevant to what I'll be talking about here, which is the phenomenon of twisting people's words.

We've all probably experienced it at some point: You're debating something, and the other person's argument is so weak that instead of trying to convince people that they're right, they try to make you look bad on a personal level. They can't fault what you're saying so they try to change what you're saying into something that they can find fault with. It's desperate and pathetic.

Obviously I'm writing about this because it's something that happens to me quite often, especially back in the old days of the 'Crap, and recently I read an article about gun control that brought it all flooding back.

The article discussed the Mothers Against Guns campaign. At the beginning of the article the writer explained how a "housewife" had argued against an expert's facts by saying that she disagreed with him.

Based on the weakness of this one woman's argument, the writer of the article went on to conclude that Mothers Against Guns is "an entire movement of babbling idiots". Forget about what those one million individual people actually think - the writer tries to discredit each and every one of them based on the ill-advised words of a single person, someone who was apparently not even connected to the campaign and was speaking only for herself.

Now, back to what I said earlier about being a Nazi.

Last year, I spent some time researching racial separatist movements in Britain, Sweden, France and Serbia. My main interest was an English organisation called Blood & Honour, which is involved to some extent with the violent direct-action group Combat 18 and the political National Front / British National Party.

While researching Blood & Honour I had the pleasure (and I do mean pleasure) of talking to some of its members, and a lot of their political views were ones that I respect, admire and would like to see represented in Parliament.

Blood & Honour believes that only white people should be allowed to live in Britain. I totally despise that view. I believe that racial integration is a positive thing. When I lived in an area with such high racial tensions that even white people would be attacked for the 'crime' of not being racist, I was proud to wear an Anti-Nazi League badge and take the beating. (The ANL stands against all forms of racial prejudice.) There are few things I feel more strongly about than racism.

But those same extremists in Blood & Honour - the ones who would kick every non-white person out of my country if they were ever given the chance - also have policies on how society should deal with sex offenders, drug dealers, drug users, burglars, joy-riders and other anti-social criminals. They have strong and remarkably sensible policies on abortion, education, policing, council reformation and media regulation.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the British National Party genuinely dropped its racial separatist policies, it would have my vote at the next election. Right now, it's the only political party made up of normal working-class people who want to improve this country's way of life.

Oops. I probably shouldn't have told you that.

You see, as someone who often gets into heated arguments about political and social issues, it's unwise of me to acknowledge any agreement with a right-wing party. It doesn't matter what the party's policies are. It doesn't matter which policies I support and which I don't. Why?

Andrew Smith believes that new laws should be introduced to regulate the software industry. But then, Mr Smith also supports a political party that would have non-white people removed from Britain, so his views are clearly not to be taken seriously.

Because in a libel trial, that paragraph is bullet-proof. That's why.

The reality nowadays for anyone who ever says anything in a public forum, whether it be an Internet message board, magazine article, TV chat show or while standing for political office, is that openness and honesty are dangerous areas. Because the people who want to shout you down will do whatever it takes, and chances are they don't care about honesty as much as you do.

If a combatant can legally get away with suggesting that you are a racist, even when they know that you're not, they will do it. Same goes for anything else that might turn people away from you.

-oOo-

That's pretty much the end of this article, but just for old time's sake I've got a few examples from the games community to illustrate how this sort of argument tactic pervades even the most trivial of discussions...

Last week I mentioned in a 'Crap thread that I supported Sony in its case against Bleem, and I corrected crash's factual error by pointing out that instead of Connectix proving that they hadn't used any of Sony's proprietary code, the case had been lost because Sony couldn't prove that they had. As a point of law, that's something very different.

Faced with an argument based on facts, this was crash's response, quoted with his own bold:

[It's different] only if you somehow think a piece of code that allows software to run on systems it wasn't designed to run on morally reprehensible.

Which I simply cannot wrap my mind around, so I'm just going to give up right now. We'll just say the 11th Commandment, according to Andy, is:

11. Thou shalt not emulate, or thou wilst not be welcome in the kingdom of God.

Sat on my desk right now is a CD-R with copies of about a dozen emulators and several hundred games. I spend more time playing emulated games than I do playing current PC games. I've written for an emulation web site and am halfway through the research for a big feature on retro-gaming. I have absolutely no moral objection to people emulating classic games.

But because he couldn't argue against facts, crash decided to claim that I was 'religiously' opposed to any and all forms of emulation. But hey, since when should the truth stop you from winning an argument?

Another example from my own personal catalogue was back during the last incarnation of the 'Crap. I started a thread about Apogee's Scott Miller, pointing out how he had a habit of being rude about other developers. Fairly tame stuff for the 'Crap, and backed up with plenty of examples so it couldn't very well be argued against.

Of course, the conspiracy nuts went crazy trying to find some hidden agenda, and pretty soon we had 3DR's George Broussard accusing me of going after Scott simply because he worked at a games company, and apparently (according to George) I disapprove of computer games. I kid ye not.

Those of you with good memories may also remember something else from the same thread, but it's probably best if I don't go into that here. ;-)

Finally, something that [gasp!] doesn't involve me. Have a look at the February 16th edition of the Blue's News mailbag and skip down to the end.

The penultimate letter was about software piracy, pointing out how most modelling tutorials on the web refer to 3D Studio MAX. The writer commented that because these tutorials are aimed at "high-school or college students doing this for fun or experience", it's likely that they will encourage people to pirate the package instead of handing over $3,500 to buy it.

Fair point. In my view, this was obviously someone who was opposed to piracy and wanted to comment on something that he saw as an important issue. But look at the response to his letter:

Listen dude, if you want to warez the software, suit yourself. But at least accept the fact that you're stealing it... don't try and justify it with this ridiculous logic.

Lovely. The point of the guy's letter was to say that modelling tutorials are effectively encouraging piracy, and he ended up being called a pirate himself!

That's it. Now, I wonder why I wrote this? I'm sure someone will tell me...

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: I'm saying this because...

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Apache"
2000-05-22 03:47:56
brain overloaded, too many subjects confuse me...

if this is about gun control, I can tell you that moving from a totally free, no gun control state (Arizona) to California (no, guns, no-how) I see much more gun-related violence here, than I ever did in Arizona.

in Arizona, you could wear a unconcealed firearm anywhere that did not sell liquer, and it was socially acceptable to do so. No, it isn't the wild west, but just a land where firearms where a normal part of everyday life and were more of a deterant to violence than a source.

ugh -- I wish I could get out of California before it sinks into the pacific ocean, I miss Arizona :)
#2 by "BarneyQue"
2000-05-22 04:13:58
BarneyQue@hotmail.com http://N/A
Reading the crap makes me feel like a social retard sometimes.

About the only thing I can do is snake through and pick out the topics introduced and comment in my simplistic ways.

First paragraph :  *Gasp*
Further on in we find you are kidding: *whew*

Making a good point and recieving a personal lashing in return with no rebuttal of the facts presented:  That sucks.

Reminded that this happens to you often:  I've seen that, your one strong cookie to keep comming back for more.

Moms against guns thing: all I know about it is the commentary I read on bitch.shutdown.com, and I take all that with a grain of salt. Sounds misguided from that one sided presentation of the issue.

(Note's that you seem to do a lot of research on a lot of stuff)

Lots of stuff about what I would describe as an extreme right wing political organization that may involve violence:  Personally, I stay the hell away from this sort of thing. My social ineptness would probably get me killed somehow.

Some discussion regarding content on internet forums and being held responsible in a court of law:  This is what kept me mostly silent during past crap lives. And could yet cause me to disappear again.. I take it a day at a time.

Emulation:  I like the concept, but the job of defining where a game becomes retro is a touchy one.  This could cause problems when mixed with the folk on the net who like to pay for nothing.

Points about Scott Miller being rude:   I did notice that from time to time myself. I make no judgement as to his or your motivation, but it seems factual.

Piracy:  Wrong, but everyone seems to draw the line at different points, even those who stand to benifit from eradication.

Why you wrote this:  Obviously, this is something you care about, and recent events have you concerned.  Lets not let the new crap get too tangled in legal shit, and stick to arguing facts. And this is sure to either cause some people to walk away, and others to bust out the flamethrowers, keeps the crap from growing stale. All in all it's pretty much what I expect when I read an Andy piece.  :)
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#3 by "Psylent"
2000-05-22 04:15:52
p.wilcock@bigpond.com http://go.to/psylent
Holy Shite! How long has PlanetCrap been back online?

Long time reader.. very rare poster...

hurrah!
#4 by "Psylent"
2000-05-22 04:16:46
p.wilcock@bigpond.com http://go.to/psylent
<i>relaunch of the site on April 21 2000,<i>


oh, *bangs forhead on table*
#5 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-22 04:21:27
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
Okay, seeing as how I'm directly involved with this one (whee!) I guess I should hop right in here...

I don't necessarily think that the last example fits in (that being the 3DS response that I wrote).

When I first read that letter, it struck me as someone attempting to justify warezing a copy of 3D Studio Max. So, I wrote that response. I still believe that, although I think accusing the author of stealing software wasn't exactly appropriate - he's just talking in generalities, he didn't do anything wrong himself.

<i>But</i> his letter does typify a silly mentality that people have to justify the theft of software. I'm not going to lie to anyone here: I will admit it, I have warezed software in my day. Hell, I went to college in the Internet age. But I never made any sort of attempt to justify what I was doing.

Like it or not, it's illegal. There is no gray area there simply because it's so easy to get away with.

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#6 by "Andy"
2000-05-22 04:23:32
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#2</b>, BarneyQue - WOW!!

I think this is the first time I've <b>ever</b> seen someone posting here who didn't try to read between the lines, twist what was being said, guess at some hidden motive or generally just try to confuse the issue. And considering what the topic was about, THANK YOU for doing it in this thread!

*slaps you on the back*
#7 by "Apache"
2000-05-22 04:29:10
about Scott Miller and his alledged rudeness... I've sent him some hum-dinger nasty letters asking for media/screens/interviews for 3DR products and he's always replied in a very civil, polite and courtesy tone to me, even though I might of deserved a swift brow-bashing.

sure, he might post a couple 'off the record' forum posts on some 'off the beaten path' sites, but sites like PC I will not quote news from, it's just a place where everyone can be themselves and vent out their anger, but still have fun.
#8 by "Andy"
2000-05-22 04:31:33
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#5</b>, loonyboi:
<QUOTE>
But his letter does typify a silly mentality that people have to justify the theft of software.
</QUOTE>
Yes, it does, but so what? He didn't deserve to be thrown in with the very crowd he was writing to critiise.
#9 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-22 04:35:24
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
<b>#8</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>Yes, it does, but so what? He didn't deserve to be thrown in with the very crowd he was writing to critiise. </QUOTE>

Right you are. :)

When I was doing the mailbag at the time, it seemed to me like he should, but in retrospect I agree with you.

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#10 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-22 04:47:13
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
<b>Off topic</b>:

I just had some fun cycling through the quotes of the nanosecond...<i>damn</i>! How many of these are there now?

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Andy"
2000-05-22 04:50:52
andy@planetcrap.com
(My 'c' key isn't working properly. Grrr.)


<b>#10</b>, loonyboi:
<QUOTE>
I just had some fun cycling through the quotes of the nanosecond...damn! How many of these are there now?
</QUOTE>
They're picked out at random so the quote can be any sentence from any comment in any thread.

You backed down too easy on the other thing! You just want a quiet life, don't you? *g*
#12 by "G-Man"
2000-05-22 07:45:48
jonmars@shiftlock.org http://www.shiftlock.org
Andy -

Big whoop.. an ad hominem attack. These sorts of fallacies are usually induced by ignorance, rather than malice. At some point you'll have to realize and accept that the vast majority of people are not educated enough to engage in a sophisticated debate. I myself frequently end up begging the question, appealing to authority, or even *gasp* self sealing through definition.

Rhetoric is trained art, and mastery of it requires years of study, practice and analysis. Everyone has the right to speak his mind, but not the ability.

As far as organizations using logical fallacies in a concerted persuasive effort, just take a look at some of what the <a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~catootje/01-think-for-yourself.html">Church of Scientology</a> does. These guys make NAMBLA, NRA, etc seem like saints.

 - [g.man]<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#13 by "BenT"
2000-05-22 07:56:12
bent@planetdreamcast.com http://www.planetdreamcast.com
Andy wrote:
"They're picked out at random so the quote can be any sentence from any comment in any thread."

You weren't kidding. Check this one out.

<quote>
Quote of the nanosecond:
"#62 "loonyboi" wrote..."
- Vengeance[CoD], in Worlds Collide
</quote>

Heh.

BenT
#14 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-22 07:59:44
seth@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
I enjoy reading and posting here because no matter what I say, no matter what the point I make - there will be someone to disagree with me and/or question what I said. That is the democratic nature of this website. I like being questioned about what I believe in, and loathe the thought that I'm doing always everything correctly. Sure I'm self righteous, but so is Andy, so is Valeyard, so are you. I've never seen anyone dive head long into an argument thinking "Woohoo! I'm pretty sure I'm wrong again!". Admitting fault is just as osmotic process that some people go through, and some don't. It's been a casual observation that those who stagnate into the "I'm never wrong." position around here are posting less and less frequently, which I'm enjoying. If someone is going to blithly agree with what loonyboi has to say without actually examining it, there's nothing wrong with that by itself. It's the large scale generalities that become of those unexamined opinions that are dangerous. Like that shirt says, "never underestimate stupid people in large numbers." Perhaps I'm using the quote out of context, but hey, if I am - there'll be someone here to correct me.

Andy (and collectively, PC) had stumbled into an industry of social outcasts, just kind of a bunch of people with many, many unfounded beliefs. Not exactly the breeding ground for educated discussion. The Demonization of Andy Smith broadcast via Brian Hook/Paul Steed vision was truely a phenomenon to behold.

In a perfect world we could just plug some kind of jack into our brain and instantly absorb and reflect upon everyone elses opinion equally. It's kind of funny how a perfect world involves being assimilated with technology, but I don't want to move on to that til theological discussion :). But I am a little angry I'll probably never see the day when actual mental imagery would be the main form of communication.
It's cool PC is probably the closest we'll ever get, though. :)

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-22 08:06:06
seth@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
Or should that be "The Demonization of id Software via Andy Smith vision"

:)
#16 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-22 08:16:10
seth@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<quote>Quote of the nanosecond:
"It would force additional strategy; players couldn't blow everything."
- Morn, in Volition Inc. and the Last Crusade
</quote>

I'm glad I pretty much missed that round. :)
#17 by "Mugwum"
2000-05-22 08:16:48
tom@eurogamer.net http://www.eurogamer.net
Heya Andy,

<quote>-oOo-</quote>

Blimey! That's cool! Do that again!

Oh, uhm, guns are bad, summat...
#18 by "Craig Lewin"
2000-05-22 08:20:34
craigl@globalnet.co.uk http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~craigl/
A new <a href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~craigl/">CrapSpy</a> has finally been released. This is beta 3... Note: if you want to go back to an older version you will <b>need</b> to use the older script file that came with that version as the script format has changed.

<b>Integrated chat</b>
...Simple chat client, set by default to automatically connect on startup. When you view a post, it will have a Chat link up with the Email and WWW links if the person is online. You can right-click a person's name in the chat client's names list for a menu.

<b>Quote of the nanosecond</b>
...Puts the quote across most windows whenever it downloads a page that contains it.

<b>Improved cache loading</b>
...Threads load much quicker from the cache now.

<b>Poster Summary</b>
...Right click on someone's name in the list and go down to post summary, it will display a list of all posts by a user in the current thread.

<b>Post list highlighting</b>
...If a post in the list contains your name it will be highlighted red, if it is a post by you, it is in bold.

<b>Tray stuff</b>
...If you run CrapSpy with -tray as it's command line, it will load silently into the tray, so you can put a shortcut in your Startup folder to point to: "CrapSpy.exe -tray"

<b>HTTP Proxy support</b>
...Simple HTTP proxy support, nothing too advanced.

<b>Better link handling</b>
...CrapSpy now links to posts properly, so a URL can be copied from your web browser and if the Monitor Clipbord option is on, it will go to that post/article.

<b>Posting options</b>
...Can reload the article after posting, also easier to compose your quote preference with an Add Tag button, and preset quotes. Also an info button to paste information about the current poster into your new post.

<b>Bug fixes</b>
...Various bug fixes, including getting rid of the annoying corrupting topic list. Just a general cleanup of the interface, and better support for loading CrapSpy while not connected and still having the Auto-Update work.

Craig<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#19 by "crash"
2000-05-22 08:42:28
crash@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
y'know, i was going to go through and quote back a bunch of court records on the various cases (because, y'know, it's kinda my job), because i apparently know quite a bit more about the bleem particulars than, er, some people. was also going to note that being taken out of context is fun, and as much as Andy likes to bitch about it, he sure doesn't pull any punches doin it to others, does he?

but.

rather than waste a bunch of time trying (probably in vain) to prove a point with the facts, and do a whole bunch of quoting and shit like that, i'm going to simply say:

okay, Andy, whatever you say, and whatever makes you happy. i've got better shit to do.

and as an aside, re-reading that lengthy piece above, i have to commend you. that's the most detached third-person-perspective defense of a persecution complex i think i've ever seen. and before you ask, no, i'm not going to bother wasting my time--and yours--trying to prove it. it's an opinion, formed from your writings of the past and joined with the essay above.

thank you, and good night.
#20 by "Kevin"
2000-05-22 09:01:22
kdow@home.com
As an American I know next to nothing about Blood & Honour (wierd spelling), so I did a quick web search and let me shoot you a couple of quick quotes from various places.  First up is a quote from a Harry Winn:

<quote>The more I read and re-read Mein Kampf the more A. H.'s words ring true today as they did in 1924.

Here we are with a Jewish run Prime Minister, a Jewish Home Secretary, Jewish Foreign Secretary etc., with a Jewish controlled State that is run for ethnic and sexual minorities, all of no value to the native Anglo-Saxon/Celtic population of these islands. Again, the time has come for the only solution - NATIONAL SOCIALISM! Two final quotes:

‘If the Race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated the question of legality is only of secondary importance.’

‘If the Government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen.’</quote>

He of couse is quoting Mein Kampf.

Next up is a special report of someone named Max Hammer on some type of Nazi march.
<quote>Nearly sixty years ago there was a man who held the position of deputy leader of a world-power. His career was at its peak. The future for his nation, for him and his millions of supporters looked glorious. This man gave up everything: his position, his family and eventually even his life trying to save Europe from a devastating brothers' war. In a sane society such a man would be considered the hero of his century and be awarded the Nobel peace price along with utmost praise and admiration. But we do not live in such a sane world; we live in a grotesque and twisted society under the awesome iron heel of world Zionism. In such a hellish place where all values have been turned upside down, a messenger of peace between Aryan people is condemned as a criminal war-monger and rewarded with 46 years in prison before being murdered by the hidden hand of the Allies' secret service.

This was the fate of Rudolf Hess, one of Europe's greatest sons, a staunch National Socialist until the end, a peace martyr and an immortal hero of the Aryan race. It was this man who a small but determined group of White Resistance fighters set out to honour on the 15th of August 1998. The Rudolf Hess march was organized by Denmark's National Socialist Movement and assisted by Blood & Honour Scandinavia. It was officially supported by Norway's National Socialist Movement and Sweden's National Socialist Front, as well as Blood & Honour divisions and independent National Socialist cadres from all over Europe and the NSDAP-AO in USA. </quote>
He goes on to end his report with:
<quote>Rudolf Hess, you gave your life to secure the future of our Aryan race. We, the 132 National Socialists who marched on August 15th 1998 to honour your glorious deeds, promise to carry on your fight and lead a new legion of European volunteers in the final and victorious crusade for our White Race and European civilization. This we swear on our blood and honour! Heil Rudolf Hess! Sieg Heil!
</quote>

Most of these quotes are accompianed by pictures of swastikas and people zieg heiling.  I would continue but I feel I need a shower to wash the stink off me.

Carefull who you are friends with Andy, others may judge you by them.
#21 by "Jafd"
2000-05-22 09:35:11
jafd@whatthefuck.com
in <b>#14</b> "Seth Krieg" wrote a bunch of stuff...


You know, you're right about that Seth K. I apologize for the way I handled my disagreement with you in that other thread.

You were still wrong though.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-05-22 09:51:47
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Seth

I would tend to disagree with your analysis that the "I'm never wrong" people are posting less and less.  It would make sense that if someone feels that way, they would continue to post more and more, trying to prove to you that they are, indeed, right.  Think about it.  :)
#23 by "RedLine"
2000-05-22 10:32:41
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
Hmmm...  Well...

There will always be people who will try and shout you down... actually reading, understanding and taking time to digest someone elses point-of-view is very difficult... it's all too easy to read the first line of a post and go "This guy is an asshole !!" and post one of those "j00 shu70r j00r m0u7h0r 455h0|3" type posts.

It's something you just have to live with.

Andy, I think it happens to you a lot more that other people for a couple of reasons... mainly that you post topics that are either controversial or just affect people in a negative way... they are "gritty" topics, and too many people just react in a knee-jerk way, instead of taking time to calm down and post objectively.  I'm not suggesting you start posting "fluffy bunny" posts, I'm just saying that when you post the kinds of topic you do, to a certain extent, you're putting your head above the barricade in the middle of a gunfight. ;-)

Another thing is the entire bit about people looking for "hidden meanings" in your posts.  The poblem is that a lot of the time you do subtle things with your writing, like the odd play on words here, the odd in-joke or double-entendre (sp ?) (In a "two-way meaning" sense, not really in a sexual way, as that word is often taken to mean)... you do it as part of your style, but it gets people thinking.. perhaps there really is a hidden agenda.  Once again, to a certain extent, you kinda set yourself up for it.

Of course that doesn't excuse people from "taking the bait" as it where... if you hand someone a loaded gun, they still have to pull the trigger, after all.

I think my point here, Andy, is that you're not really going to be able to change the way people react, and you're probably not going to change the way you post or the type of things you post about - And really you shouldn't have to - so it's just something that you're gonna have to live with.

Either that or I'm way off base with my thoughts, in which case I'll happily admit I'm wrong. ;-)
#24 by "Andy"
2000-05-22 10:54:22
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#19</b>, crash - here's a quick breakdown of your post, point by point with no personal attacks. Keep in mind what this thread is about.
<QUOTE>
y'know, i was going to go through and quote back a bunch of court records on the various cases (because, y'know, it's kinda my job), because i apparently know quite a bit more about the bleem particulars than, er, some people.
</QUOTE>
So what you're saying is that my original statement was wrong, you've got a bunch of quotes from court records to prove it, but you're not going to provide any of them?

Why? Wouldn't it be a lot more effective to just post the quotes and have done with it?
<QUOTE>
was also going to note that being taken out of context is fun, and as much as Andy likes to bitch about it, he sure doesn't pull any punches doin it to others, does he?
</QUOTE>
That's exactly the sort of invalid criticism I was talking about in the article. I didn't take you out of context at all. The thread is still there for anyone and everyone to look at so it would be incredibly stupid of me to quote you out of context.

You were quoted accurately and in context. So why suggest that I'm trying to deceive people?

If anyone wants to go and check for themselves, the thread was "George Michael Must Be Loving This" and crash's posts were numbers 38, 65, 126, 144 and 164.
<QUOTE>
rather than waste a bunch of time trying (probably in vain) to prove a point with the facts, and do a whole bunch of quoting and shit like that, i'm going to simply say:

okay, Andy, whatever you say, and whatever makes you happy. i've got better shit to do.
</QUOTE>
Hmm, a lot of bravado, but still not much of an argument is it?
<QUOTE>
and as an aside, re-reading that lengthy piece above, i have to commend you. that's the most detached third-person-perspective defense of a persecution complex i think i've ever seen.
</QUOTE>
Why resort to saying that I have a persecution complex? Why can't you just argue against what I was saying with a well-reasoned counter-argument?
<QUOTE>
and before you ask, no, i'm not going to bother wasting my time--and yours--trying to prove it. it's an opinion, formed from your writings of the past and joined with the essay above.

thank you, and good night.
</QUOTE>
Again, plenty of bravado, but your argument's noticeable only by its absence.

--

I'd like you to do something for me please: Explain how I quoted you out of context.

If you can do that, you'll make me look like a fool. You'll be able to say "<i>Ha! Andy complains about people twisting his words and then he goes and does it himself!</i>" You'll be the hero of Planetcrap. You've got the chance to make a loud-mouthed gobshite swallow his pride and never risk questioning you again. Do you really want to miss that opportunity just for the sake of a few minutes of typing?

I'll look forward to reading your explanation.
#25 by "Dark`Bishop"
2000-05-22 11:47:25
d_a_r_k_bishop@yahoo.com
Well, off topic here, but interesting. I was reading and the tables were out of line, the text in Andy's message was a bit above the grey box, then, amazingly, it corrected itself and went back into the proper alignment! Erm. I think it's time for me to go to sleep now.
#26 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-22 12:13:31
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
Hi,

As G-Man said, fallacies are made mainly by the ignorant but even those in the know use fallacies when they feel threatened. In the last few threads I have been attacked personally I suspect because these people thought I was attacking them. Many people on the crap seem to do the following. Claim a belief X as true. Now if I point out that they thus believe in Y that logically follows from X, am I attacking them ? They react as if I was and I suspect they think I was, but whos in the wrong. When an "attack" logically follows the "victims" argument is it really an "attack" ?

<quote>
Warren Marshall:

I would tend to disagree with your analysis that the "I'm never wrong" people are posting less and less. It would make sense that if someone feels that way, they would continue to post more and more, trying to prove to you that they are, indeed, right. Think about it. :)
</quote>

I guess I am one of the "I'm never wrong" people (to a degree at least) and I am posting less and less. Mainly I guess because a few of the discussions have degenerated into others claiming absurd opinions (absurd to the degree of claiming the world ain't flat and offering no proof for why other than "I don't think so").

I have no problem changin opinion (actually I prefer it because it means I have learn't something) but I will keep arguing (generally) right up until the point that I do a 180 degree reversal of opinion. However a lot of the discussions not related to games on crap tend to end in a "well okay point X may not be true but I still believe Y and you suck buddy". Hence there can be little usefully learnt from the experience and hence I keep my opinion.


Anything like the topics on planetcrap is bound to cause some emotions (at least the non-game related topics) and because the communication medium is so limited theer are bound to be miscommunications. For instance in Andys latest spiel ...

<quote>
That's exactly the sort of invalid criticism I was talking about in the article. I didn't take you out of context at all. The thread is still there for anyone and everyone to look at so it would be incredibly stupid of me to quote you out of context.

You were quoted accurately and in context. So why suggest that I'm trying to deceive people?

If anyone wants to go and check for themselves, the thread was "George Michael Must Be Loving This" and crash's posts were numbers 38, 65, 126, 144 and 164.
</quote>

and ...

<quote>
If you can do that, you'll make me look like a fool. You'll be able to say "Ha! Andy complains about people twisting his words and then he goes and does it himself!" You'll be the hero of Planetcrap. You've got the chance to make a loud-mouthed gobshite swallow his pride and never risk questioning you again. Do you really want to miss that opportunity just for the sake of a few minutes of typing?
</quote>

It is difficult to determine whether he is attacking/defending opinion or person. The implication of both these chunks is if crash doesn't/can't rebutt Andys points then crash is exactly what he is claiming Andy is. While I have heard similar arguements in person they are usually accompanied with a smile or open body language to communicate that no threat was intended. While I don't think Andys comments had malicious intent there is enough room for crash to confuse the argument and suspect  there is.

And because most people with any opinions will be in their positions sometimes I guess the only answer is to Chill man :P

anyways, enough rambling<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "RedLine"
2000-05-22 13:23:22
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
[26] RahvinTaka

<quote>actually I prefer it because it means I have learn't something</quote>

Hah !  "learn't" doesn't have an apostrophe in it you fool !!!  Your argument is irrevelant because you can't spell !!!!

<B>*grins*</B> Heh, I'm just being silly.... Now you point out that it can be spelled either way, and then I insult you personally again, instead of conceding the point and appologising. ;-)
#28 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-22 13:42:26
seth@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#22</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote...
<QUOTE>Seth

I would tend to disagree with your analysis that the "I'm never wrong" people are posting less and less. It would make sense that if someone feels that way, they would continue to post more and more, trying to prove to you that they are, indeed, right. Think about it. :) </QUOTE>

You obviously want something off your chest. Something you'd care to share with the rest of us?
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#29 by "None-1a"
2000-05-22 15:18:33
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#20</b> "Kevin" wrote...
<QUOTE>Carefull who you are friends with Andy, others may judge you by them. </QUOTE>

Um, I think you kind of missed the point Kevin:)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#30 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-22 16:11:40
Darkseid@captured.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
/me recalls the old PC

/me recalls Andy being supportive of the punishment beatings and various terrorist organisations

/me recalls informing Andy just how close he'd come to having both kneecaps destroyed in a case of mistaken identity

/me recalls other events where its been _Andy_ twisting other peoples words then screaming about his being twisted.

Cmon, stop trying to play pure as driven snow, those who've watched you post _know_ better.


/me supposes he'd better post a chain of thought type topic ;)


Ds
#31 by "Morn"
2000-05-22 16:44:53
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
/you have spent too much time on IRC

- Morn
#32 by "aDVANCE"
2000-05-22 17:07:04
adiamant@isracom.net.il http://www.geocities.com/Area51/1199/
So, what <B>are</B> the Blood & Honour party's views on abortion?

-advance
#33 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-22 17:31:52
Darkseid-d@planetcrap.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
/me has used IRc for 8+ years

/me notes you knew what /me meant

/me concludes you also use(d) Irc too damn much



Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#34 by "Steel"
2000-05-22 17:36:04
Foogla@gmx.de
<B>#31</B>
<QUOTE>buero.gamez.de</QUOTE>

lol!

Steel out.
#35 by "Morn"
2000-05-22 17:39:22
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#33</b> "Darkseid-[D!]" wrote...
<QUOTE>/me concludes you also use(d) Irc too damn much</QUOTE>

/kick #planetcrap Darkseid-[D!] Out with you!

Ermm... okay. Point taken. :)

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#36 by "Morn"
2000-05-22 17:40:10
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#34</b> "Steel" wrote...
<QUOTE>buero.gamez.de
lol!</QUOTE>

Yes, I, uh, don't want to talk about it. ;-)

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#37 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-22 17:40:41
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net/
<b>#33</b> "Darkseid-[D!]" wrote...
<QUOTE>/me has used IRc for 8+ years

/me notes you knew what /me meant

/me concludes you also use(d) Irc too damn much
</QUOTE>

/me notes that this is PC, not IRC... <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#38 by "Frozen Caveman Lawyer"
2000-05-22 17:41:21
dickcheese@hotmail.com http://www.bluesnews.com
/me farts dust
#39 by "legion88@yahoo.com"
2000-05-22 17:41:29
legion88@yahoo.com
Regarding that article on gun control, the author uses Professor Lott as a basis for some statistics that have been mentioned.  Unfortunately, in many of these "articles", statistics are often abused.

For instance, how does one measure "prevention"?  Example:

<quote>"98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a gun is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. </quote>

How does one measure this?  Did he actually go out and talk to a representative sample of all gun owners?  Did the alleged criminal even have a criminal intent?  There's way too many people who would assume based on skin color or dress alone that they are going to be robbed.  

Remember the shooting of a Japanese exchange student during the late 80s' (or was it early 90's, not sure).  In that incident, it was Halloween and the student was going trick or treating.  The idiotic gun owner believe that the student was engaging in a criminal acitivity and proceeded to shoot him.  The student died.  In this case, the loser was so bold as to actually use the gun.  I won't be surprised if most cases, they do not.  In any event, the point is that the gun owner believed that there was criminal intent.  

How does Lott differentiate actual criminal intent from the gun owners' delusional perceptions?  If he can not do this, then his statistics is actually meaningless propaganda.

Did he take into account that some people would actually "break off" even if the potential victim only has his fists?  How does this 98% compare to incidents where only the victim had a knife?  Did his sampling only focused in high crime areas or low crime areas?

It is nice throwing out these high percentage numbers BUT if you have nothing to compare it to, then you have no idea if it is good or there is something better.
#40 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-22 17:47:59
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
With regard to the gun control article:  It was an attack.  Pure and simple.  The author was obviously sick of people who completely disregard the available facts and continue their public campaign of misinformation based on how they <i>feel</i> or what they <i>think</i>.

The writer of the article didn't conclude that they were all babbling idiots based on this one woman, she came to that conclusion because it's the most likely answer.  They are <b>all</b> ignoring the facts that are continually presented to them, choosing to rely on their instinct or feelings.  (Yes, some women there probably don't know the facts, but the ones in charge do...and that's the problem.)

The writer of the article didn't misquote or twist the woman's words.  She didn't need to, because the woman who was quoted condemned herself.  It would reflect poorly on the entire movement regardless of who said it, but if you re-read the introduction to the article, you'll see that this was at a TV taping.  While the author doesn't specifically say it, it's fairly obvious that this woman was speaking on behalf of her group.  (Or else it's a really big coincidence that a few days before the march someone who just <i>happens</i> to be a part of the march ends up on a TV show with Dr. Lott...hmmmm)

Setting that aside for a moment, I don't completely disagree with their position.  Some of their proposals make sense.  Everyone who owns a handgun, <b>should</b> be licensed.  Law-abiding citizens have no reason to object to a license requirement to own a handgun.

The problem is that their position, however logical, is damaged by their words and actions.  People who <i>might</i> eventually agree with their ideas are being turned off because they are sick of seeing this continual barrage of "we don't care about the facts, we care about the kids".

It also doesn't help their case when they blatantly <b>lie</b>.  Photographs of the attendance clearly show that the attendance wasn't even close to the 750,000 they <i>claim</i>... it was closer to 200,000.  That's still a lot of people; why not use the real number?  Because they're not interested in the facts, they're interested in how they feel.  "It sure felt like 750,000, honest."

With regard to the rest of your topic:  You're right.

People are always going to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, misquoted and taken out of context.  The problem here is a matter of perception.  The written word is limited as a means of communication.

If you write something, you have an inherent understanding of the true meaning of your words.  If someone else reads it, they can easily see a  <i>different</i> meaning because the words don't adequately relate the meaning you intended.  If that person then tries to quotes you, it's easy to understand how they could <i>misquote</i> you or leave out relevant information related to the  quote.

When I read the mailbag post for the first time, I didn't read it the same way that you did, and I didn't read it the same way that loonyboi did. (Based on my understanding of what you both wrote)

What <i>I</i> saw was a post that demonstrated a misperception - that game companies are <i>endorsing</i> piracy by:
- posting tutorials for software the reader probably can't afford
- not releasing "free" tools to do the job

Where loonyboi hammered him for trying to justify piracy, and Andy felt that the gentleman's point was fair, my reply would have been:

"Those tutorials are written for the tools the developers use and are familiar with.  There are free tools available that will do much of the same work, and they are often referenced in the tutorials themselves.  I seem to recall that Paul specifically spoke about the price of 3D Studio Max, and gave the hopeful modelers a list of optional software, and ways to acquire older version of the "good" programs at a reduced rate.  This is hardly an endorsement for piracy.

Also, the developers use these tools because they're professionals.  That means they are getting paid to design games and the cost of the software is going to be worth the investment.  To claim that they're promoting software piracy because they didn't write a new <b>free</b> utility for mod authors to use
is ridiculous.  Free tools already exist.  Cheap tools already exist.  If someone decides to pirate 3DS Max, they've made a choice.  A choice that  <b>they</b> are responsible for.  Attempting to blame the game developers for promoting piracy is just a rationalization.

Just because they allow people to modify their game, that doesn't mean that everyone has a right or need to modify it.  If you can't afford the tools and don't want to use the free ones, that doesn't mean it's somehow OK to pirate software to do it.  It certainly doesn't mean that someone is  <b>endorsing</b> software piracy."

-Valeyard
#41 by "legion88@yahoo.com"
2000-05-22 17:49:08
legion88@yahoo.com
Another thing to point out is how he used those statistics.  He mentioned "when people use guns defensively".  That is quite different from the total number of times guns were used.

For example, let us suppose that 100 people used guns defensively as he mentioned.  And 98 people were able to avoid a violent confrontation.  Two people were not so lucky.

However, during that same time span, there were 1000 *other* instances of guns (not including the 100 above).  This means that the total percentage of people being helped by guns is much smaller than what Lott is trying to tell you.  Or to put in another way, more people could have been hurt more than saved.

Percentages are percentages.  It does not tell you the actual number of people involved.  And if the issues I mentioned in the previous post is not addressed, then a representative sample using a survey ain't good enough, either.
#42 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-22 17:51:52
Darkseid-d@planetcrap.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
Lies,
damned lies,
and statistics



and rarely a truer saying.


Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#43 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-22 18:01:30
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
legion:

You could go read Lott's book to find the answers to your questions.  It's true that statistics aren't perfect, but you can still make incredibly accurate estimations.

Most of Lott's information is taken from police reports and DOJ statistical analysis.

Granted there are <b>always</b> more factors available to consider, but the good statisticians understand how to maximize accuracy by getting a larger data pool etc.  You can even estimate the accuracy of your estimation.  Trust me, people much better with numbers than you or I have spent years on formulas for accurate statistical analysis.

One thing they DON'T do is focus on the miniscule number of exceptions.  Something you tried to do.  Something that most of the opposition tries to do.

Just remember 2% is <b>very</b> big when you're talking about numbers this big.  I'm sure you could site many examples....but they still might fit into that 2%.

For <b>actual</b> data, here are some links:

<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm" target=_blank> DOJ US vs. UK crime data  </a>

<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm" target=_blank> Crime data at a glance </a>

There are more pages within that site...look around, you never know what you'll find.

I've got a rather lengthy list to statistical data on this subject...even <a href="http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf" target=_blank>government reports</a> that show that minors who legally own guns have a lower crime rate than those who don't.
#44 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-22 18:05:34
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
80% of all statistics are just made up on the spot. :)

-Valeyard
#45 by "Pete Closs"
2000-05-22 18:14:05
I noticed that on <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm">this</a> page it mentions that murder rates in the US are 5.7 times higher than England's. I wonder why?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#46 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-05-22 18:21:31
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#43</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>
I've got a rather lengthy list to statistical data on this subject...even government reports that show that minors who legally own guns have a lower crime rate than those who don't. </QUOTE>

Some times people forget that there really are <b>two</b> kinds of gun owners.  Those who have then have <b>learned</b> about thier proper use, how to take care of them, and use them in a proper way every day of the year.  I know hundreds of people like that (literally).  I, myself, have owned several at one time or another.  For hunting for recreation etc.

Then there are people who dont respect thier firarms or their fellow human beings.  They are most often labeled as criminals.

Most of the gun owners that I have talked to think the NRA has gone a little overboard.  Granted, its far from a statistical sampling.  The problem is that without the NRA going overboard and reacting strongly to the smallest threat to gun ownership, we would loose our right to "keep and bear arms".  Theres no doubt in my mind that the antigun lobby proposals are but the first steps.  Not because I have specific knowledge of their plans, just from my observations of life.  Most of the gun owners I know have no problems with liciencing.  I took a gun safety class myself as a child and liked it.  I've had hunting liciences.  The problem with this issue is that people tend to get too emotional and let it rule thier thinking.  Instead of dealing with problems they'd rather find a quick solution because its easier.  Then they pour their emotions into arguements that contain a lot of emotion and little reason.
Bah.  This is too long already.  If anyone wants to take up the gun topic, please do.  Yes we've covered it before, but then again we have covered most of the topics before.  

Persecute Andy topic, been there done that.  Its half real and half imagined.  The "good old IRA" thread on one side, crash's latest comments on another.

V

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#47 by "None-1a"
2000-05-22 18:25:53
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
Valyard good statisicians also understand how to make stats are support the argument of who every they happen to be working for at the time. Take for example the resent anti-smoking campain in the US, spacificaly the 400,000 americans die every year one. Now 400,000 sounds like a lot of people, and I've seen other places list smoking as the leading cause of death in the US (and yet others list it as heart problems). Now a good statisicion would know that smoking maybe a cause of heart problems, and lumb all of those deaths into the smoking number even if they where caused by a bad diet. Or lets take the gun thing again say a large scale study of 500,000 people nationaly gave a lower number then 98%, so a study that used 1000 people in say Arizona would be used insted to support the argument.

All of those other factors you talked about give someone the room to compile numbers that support there view (or the view of who ever there working for), so unless details on whats included and how the numbers where generated stats are usless figures.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#48 by "unDuLe"
2000-05-22 18:26:54
unDule@tampabay.rr.com http://www.planetunreal.com/undulation
At the risk of sounding trite -- and also bowing to a whim, as I never post -- GODDAM! A refreshing burst of sharply rendered political opinion.

A joy to read upon waking -- right on.
#49 by "PainKilleR-[CE]"
2000-05-22 18:57:29
painkiller@planetfortress.com http://www.planetfortress.com/tftech/
<b>#45</b> "Pete Closs" wrote...
<QUOTE>I noticed that on this page it mentions that murder rates in the US are 5.7 times higher than England's. I wonder why?</QUOTE>

That could be argued a number of ways:
1) gun control laws in England are far more strict than in the US

2) the rates in the US would be lower if everyone adopted this or that gun control policy, ie the policies of Texas or Arizona where the rates are lower than in many of the other states

3) there are simply more people in the US and the larger cities often hold far more people than ever come together in any particular area of England

blah blah blah, Americans are idiots and resolve all conflicts with a gun, because it's far easier to kill someone with a gun than with your bare hands

Hand me the sniper rifle, I'm going to visit my old high school

-PainKilleR-[CE]

Disclamatory note: none of this was said in a serious manner and none of it should be taken seriously. My old high school is 12 miles away, and I'd personally rather sit here and continue reading than get in my car, leave work, go find someone that will sell me a decent rifle for what little money I have in my pocket without following the CA requirements for waiting periods or whatever the laws are. Besides that, a couple of the teachers I had in high school are/were good friends of mine, and I wouldn't want to hit them with a stray bullet.
#50 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-22 19:00:08
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
None-1a:
"All of those other factors you talked about give someone the room to compile numbers that support there view (or the view of who ever there working for), so unless details on whats included and how the numbers where generated stats are usless figures."

Exactly.  Which is why you'll notice that the DOJ studies (which are completely independent - they're not trying to support ANY view), list those details, as well as their methodology.  This information is also included with the various studies included in Dr. Lotts book.

It's not perfect, and it never will be....but there are many indesputable facts. (examples):

-Crime, as a whole, is on the decline in the US
-Crime, as a whole, has declined SHARPLY where concealed-carry laws have been passed
-The over-all murder rate has declined and suicied has stayed nearly constant, despite a 100% increase in the number of guns in the US (since 1981).

I agree with Vengeance's statements about the NRA going overboard, and that they feel it is required in some cases.  The NRA is screaming "Look at the facts" and the opposition is screaming "Look at the children".  If they'd both relax, they'd see that a compromise isn't far off.

I'm not a gun nut, and I don't think everyone should go out and buy a gun...I just think the situation would be much better if people would acknowledge the facts and START from there.  Ignoring facts because you don't agree or because you're trying to eliminate every possible exception is pointless.

-Valeyard
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: I'm saying this because...

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]