> >> >Some constructive advice for you: get rid of the chip on your shoulder.
> >
> >>ROTFL!!!!
> >>
> >>Some constructive advice for you Peter. Look in the mirror and say that.
> >
> >Why should I? Let's see how this thread started. I merely wrote:
> >
> > I think ILH-1 should have said vizier rather than "magus" there.
> >
> >Thinking about this, I can only surmise that you misread this as "Paul
> > Andrew King is a complete and utter dweeb" for you to react the way
> >you did. You took this as a challenge and tried to play a gotcha game
> >by quoting the glorantha: intro at me. To such needless provocation, I
> >simply responded:
> >
> > Glorantha: Intro wasn't using "wizards" in the HeroQuest rules
> > sense and the ILH-1 is in error here.
> >
> >Note well: No argument against the person. Not even an insinuation
> >that you were a fool to put your trust in ILH-1. How did you respond?
> >By making a song and dance about how I wasn't being either helpful
> >or constructive amongst other things. An ad hominen argument in
> >other words and a false one at that.
>And that is exactly why you should look in the mirror.
Projection didn't work the first time around and it won't work again.
>I did not say anything like what you suggest to myself,
No, you just wrote it and posted it.
>nor did I quote G:IttHW as a "gotcha"
Whoops. There goes a lie.
> (In fact I noted
>that it DID contradict ILH-1, and the rest was simply reporting what
>it said).
Bullshit. You posted the following::
"If there is a contradiction between the two books it is that
G:IttHW describes magi as belonging to their own school."
Which was a snarky unconstructive aside about what I wrote contradicts my just posted position. Only when I reasonably pointed out that wizards wasn't being used here in a rules sense as opposed to the ILH-1, did your insecurities burst into the open with an attack on being unconstructive.
>As for the rest, shooting down suggestions without offering any help
>to produce an alternative is not constructive,
If you think my original statement "I think ILH-1 should have said vizier rather than "magus" there." was "shooting down suggestions" then you do need a thicker skin whether you like it or not.
>and saying so is neither false nor ad hominem
It is false to say that my first two responses were unconstructive and to allege an unconstructive attitude is an argument about the nature of the person so your statement that you were not making an ad hominem argument is itself false. An argument about a person's attitudes inherent in the statements that he makes (ie liar, fool, reckless) are by definition ad hominen, the issue is whether they are warranted. In this particular case your initial deployment wasn't.
>(indeed as a criticism of the content of
>the post it cannot be ad hominem). When you did produce a useful and
>constructive post I said so and I did not criticise it in any way.
No, you just boasted about what a roasting you would have been given hadn't I made that post (which I was working on the entire fucking time since Antonio made his original post).
But you can't give out any roasting because your argumentive style consists of a quasi-autistic anal-retentive mode of thinking that is far more likely to induce death by tedium rather than third degree burns to the ego.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail