Qwerty the Sir

Oh noes taks, did my little comment on your previous behavior hit a nerve? You used that phrase "intellectually dishonest" again, I see. Great. In fact, if take a closer look, you'd see that I'm mimicking your style of response as seen here: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?s=...st&p=807235 I wasn't going to dispute (a) at all. If you must know my opinion on the global warming issue; firstly, I do believe it is overinflated greatly, and second I don't think science should influence public policy in any major way, so the Gore point is moot. However, correlation never implies causality and even very strong correlations suggesting some sort causality is a very tricky point that is hotly debated (you with your supposed background in statistics must know of the problems with the problems of applying Bayesian analysis and probability values to events with a correlation as the basis on which the casual link is supposed to be infered (either through a logical necessity [not happening] or through a empirical verification of a casual nexus [problematic, as we only see events in succession and never actually perceive any casual nexus between them; the casual link is formed through our minds]). I believe I already responded to this long ago. http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?s=...st&p=807243 (You did say a tautology was a fallacy and that his posts had logical fallacies explicitly later on. That you want to be evasive and hide behind the ambiguity of your first post (which doesn't matter as you quite explicitly affirmed the points I assumed from your first post) is intellectual dishonesty.) Excellent reply. Simply devastating in it's cogency...

Yup taks, you are definitely the most well informed here; about everything. Everyone else who disagrees with you in any matter big or small is ignorant, stupid, intellectually dishonest, or an ass, correct? I actually had a reply coming towards you concerning your remark on correlation and causation, but then I remembered that I would be taking the topic "off-topic" again (although I fail to understand why that is so bad given the nature and evolution of discussions [heck, the topic of global warming is technically off topic]) so I just stopped. Also, if it's "intellectually dishonest" of me to call out someone and explain the distinction between logic and rhetoric, which gets so blurred in polemical debates such as this, then so be it. Personally, I believe that it's pretty intellectually dishonest to use logic as some rhetorical ploy against another poster and intellectually sloppy not to understand what he is talking about in the first hand... Anyway, to get more to the actual topic from the original post, why do some people have such a bad impression of the Nobel Peace Prize, simply due to some of the recipients (Arafat was the one mentioned here, and obviously Gore leaves a sour taste in people's mouths)? Granted, you may not agree with the recipient of the award (there was a guy awhile back who supposedly 'exposed' Mother Teresa as a 'fraud' and 'charlatan' and criticized the fact she received honors like the Nobel Peace Prize), but how does that lessen the award at all?

You haven't shown why it's a logical fallacy taks. You've just said that is. Your link on fallacy files tries to to the job a little better. It of course, must make the distinction that circularity is an "informal fallacy". That's one clue that we're getting away from logic (read the excerpt from the journal article on the differences). It then goes on to say that circularity is validating. This leads us to a dilemma taks. When we talk of fallacies in logic, we speak of argument forms that are invalid (like affirming the consequent). A fallacy in logic has to do with validity. Now, circularity is clearly valid. How then is it a fallacy? The fallacy files link then goes on to describe some pragmatic dialectical reasons of why circularity is bad ("it becomes too easy to prove anything", "no new information can be gained") but in doing this, it clearly moves away from a fallacy as understood in logic. Circularity cannot be considered a logical fallacy, and even its case as a dialectical fallacy is shaky (see Robinson's Begging the Question [1971]). On tautologies, your case is even weaker, as none of the common internet "fallacy" sites list it as a fallacy. The fact is that a tautology is a logical truth, and logic itself is built on tautologies. The law of the excluded middle is a tautology, modus ponens is a tautology, etc... Heck, a tautology in rhetoric is just redundancy, and not at all a fallacy in that domain, much less in logic's domain. On your "strawman", a misread is not a strawman. Neither is it a grammatical error. I was charitable and dropped my claim that you thought a tautology was a logical fallacy (though you later on did say that a tautology in some cases was a fallacy, dealt with above). I called you out on your other errors with respect to logic (not being able to symbolize what you claimed was a fallacy, equivocating dialectical fallacies with logic, calling circularity and tautologies related). You could care less about dialectical, formal, or informal and the distinctions of them in relation to logic and yet I don't understand the subtleties? My man, much of my point is clarifying the subtleties. Look at my posts. I've been distancing your fallacy claims from logic from the start. I'll tell you something taks, the reason I called you out is because I absolutely can't stand when someone says something to the effect of "you're illogical" while not relating it all to logic and while not understanding what logic is. You're not the only one to do it though, and I suppose that part of the problem is the semantics, with 'fallacy' and 'informal logic' and what not... What is the rest of this though? More attacks on mkreku combined with some sort of apologia for your insults? Don't worry taks, my feelings aren't hurt at all (I'm just not that thinned skinned to get upset over being called an ass or stupid or whatever, especially over the internet).

Some of the oddest scoring trends have been going on this year. Roughly 75% of games are the low scoring affairs we saw in the dead puck era, but then there are many of these blowouts and 10+ goal games...

Just a note taks, I'm not going to bother responding to your insults anymore, and stay on the topic at hand. Wrong dialectal "fallacy". The tautology and circular reasoning stuff was done in the previous post.

You need to study logic in a more formal setting buddy. Internet websites made for internet debating are not going to cut it I'm afraid. Equivocating logic and dialectics is your major problem in this discussion. Neither a circular argument nor a tautology can be "fallacious" in the rubric of logic (especially a tautology... you do know that basic deductive inferences like modus ponens or resolution are derived from tautologies). Strike one... If you are speaking of the domination laws where a proposition or a tautology are paired and the paired proposition is thus true, then you are sadly mistaken that it is a fallacy. Any type of proposition in this form is going to be deductively valid and indeed true, due to the nature of a tautology and the 'or' operator's truth values. Strike two... You did say that that particular statement was logically fallacious (in fact you said there were two logical fallacies in it) and you just reaffirmed here again. You need to stop telling others that they cant read or comprehend and be more accountable of what you actually say. If you don't remember where you said it, I'll post the link of the post: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?s=...st&p=807226 (it's in the second paragraph) Your killing yourself here taks... Strike three... oooh! oooh! I knew even you couldn't be so hard headed as to not change your position at all after it had been put down. The amended stance begins. They are now "informal fallacies" and not logical fallacies per se? Excellent, now all that's needed to be done is to make the point that: Informal fallacies have nothing to do with logic, they have to do with dialectic; they have to do with debate! From one of the journal articles I have on the topic of logic: Indeed, the case that it is not "real logic" is very strong. One of the main problems separating it from logic? Fallacies vs. actual evaluation of the form of the argument (logic is concerned with form; rhetoric is concerned with fallacies). Bolded emphasis mine (the most important snippet to this discussion, as the mistake you make is blurring logic with dialectic, and accuse people wrongly of "fallacies" which can be argued to be very reasonable), not to mention perfectly valid in the domain of logic. Bottom line, any of these dialectal fallacies (or "informal" if you'd like) are really weak. Accusing someone of a dialectical fallacy does very little to damage his argument and it certainly doesn't affect the logicality of it. I want you to take a look at what you have said taks: "ad-hominem is not a symbolically representable fallacy" Hmm, I wonder why? Now, in logic (which has to do with form), symbolic representation is key, because, hey, from symbolic representation you get the form and can evaluate with the deductive inferences as necessary. I saw it as a little jab at you. You know, like you calling me an ass or ignorant. A rhetorical ploy of which you are the master. You MISREAD it taks... tsk tsk. So taks, are you saying a false premise is a fallacy in logic? If so, you are completely incorrect. Fallacy has to do with form, not truth value. The logical fallacy (first mention of a fallacy that is actually a logical fallacy dealing with logic in this thread) affirming the consequent is fallacious, not because a premise is false, but rather because there is no valid deductive inference present. Anyone with a rudimentry understanding of logic would know this. What strike are we on? See above. That's not a strawman taks. Do you need a lecture on dialectal fallacies as well?

Excellent diversion by putting out ([even] more) insults. Are you actually going to reply to my rebuttal post tough guy? You have an uncanny talent for figuring out exactly the cause for an event, I must say. It has nothing to do with the fact that I enjoy reading these current even threads once in awhile, especially about science and society (the relationship between the two happens to be one of my interests) and the fact that your avatar is quite easy to remember and the fact that this board's search engine is quite convenient. I was just sitting on that statement for 3 months now, you got me good ace!

Boy, a "strawman". How the hell is pointing out that you don't have a clear understanding of logic by bringing up a past quote which demonstrates that you have a hazy idea of tautologies a strawman? It has relevance as you (wrongly) disparage another member of this forum for not understanding logic when you don't understand it yourself. Now, am I reading you correctly? You accuse me of "poisoning the well" by bringing up past comments about your poor understanding of logic while doing the exact same thing with mkreku? Hypocrisy! In fact, what the hell did his understanding of logic have to do with his statement in the first place? Nothing. It was just a rhetorical ploy used by you to demean him and his posts. You are guilty of the dialectical fallacies of which you accuse others. Nah, you're on your own on that.

Well, I say that you do not understand logic, which you do not. See how easy this is (and I have a stronger case as you have not been able to provide any symbolic formalization of his so called "logical failure" nor did you grasp that a tautology is not a logical fallacy. His argument is not a logical fallacy in any sense, because he did not even make an argument with that statement (see below). Makes a bit more sense if you meant his previous statements (quoting that one particular line before making your statement sure doesn't help clarity, but another rhetorical ploy is obfuscation, and I wouldn't put you above using it), although I'm still surprised you continue to push that his statement of "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" as a logical fallacy (see below). Ah, finally, the moment of truth! So, this is your "formalization" of his statement? What you have done is copy is statement and put the Latin name of a dialectical "fallacy" next to it, specifying it's form in an English translation. Now I am fairly certain you don't understand logic. You see, I was hoping that you would symbolically represent his statement as a set of propositions or predicates and then examine the form using the rules of deductive inference and show where the failure occurs. That is what formalization of an argument means in logic, and you should have known that if you were at all familiar with logic. Now, let me show you quite clearly, how his statement of "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" simply cannot be called a logical fallacy. The statement: "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" is not a preposition. We cannot analyze it with propositional logic. The statement: "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" is not a predicate. We cannot analyze it with first (or greater) order logic. What is the statement "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" then? It is an expression of an opinion, or a similar rhetorical phrase. Logic is not applied to it at all, as it falls outside the domain of logic. I have continued to point this out, that I saw no appeal to logic in this statement. You continue to assert that some logical failure occurred. Now that I have actually given you a hint on how you should go about trying to justify your assertion, please do so or drop you assertion and man up that you really had no idea what the hell you were talking about. He's a proven dolt and has made a single logical argument. Interesting propositions, though hard for me to believe either (how the hell do you prove someone is a dolt for one, and claiming that he has not made a single "logical" [though I'm not sure of what to make of your conception of logical] argument is certainly the generalization). Of course, more likely than not, they are not propositions at all, rather they are more rhetorical ploys. How boring. Wonderful, you give me a link to fallacy files and smugly hit enter (after dropping some more rhetorical invective), thinking your job is done. Sad to say it isn't. I will formalize a circular argument right now and show you: 1) A 2) B > C C) Therefore A The argument is perfectly deductively valid. By virtue of it's form, it is guaranteed that the conclusion is true if the premises are due to the nature of the deductive inference from 1 to C. There is no way that it would ever be considered a logical fallacy. Then again, you have shown that you do not have a clear understanding of logic at all, and blur the lines between dialectical fallacies and logic commonly. It's not surprising you would make such a mistake. I sure may have made a mistake in interpretation, and given the structure of dialogue: "...a logical fallacy right?" "yeah..." I think it's quite understandable that I interpreted that statement the way I did. Now, I want to point out another interesting proposition of yours: Did you say that a circular argument and a tautology are related? If so, you really seem to confused with the rubric of logic. Boy, no wonder the discussion head this way. Also, you seem to be saying I don't understand grammar. Please show me how ambiguities in the English language are related to grammar, and the grammatical rule that a statement with the form given above can only be interpreted in one way.

oh, my, gawd. yet another. ok, he said i'm wrong because i'm right wing. poisoning the well. of course, i've lobbed some insults myself (though i never said he was wrong because he's an idiot, just an idiot), so i can give him a pass on the ad-hominem. however, it is also a red-herring since my political views, views that he apparently does not understand, are immaterial to the discussion. he also said "why don't you prove CO2 is NOT the cause." that's what is called a strawman. i never said CO2 had NO impact, merely that it is not the primary impact. the hypothesis i'm attempting to falsify is that CO2 is the primary forcer, period. moving the goalposts to what amounts to proving a negative (as trueneutral correctly points out) is a strawman, period. he also makes an appeal to consequences, i.e. "what if we're wrong?" that's 4 but i credit him on 1 so only 3. oops, this actually counts as two because it is also an appeal to fear, yet another red herring, so that's 4. oh yeah, "prove that CO2 is not the cause" is also an argument ad ignorantium, and argument from ignorance. plus one more, makes 5. i could also call this a bifurcation, the black and white fallacy, because it's not as simple as CO2 is or is not a cause of global warming. certainly it has some impact, so it is not "either all or nothing." but i'll leave that be since it is subtle. the fact that folks like mkreku and others believe in consensus is an appeal to the many, i.e. the bandwagon fallacy. up to 6. i've gotten through C, shall i continue, or are you convinced of your own ignorance yet? Yawn. Yet another internet debater blurring the lines between dialectics and logics, throwing out a laundry list of fallacies (that have nothing to do with logic) and smugly hitting enter... I don't know why you brought up the other statements and arguments of mkreku, when I was merely bringing up his statement of "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" (there's a reason I left it quoted when I replied to your post), which has nothing to do with logic in any meaningful sense. If you really are intent or pursuing your misguided assertion that it is, please formalize his statement and show me. Of course, you just went for the rhetorical ploy of calling out your interlocutor's understanding of logic to support your own position. How boring. um, do you know what a tautology is? "A truth-functionally compound proposition which is true for every possible combination of truth-values of its components." not sure how you can get a tautology out of anything here, and i've clearly exposed his logical failures. yours included. Kinda dodging my question there taks, I know what a tautology is, however, given your statement here (as compared with one from the past), you seem to be ambivalent in your understanding of it. I seem to remember this statement of yours a while back: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry790019 yeah, a bit of a circular argument, or a tautology. taks So I'll ask you again, why do you (or did you) think a tautology is a logical fallacy (I'll spare you on your mistaking a circular argument for a logically fallacy for now)? Thanks for "exposing" my "logical failures", however, I think I'm still "convinced of my own ignorance" so please do continue.

i'm curious how your simple mind can come to the conclusion that this has anything to do with "right wing"??? what i have that you don't is extensive training in statistics, statistical data analysis methods and above all, i understand logic. something that apparently fails you. I would like to know exactly where mkreku logic failed him (in fact, I saw no appeal to any kind of logic except in the very basic structuring of his argument and semantic). Also, I seem to recall you saying in another thread that a tautology is a logical fallacy. As that is quite an error, I would hesitate (if I were you) to accuse others of not understanding logic.

Goals against average is calculated against a backdrop of a 60 minute game. Since the Montreal game versus the Canes went to overtime, Huet played a little more than 60 minutes and so his GAA was adjusted for it. You'll also often see goalies who play in a game that doesn't go to overtime have a GAA that is some decimal points over the amount of goals they let in, and this is because they didn't exactly play 60 minutes (factors like leaving the net for an extra attacker or for a delayed penalty call).

Hahaha! I jumped from 8th to 2nd in my league basically riding on big nights from Vinny and Alfie. I still don't understand this Yahoo Rotisserie scoring system though...

Oh man, I need to watch some Avalanche home games: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=51...h&plindex=0 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58...h&plindex=0 :D

A few questions about your methodology. When you say judge Christianity, Islam, or other religions on the behavior of all of their followers, can you give us insights on how you do this? I would be extremely grateful if you would share your theoretical methodology, as well as the practical, logistical aspects of your study. Do you use enumerative induction? Are you doing sampling and statistics? What percent is your confidence interval? What are the results of your Bayesian analysis? Or do you actually have data on every single element of the respective religious sets? Please email me a very small sampling of your research in an Excel file or another equivalent data entry software application. Also, with what guidelines do you interpret your data and arrive to your conclusion? I ask because, I would have thought that by looking at the entire community of a particular religion, the results would overwhelmingly show peaceful people who just want to get along with their lives and devotions. Of course, my guess is purely based on loose conjectures about the world around myself (a strong majority of people claim some religious affiliation and it only seems that a very small fraction of them do extremist things, and one could have genuine suspicions that the media which relates much of this information overblows it; however if you've done a rigorous study...)

I just can't say I like most of them, and not only that, I don't see how they will achieve the goal of "creating offense". My major issue is with the scheduling. This is, in my opinion, by far the worst change the NHL made post-lockout. I understand the importance of the division and don't mind encouraging divisional rivalry, but it is just too weird for every team in the NHL not to play every other team in the NHL at least once per season. Devoting nearly half a season to playing against 4 other teams really is counterproductive to generating interest in the game, as at least this fan wants to see different teams play together frequently, keeping the season fresh. I am against the changed rink dimensions as well. First and foremost, I really don't like the idea of restricting where goalies can play the puck. If anything, having goalies play the puck deterred teams from playing boring dump the puck and go get it hockey, and their long passes would create scoring chances. Now, one of the more understandable changes is getting rid of the red line for two line passes. I still don't like it, and frankly, it's not the way to prevent the trap from being played (teams now trap on the blue lines), but it really does help the flow of the game, and frankly, it's a big deal for these new rules to actually be effectual in fulfilling their purposes, so I'm not going to criticize it too much. Enlarging the end zones, constricting the neutral zone, and making the goals closer is really a pointless change. If you notice how most teams play and position in the other opponents zone, the resulting changes in dimensions, and additional area is really not going to make a difference or give guys in the slot more room. On the in game rules, I am ambivalent. I do support a restriction on clutching and grabbing, but really not to the extreme extent that it has gone to. I really don't see the point of penalizing players for accidentally shooting the puck over the glass (I didn't even see the point with goalies), and that rule is to me a really blatant attempt to influence powerplays. I like the instigator rule though, as it's just a stain on the league and the sport too see teams be bad losers and goon it up near the end. Oh, and on the shootout... I didn't have too much of a problem with it at the beginning, as I saw it as a natural progression of the game (like regular season overtime earlier in NHL history), but looking at the disproportionate influence it has had, I'm beginning to go sour on it. The fact that shootout "wins" have actually influenced divisional standings is just too much for me. I'd rather the league extend overtime; at least then actual hockey is being played. *a note: When Bernie Parent set the previous wins record with 47, there wasn't even an overtime. Those were 47 regulation wins, what a goalie! Now, there is stuff that I really like. I actually like the fact that the players salaries are cut back a bit. Now only if the owners would pass off some of the savings to the fans... The shrinking of goalie equipment is really a great change, and the only negative is that the league should have shrunk it more. One of the three main reasons (in my analysis) why scoring has gone down is goalie equipment sizes (the other being the decreased offensive ability of the players and the defensive systems that followed in part because of it). Goalies in the older days were not as well positioned simply because they couldn't be. A goalie with the equipment sizes today playing the angles right will be able to cut off most of the net. A goalie playing those exact same angles wearing smaller equipment would leave much more to shoot at. Given all the talk about making the nets bigger or the puck smaller, I'm not sure why more of the NHL high-up's and GM's don't see this point...

They are trying to increase the exposure of the NHL in Europe. What better way than having the season opener in Europe? Understood, but why London? Russia, Finland, Sweden, and the Czech Republic are all much larger hockey markets, and they also follow the NHL closely over there and I would encourage games there (like 2008-2009 season opener). On another note, I would love to see some RSL or SM Liiga games over here (I'd even love to watch some on TV).

By the way, let's see some fantasy team rosters: Mine from Yahoo: I'm in a 10 team league, but got 9th pick out of 10 . Still, I think I did pretty well. I drafted (round/pick number/player/commentary): 1. (9) Vincent Lecavalier (great pick, wasn't expecting him to drop like this) 2. (12) Daniel Alfredsson (another great pick, his +/- makes him better than Heatley or other wingers) 3. (29) Dan Boyle (good pick, couldn't forsee injury) 4. (32) Alexander Semin (good winger, maybe a bit early, but I have high hopes) 5. (49) Brad Richards (last year was obviously an off year, expect 90 points this time) 6. (52) Nikolai Khabibulin (underrated goalie will almost certainly do better with improved Chicago) 7. (69) Rick DiPietro (could be top 10 goalie with better team in front, still has upside) 8. (72) Jason Blake (good winger at about the right spot) 9. (89) Robert Lang (he'll bounce back like Richards, with his new team that suits him) 10. (92) Marek Svatos (looks like I was on crack, but in my defense, I'm in an Avs fan league) 11. (109) Sergei Zubov (a steal this low) 12. (112) Tom Poti (good defenseman in the 100's range) 13. (129) Nicklas Backstrom (another steal) 14. (132) Saku Koivu (another steal) 15. (149) Marek Zidlicky (good guy for range) 16. (152) Shane Doan (good guy for range) I wanted to use Svatos as tradebait so badly, but failed, so I sent him to waivers. I traded Backstrom for Naslund, and I'm happy with the deal, and I picked up Aucoin from waivers after Boyle went down. Looking at my team, I'm pleased with the depth. I'm relying on several players to bounce back into form, but I'm an optimist in my predictions! :D C: Lecavalier (look at my prediction for him earlier in the thread) C: Brad Richards (gonna bounce back into form) LW: Semin (40 goal scorer last year, let's see what he can do with Backstrom) LW: Jason Blake (40 goal scorer last year, let's see what he can do with Sundin) RW: Alfreddson (unlike some of my players, his actual worth is much higher than fantasy worth) RW: Naslund (look at my prediction for him, what a bounce back he'll have) D: Boyle (big loss from weird injury; on IR, replaced by Aucoin from waivers) D: Zubov (good fantasy defenseman) D: Poti (same) D: Zidlicky (same) Utility: Robert Lang (playing with Havlat on a Chicago team that needs him rejuvenates) G: Khabibulin (his team was bad these past two years; not anymore) G: DiPietro (his team still bad, but this guy still has an upside) Bench: Saku Koivu (it's just luxury, having Koivu on my bench) Bench: Shane Doan (decent forward for bench)

Iran and the Jewish People have a long history dating back to the Sack of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonian Empire 2600 years ago, where many dispersed to Persia, and again in 70 A.D. with the Sack of Jerusalem by the Romans where many again dispersed to Persia, and again in the 630's with Heraclius's reconquest of Jerusalem from the Sassanids, where the few that remained were again, dispersed; some to Persia. That long history is why, despite the current political situations, Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

Why the NHL has games scheduled in London? No offense to London or the Londoners, but though I support the idea of games at third party "neutral" sites, and don't mind the idea of outdoor games, shouldn't they be played in Winnipeg or Quebec or Minnesota? I would also be fine if they held the games in Russia, Finland, Sweden, or the Czech Republic. I just don't understand (then again I don't understand (or like) much about this "New NHL" anyway).

You sold me. I just pre-ordered The Orange Box right now! :D Of course, I'm not going to play or even install Half-Life 2 or it's expansions until I finish Half-Life and it's expansions, but I can't wait any longer for Team Fortress 2. Cantousent (and others interested), here is the website of The Orange Box (specifically Team Fortress 2). Here is a gameplay (what hooked me): Looks and sounds like The Incredibles with guns! :D

I just got into the Half Life series about 10 days ago, and it was due to a catchy side ad for The Orange Box. After looking at some YouTube footage of Team Fortress 2, I was hooked. Right now, I'm playing the original Half-Life which I brought off Steam. The graphics are kinda ruining some fun (they have an effect on the gameplay), which is odd for me because I care very little about graphics in general (I still prefer Icewind Dale, Super Mario World, NHL 94 to more recent games that I like). Still, I like the story and recognize it's influence and plan to finish the game and it's expansions before getting Half-Life 2 (otherwise I will not appreciate the game for what it is, like what happened with Age of Empires).

I'm almost certain NHL 08 for computer is still current gen. I'll be looking for a next gen version in 09 to buy my first EA NHL game since the classic NHL 2000 (I did play a lot of NHL 06 though). I still play NHL 94 of course, on the Super Nintendo. The greatest hockey game ever!

I remember reading here that one of the devs was really disappointed at the way the Fell Wood turned out as it was not at all how it was conceptualized. I didn't mind it too much myself (though I had a walkthrough and a character with max stats in wilderness lore) but I can certainly see why it was a sorer point of the game.

Icewind Dale is my all time favorite game. Ever. On any medium (non-electronic included). The sequel was a great game indeed, but I felt a little disappointed simply due to the greatness of the first. I'd take a new Icewind Dale game anyday still, though I think I read somewhere here that Obsidian would pursue their own game first (intellectual property?).