Bartimaeus

I don't think Bruce ever comes in here.

Couldn't we start on the grass or something else before each other?

Seems like someone watched a little too many X-Files episodes...

You may be thinking of Kramer's Dominican cigar rollers...and not Cuban like he initially thinks....but I don't think they ever actually mention that particular myth.

Hey, I like...um...mechanical women...as much as the next person, but the least she could do is put on some clothes...at least for the title card, doggonit...and not make the game look so silly. Steam reviews have their use...namely, telling if a game is completely broken or completely terrible: anything at or below "mixed" and it almost always means at least one of those. Beyond that, it seems like they don't really usually mean much...particularly when it comes to indie games, where users have an odd tendency to give overwhelmingly positive reviews to games that have neat premises, but are executed in such a boring and/or repetitive manner that there's no way you'd want to actually COMPLETE the game. Be sure to post in the "what are you playing" topic if you ever get around to it.

No...no, they really don't. I had to stick through with it, though, because there wasn't anything else even vaguely interesting-seeming on...and I didn't feel like turning on a movie just for while I was making food. Rotting dumpster corpses it is!

I didn't realize Cradle was made by former Stalker devs. I'm a huge believer of "judging a book by its cover", and I have to say, the title card artwork is really off-putting to me. Looks like some unbelievably terrible indie sci-fi game.

Yes...that would usually be the normal thing to do for someone who actually wants to support and convince others of their outlandish claims, wouldn't it...if the person actually had evidence and didn't instead just blow off anyone who dared question their asininity. I watched an episode of Dirty Jobs about dumpster diving for rotten, half maggot-devoured corpses while preparing food. An ill-advised choice on my part.

It was O.K. until the vocals kicked in. Gosh, I hate growly vocals.

On these forums?

Here: Now that makes sense, I get that 100 % and its interesting Put it all together, Bruce... It's just English, after all.

I never, ever, even sort of said any of those things, though, or even vaguely referenced them. I said what effect increasing polarization was having upon issues like the one we were discussing...you know, the one that this topic is about...and you went off on a completely unrelated tangent while also engaging in the very behavior you were complaining about in your original post in the topic?

Didn't I already pretty clearly spell out what I meant in my first two replies to you? I don't think I much left anything I wanted to say unstated (e: at least, in regards to this topic: I very clearly stated how increasing polarization is, in my opinion, affecting an issue like this).

Well, that's simply not how a "discussion" works: has anyone, when coming from an opposing viewpoint, ever just flat-out accepted and agreed with what you said, Bruce? I would need...heh...proof of it if you said they had. I also doubt, from what I know, that I would ever concede the issue, because all evidence I've ever heard points to the U.S. becoming increasingly polarized, and so far, you haven't said anything that empirically suggests otherwise...but hey, if you can conjure up evidence, I'll gladly hear it. Polarization: "Noun: a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions" is essentially what I going with.

If you want to disagree with somebody without getting into an argument with them, a good first step would be to not make wild assertions that they're incorrect, and then only use anecdotal evidence to back yourself up...and then say that logic and evidence are anathema to a so called "friendly discussion". That is the very opposite of the normal behavior of someone that just wants to have a friendly discussion: that is being anti-intellectual and anti-reason, which will never, ever, in a million years ever make for a "friendly discussion". If your evidence is purely anecdotal like theirs, you read their post, and then you say, "Really? I've only had opposite experiences in regard to this issue...", and then the other person can expound upon what they were saying with more anecdotal experiences...OR, if they wish, bring in actual evidence and logic. Communication is a two-way street...and you only control one of those two ways, Bruce: if someone wants to bring in logic and evidence, and you can't argue or cope with it, the normal thing to do - that is, the thing most reasonable people would consider the normal thing to do - would be to bow out of the discussion instead of obstinately going on and on and on and on about points - points that others have either already disputed or conceded were valid either directly or indirectly* but were still not enough to actually convince them of your position - like you do without hardly ever actually bloody adding anything new to the discussion. If you do want to say somebody is actually wrong - like you seem to so much of the time - you had best be prepared to back up what you're saying to an at least slightly greater degree than they can theirs (i.e. NOT anecdotal evidence vs anecdotal evidence). That's the important bit. *If one does not have a counter to a point, then it's usually because one can not counter said point or it is deemed irrelevant to the discussion at hand: one must use discretion in the latter case, depending on how central of a point it actually was to your discussion/argument, and what exactly the other person is arguing against must then be re-evaluated.

There was a really, super, extraordinarily way of doing that that I have been "alluding" to in about my last half dozen posts or so: don't directly contradict what somebody else says if there isn't evidence or a logical argument to be found either way - or if you can't be bothered to actually field one yourself - whether it's in support of or in opposition of yourself. What you're doing is highly anti-intellectual* and, not to mention, just plain insulting and, yes, condescending. What did you expect me to say in return to you contradicting me? "Nuh-uh, my anecdotal experiences disagree with yours!"? I already said my piece in regards to my own thoughts: the only thing left to discuss was where you get off on of telling people they're wrong without you being able to form any sort of respectable argument as to why you think that somebody is wrong. I never contradicted your personal experiences and perspective, because I can't logically do so in good faith without actual evidence that suggests that you're wrong. You, on the other hand, seem to have no issue in doing exactly just that. (e): The only other thing I could've done is actually given proper evidence...of which there is plenty of for my original point of increasing polarization in America, such as here...but of course, you don't want to go to evidence and logic-based arguments, because...what, that would make it difficult for you - and I do mean specifically you - to continue arguing your own "points"? *noun: a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality; noun: a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-intellectual

Attacked? You're the one dismissing people's opinions and perspectives out of hand, Bruce, not me. You're also the one that called me lazy and annoying for daring trying to make you back up your assertion that I was wrong. You did not just disagree with my opinion: you said I was "misunderstanding the reality in the USA and seeing something that is just an aspect as the big picture", "you are confusing internet debates and U.S. politics as a reflection of society", "[it] appears I (BruceVC) do know more about American society than you guys if you are seriously suggesting that US society is polarized"...all only based on your "numerous trips to the USA". And then went on about a bunch of stuff like Obama and free speech that was peripheral to the discussion at best while claiming that you pointed out an "inherent contradiction" in what I was saying...which I asked you to expound upon, which you never did. That's not mere disagreement: that is dismissal. Worse, you have the gall to insult me for bothering to ask for any sort of evidence or logical argument as to why you think you do - you're the one contradicting me, remember? I, on the other hand, merely stated that nobody was going to be convinced by just words without actual evidence or logic-based arguments...and for good reason, as this discussion has very clearly shown. And don't call me surly. I prefer "prickly", or "cantankerous", or "crotchety", or...

About six posts later after your original request as to why I felt the way you did (and then your subsequent dismissal of me), you admit at least that (and only just barely). Well done: really setting the standards in both humility and grace, Bruce.

It does matter when you're contesting what I'm saying, or, in this case, outright contradicting it - something you still haven't taken back nor apologized for, I might add. Nor was it something I did to you, so why would you ask for evidence on my part? I was not saying your perspective was wrong like you're doing to me: I was just saying that I have a different one, and I also said mere words weren't going to convince anybody of anything. I made an edit to my previous post, just in the event that this topic was going to get back more on topic:

Now I literally am not understanding you at all. What inherent contradiction did you point out? And how does our discussion here...one party a South African citizen, the other a U.S.-ian...say something - anything - about U.S. society at large that could ever possibly be considered more than anecdotal at best? I would also like to remind you that you're the one that contradicted my - the one that actually lives in the U.S. - perspective...and without posting anything more than anecdotal evidence (the same as myself, again, excepting that I actually live in the U.S....), while I pointed out that that mere words like we've both only supplied - without evidence, without any logical reasoning - would be unlikely to sway somebody of any persuasion. And your latest counterpoint is that you've somehow pointed out an "inherent contradiction" in my logic? What logic? All I did was bring up some anecdotal evidence and my own perspective, same as you did. (e): JadedWolf's post after mine here reminded me of what this thread was originally about: Bruce complaining that he didn't like it when others dismissed his opinions and perspective out of hand because of his skin color...and now he's doing the same to me because he's been to the U.S. a few times and thinks he knows better. The irony is palpable.

You're a top-notch troll when you want to be one, Bruce. Other times, like now, not so much.

Thanks for supporting my post, at the very least. I didn't like posting that, because it seemed very dismissive of Bruce's perspective - which wasn't my intention - but the fact remained that he was directly contradicting me (and on multiple points) without providing any actual sort of logical counterpoint or evidence while saying I was wrong and that he knew better. C'mon, Bruce: didn't we just have a discussion not too long ago about condescension?

That's funny, because, as I already said, I have the opposite opinions in regards to both the actual U.S. as well as online discussions. Of course, you would know better having visited the U.S. versus someone who actually lives there.

This is no doubt at least a little ironic, but I don't feel like I really need others' affirmations to confirm what seems to be patent to me, and what seems obvious if you pay even an ancillary amount of attention to our media empires (hey, another thing people are polarized about: corporations and capitalism in general, ), and the fact that most normal people still seem to be buying into the idea that there's only two (worthwhile?) sides for any given issue. Other perspectives would be great, too, but it'd be very hard to convince me of the opposite with just words...just as I'm sure anyone of the opposite bent from me will likely not be convinced by just my words, either.

I'll speak for the U.S., since that's where I currently reside: most everything seems highly polarized here in general U.S. society. Democrat vs. Republican, pro-choice vs. pro-life, pro-same-sex marriage vs. the opposite, pro-multiculturism vs. anti-multiculturism, pro-Israel vs. anti-Israel, etc. You get a wider variety of opinions on these issues in forums like these, but in general society, it feels like everyone is so polarized about most everything. It's tiring and depressing, particularly when you consider the fact that it doesn't have to be this way. *shrug*