Gromnir

sure you did... 'course as we clear stated, "as for fun, we complete agree. sacrifice fun on the altar o' balance is stupid. the thing is, Gromnir don't have any idea how to be defining fun. your fun is likely different than ours, " well then, we can easily see how you would mistake our pov as being a "rigid, mathematical-like approach to game design." or not. am starting to see a systemic problem. *add another eye-roll." HA! Good Fun! side-note: we will concede that Gromnir is rational. no doubt this strikes some folks as rigid and mathematical.

aside: we wish Di still posted, seeing as how she were a romance novelist. no doubt we would be appalled by her contributions, but we can still mourn the absence. HA! Good Fun!

you got a point. still, if edward is a fifty-year old professor from new jersey, even if is a fantasy, am thinking we got a Very different scenario in the minds o' teenage girls and parents, and others. also, we doubt the female protagonists in such romances your friends read is teenage girls. HA! Good Fun!

who says they wouldn't get punished in the US? they would not get punished for the racial slurs... though there is weird enhancement laws that is a bit odd and would take much time and effort to explain... and seeing as how the Court seems confused by such enhancements, am not sure we would be helping. anywho... words alone are not enough... in most situations. you got more than that above. HA! Good Fun!

No, no, no that's completely wrong. I believe in freedom absolutely but not if that freedom means it offends or hurts someone else Sorry to say but there can be no freedom like that, you give people too much freedom you'll see peoples true colors. It goes a little something like this in my mind, Law - Limited Freedom, Standard Protection from Others Chaos - Absolute Freedom, No Protection from Others; Survival of the Fittest well, if we all lived in Melniboné, that would be perfectly reasonable. HA! Good Fun!

objective is not there. so what? you disagreed when we stated that you cannot define our definition/perception of fun. sooo... if you reject our claim that fun is subjective, whether or not we used word "subjective, " then... is an if/then statement... can you fill in the "then" part? *insert chicago-style eye-roll* sheesh. HA! Good Fun!

we can read Lolita and be amazed by Nabokov's craft. the thing is, we read Lolita with full awareness o' the nature o' the relationship. is a young girl and a much older man. there is some poignant moments in Lolita, particularly at the end of the novel, but Nabokov does not shy away from the realities o' the relationship. twilight is not 'bout the realities. twilight is the fantasy, and where as Lolita is open and honest with readers 'bout Humbert's fascination with "nymphets," twilight uses vampire shtick to camouflage. is the camouflage a bad thing? not necessarily. authors does such stuff all the time-- call it extended metaphor and get all pompous 'bout their cleverness. hell, is the kinda thing we does. regardless, am not thinking that the target audience can see through the camouflage. if a generation o' teenage girls were writing Humbert + ________ on their notebooks, or were picturing Humbert as he sparkled in the sunlight, most o' us adult folks would be dismayed and a bit appalled.... and conflicted 'cause we would be happily shocked that so many young folks were reading Nabokov. nevertheless, make Humbert a vampire, and it is all ok... 'cause then he is a fantasy protagonist, and 'cause the target audience is too gullible to see through the camouflage. is creepy. even if is fantasy, is creepy. HA! Good Fun!

"They're more fun to play than fighters, and more versatile than thieves." is a direct quote from you. you specific rejected Gromnir's argument that it were impossible for you to define our fun. not what you meant? that ain't Gromnir's fault. HA! Good Fun!

*shrug* am doubting Copi is required reading at any high school save for tweedy prep schools... and who the heck takes intro to logic at university these days? doesn't matter, but am almost never seeing people correct identify ad hominem fallacy, so don't feel bad. am admitting we is perplexed by how frequently we sees people claim straw man and ad hominem. logic is a very blunt tool and seeing as how few people actually had to study it, am amazed that these logic fallacies has entered common usage on internet message boards covering a dizzying array o' subject matter. HA! Good Fun!

our sister went to Berkeley after we did. she lived at the "roachdale" co-op and had seven roommates, all of whom were lesbian. our sister were one o' those statistics-- she were assaulted coming home from the library one night. so, we started visiting her almost every weekend... you know, 'cause that is what brothers do when they can't do anything useful. anyway we got to spend loads o' time with her new friends. hanging out with a bunch o' lesbians almost every weekend for a couple years, and routinely kicking their arses in basketball, were the closest we has ever come to being female. HA! Good Fun!

I still don't get it. So you are male? I wonder why MC said female. I was under the impression you guys voicechat during CoH games. does it matter? we likes to picture all of you naked... but naked and looking like monica bellucci, grace kelly, bettie page, etc. is amazing how much more interesting reading a vol posts is as long as we can hold onto such images. one o' the positives o' the internet is that it frequent don't matter if you is rich, poor, ugly, beautiful or... whatever. say something worthwhile and people will listen. am not saying that is always the case, but it is nice that we can post and not have to get special treatment just 'cause we is beautiful-- our stunning good looks being a bit of a curse. HA! Good Fun!

No, no, no that's completely wrong. I believe in freedom absolutely but not if that freedom means it offends or hurts someone else That's not something that, as the offending party...or even necessarily the offended party...can control. it is fascinating to see how folks raised elsewhere sees different. in the US we view as kinda obvious that the speech that is most needing protection is speech that is likely to offend somebody. nevertheless, elsewhere, it is seen as equal obvious that hurtful or hateful speech is not worthy of govt. protection. we has actual written articles on this subject. HA! Good Fun! You may have written articles on it but this post is a gross oversimplification AND misinterpretation of what is going on. Americans always say their most important amendment is free speech, but they're really not because they confuse their freedom to offend with their freedom to abuse. EDIT: This post rubbed me the wrong way and I edited out some choice comments about how dumb American law is that I added just to piss off the lawyer. My apologies. well hyperbole aside, we thinks your post is helpful as it does show how folks from places other than USA view freedom o' speech different. as we said earlier. it is fascinating. HA! Good Fun!

No, no, no that's completely wrong. I believe in freedom absolutely but not if that freedom means it offends or hurts someone else That's not something that, as the offending party...or even necessarily the offended party...can control. it is fascinating to see how folks raised elsewhere sees different. in the US we view as kinda obvious that the speech that is most needing protection is speech that is likely to offend somebody. nevertheless, elsewhere, it is seen as equal obvious that hurtful or hateful speech is not worthy of govt. protection. we has actual written articles on this subject. HA! Good Fun!

don't blame bruce for this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419 we got a bbc series o' stories on our work laptop that we always gives to euro clients as it does a fantastic job o' explaining fundamental differences 'tween US Constitutional protection o' free speech and what most o' the rest o' the world recognizes as free speech. maybe we access it later as it is informative for both non-Americans and Americans alike. is some things we take for granted here in the USA that other nations has decided is... wrong. HA! Good Fun!

Yes to a certain degree that's correct. Its the same as the laws in your country and mine that prosecute people for racist comments or comments about rape using mediums like Twitter. So you should take this issue up with the UK justice department? Let me know what they say I would absolutely hate to live in such a country. We have the NSA mining our every communication but sure as hell the Feds won't come knocking whenever I quote hardcore gangsta rap (without due citation) on Twitter. Wow its funny you think that in the USA you can just say what you want with no consequences. What happened to Donald Stirling recently? The government had nothing to do with Donald Sterling. The NBA policed the matter on their own. First Amendment only protects individuals from government prosecution for voicing opinions/beliefs. The NBA is not the government. US laws protect your right to free speech, but doesn't protect you from acting like a moron and not suffer the consequences from your community or employer should you be in violation of company rules. Any quibbles about such alleged violations can be settled in court. Okay so in the USA you don't prosecute for words. That's fine I understand that. Many Western countries can and do charge people for derogatory and offensive comments. The point being I support these types of legal prosecutions which is why leferd said he were glad he lives here... 'cause while every democratic and "westernized" nation claims they got freedom o' speech, only the USA gots something that resembles what we would consider freedom o' speech. HA! Good Fun!

that's how this all started btw-- somebody told us that that it were objective more fun to play a bard in bg2 than it were to play a fighter. we pointed out that there simply is no way to tell us what is and ain't fun for us... then we added bit about pizza. *shrug* we thought it were kinda funny how things evolved considering our point on the issue. HA! Good Fun!

Actually, 'Tep, vampire stories have always had a sexual element to them. Dammit, Dracula is a love story, unrequited to boot. I've read cultural critiques of vampire fiction, from Anne Rice's Vampire Lestadt to True Blood as analogues for AIDS, BDSM and all everything else inbetween. Dammit, if Christian Grey had fangs then Fifty Shades might have caused the World To Explode. So Twilight, if you want to look at it's subtext as piece of stunningly successful popular culture, actually subverts what was traditionally a dark, adult trope (forbidden, dangerous, otherworldly lover) and dumps it smack-bang in the middle of young adult literature. You can't ignore that cultural baggage. I'm not suggesting the author intended to do anything other than write powerful YA fiction, but you need to know the clay from which you intend to fashion something better than she did. well, she sold lots of books, so perhaps she knew what she were doing, yes? author weren't trying to makes a mature fantasy. she were making a teen romance, so her clay were not same as bram stoker's. ... in fact, just for sake o' argument, Gromnir is gonna assume a more nefarious bent to twilight. there is taboo subject matter for western romance. incest, rape, pedophilia and a host o' other subjects is verboten and just plain disturbing. nevertheless, there is an audience for such stuff. the thing is, if you does a teen romance wherein the female protagonist literally throws self off a cliff to get the attention o' a creepy, stalker, daddy figure... and the male romantic interest is a fifty-year old music teacher from hoboken, you is gonna have parents justifiably concerned. even if the teen girls can see the "beauty" o' such a forbidden love, the rest o' us is gonna recognize that the fantasy is freaking twisted. but guess what, author makes protagonist a vampire and everybody is ok with it... 'cause... *shrug* don't ask us why it is ok, 'cause it is distressing and wrong in our eyes. regardless, by using vampires, the author can inject superpowers and magic into the romance, as well as exploring taboo subject matter. the author, if she were sinister and calculating, were perhaps fully cognizant o' exactly what she were doing... which makes all o' this even more freaking disturbing... and that much more o' a reason dave's fascination with the effectiveness o' twilight romance should concern folks. no, am not saying dave should be insulted, but when dave lauds effectiveness o' twilight, somebody Should voice concerns. somebody Should point out that twilight works precisely 'cause immature readers don't realize how creepy and misguided it is. somebody Should caution dave against using what made twilight effective at selling romance to 14-year old girls and cellar-dwellers to sell bioware romance. somebody should... not Gromnir though 'cause as long as bio romance is tangential and optional, we is satisfied that such stuff won't ever be part o' our gaming experience. HA! Good Fun! ps is actual sad that so many folks don't know real dracula. it were, first and foremost, a gothic Romance. pps what is double-confusing to Gromnir is that the only likable and sympathetic characters from the movie were the human adults. for chrissakes, how does a kid with such likeable parents turn out so freaking wrong? if everybody had such understanding and supportive parents, am betting that 50 years ago we woulda' seen a cure for cancer and we would all be driving "cars" that fly and run on seawater.

This seems to be the main argument from the boob armour crowd that I've seen. Regular use of ad hominem attacks simply makes the remainder of your argument completely irrelevant. am not sure people know what ad hominem means and why it is a fallacy. --Nietzsche? how can you take anything he said seriously? the rat bastard had syphilis. --the main proponent of the new dam project is cheating on his wife. perhaps he should fix his marriage before he tries and fix our community. as far as logic is concerned, is nothing wrong with being insulting. the aforementioned Nietzsche were less than gentle with his less gifted detractors and his barbs in no way diminished the validity o' his arguments. ad hom is problematic when the character insult replaces the argument, or when a person claims that an argument fails because o' the arguers's character flaw. destroy an argument And call opponent a "mouth-breathing troglodyte with delusions of consciousness" is not making argument fail 'cause o' use o' ad hominem. ... in fact, 'cause it is ironic and all, claiming that argument fails just 'cause person X is insulting is an ad hominem fallacy. isn't that funny? well, Gromnir sees the humor. HA! Good Fun!

You right I could have said that and attempted to catch Gromnir out with that logic. But that isn't my intention. I was just raising the consideration with Gromnir that maybe he is doing exactly what Gaider is suggesting. He is disliking Twilight because " everyone" tells him its a puerile series. He is not practicing critical thinking but being more of a sheep. Also I don't think it is fair to suggest that anyone outside of being a 14 year old female teenager that enjoyed Twilight is a troglodyte that lives in a cellar. Especially if you haven't watched the entire series, this goes towards a persons credibility on a topic we used the cellar dweller language 'cause dave did. am gonna also observe that dave made some pretty broad generalizations in his blog post, but we leave for another time. nope, you don't need to live in cellar to like twilight... though we bet lack o' experience with real world would be helpful in appreciating the series. folks with head injuries who has emotionally regressed? is some kinds o' dementia that we believe emotionally retards sufferer. is some folks who simply like childish things and carry that over to romance. heck, we likes all kinda literature made for kids. more than once we has noted that phantom tollbooth, swiftly titling planet, and a number o' gaiman books is 'mongst our favorite fantasy works. the thing is, there is a difference 'tween made-for-kids, and juvenile/insipid/puerile. speaking of gaiman, we liked stardust very much. is a fairytale with romance integral to story. if dave wanna consider source material that can be appreciated by fourteen-year old girls without treating us all as if we is stereotypical fourteen-year old girls, stardust would be a good option. HA! Good Fun!

That's very interesting, so you admit you haven't watched all the Twilight movies but you believe you can offer an informed opinion around the good and bad of this cult series ? Do you honestly think that this type of analysis would be considered acceptable and valid in RL around any other topic or subject that requires critical thinking? I'll leave it at that and you let ponder my words yes. is valid. how many episodes o' breaking bad were there? assume for a moment that we claimed to hate breaking bad. any jackarse that made claim that we should watch all five freaking seasons before making a judgment is nuts, stupid or just obtuse. am recalling that we walked out of a nicolas cage and tommy lee jones movie. how bad could it be with tommy lee jones and nicolas cage? were called firebirds and it were kinda a top gun knockoff... but cage was playing campy and everybody else were straight. 45 minutes were our limit, and no humane person woulda' demanded that we spend another minute watching before we justifiably dismissed firebirds as complete ****. we can go on if you wish. wheel of time books? how many of those were there? a dozen or so, right? each were 400-500 pages. no f-ing way. guess what, no novelist we know would demand that you read 24 chapters o' crap if the first 12 were horrible. we got some experience with this. is artists job to make appealing and not to make you endure. we is fair. not nice, but we is fair. HA! Good Fun! ps we liked breaking bad

is nothing wrong with being dismissive of something. am not sure why you thinks it is bad to be dismissive of... crap. we sat through a couple o' the twilight films. it were physically painful, but we were told by a peer that we couldn't be fair less we experienced... and he were correct. so 2 movies an 1/3 o' a book were limit for us. crap. watch all movies just to be critical? HA! ridiculous. not even dave would demand that of us. what we experienced were more than satisfactory to make a judgement: insipid, puerile, juvenile. is not that twilight were a particular bad teen romance/melodrama. is fact that it was a very predictable teen-aged girl's romance. seriously, what is so complicated 'bout this? twilight is very successful with fourteen-year old girls. which makes sense as it were created to appeal to fourteen-year old girls. Gromnir is not a fourteen year-old girl. and btw, to avoid confusion, we ain't dismissive of 14-year old girls. we is dismissive of twilight. is a difference. HA! Good Fun!

we heard beyonce try and do etta james. weren't painful or pathetic, but it did illustrate just what an inimitable talent ms. james were.

no, we said that sandman were excellent, but we did admit that making death a perky goth/punk girl were a cheese element in sandman. was a recognition that even good comics could has some cheese. HA! Good Fun! ps with very few exceptions, good comic-book is an oxymoron

am thinking dave did do himself a disservice by making that blog post. we woulda' laughed at the situation, or made some kinda joke 'bout it all. the thing is, in trying to explain away the criticisms, he seems to bolster them a bit. "Yes, I get it. It’s funnier to repeat that, how a writer for a major franchise known for its romances might have a burning love for the Twilight series. Especially to those who think the romances I write are juvenile, and how anyone who likes our romances is clearly either a fourteen-year old girl with moonpies for eyes or an emotionally-stunted guy who’s never had a relationship in his life." ok, that's kinda funny. the problem we got is that dave then admits that he wrote the following: "Well, I think Twilight is far more effective with its romantic elements than most people give it credit for. Granted, it has little else going for it— but the romance it does well. I find it a fascinating exercise to analyze exactly why that is." *sigh* dave has gotta be aware that the target audience o' the twilight series is, "fourteen-year old girl(s) with moonpies for eyes or an emotionally-stunted guy who’s never had a relationship in his life." yes, am thinking we all agree that twilight has been enormously successful at selling romance. that is not a fact in question. however, dave's claims that twilight does an admirable job at crafting romance, and that he thinks the series is worth analyzing (presumably to improve his own romances) makes grownups shudder with revulsion... and it makes the trolls dance with glee. the only people who want you to take anything positive away from the twilight romances is the twilight target audience: teen-aged girls and pathetic cellar dwellers. dave, don't you see the damage you are doing to yourself? please, step back and look at what you is saying. you gotta recognize that you is only giving the folks who dismiss your romance efforts more ammo with which to attack you. romance is not universal. romance is culturally biased and travels only slightly better than comedy. also, romance ages. if we were a 14 year old girl, we would probable like the twilight movies better than the painted veil (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446755/). heck, am wondering if teenage girls even likes the somewhat more familiar melodrama o' atonement (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0783233/). regardless, to hold up twilight as a model for romance is exactly what some folks is seeing as the problem with bio romance writers. dave, help us help you. HA! Good Fun! ps if the target audience for twilight romance were fourteen-year old boys it wouldn't make the romance any better... just shorter and more graphic.

"As to Alan Moore and the most recent League volume, was simply stating dislike of it. Attribute that to a random thought." then ​perhaps you wanna put in a different paragraph or something. brie, or any cheese that needs be eaten at room temperature, strikes Gromnir as peculiar. is seeming that you have many random thoughts that have little bearing on two or three sentences previous. is making your posts less coherent than you intended... and this is coming from a guy who posts as we do. most of rest of your previous post is genuine not worth responding to as is well-tread at this point. we will note that you is making loads o' excuses for your favorite comic... not that anybody could defend sins past, one more day, animal totems, and the other. gonna disagree with fford on sandman. regardless o' your opinion o' our taste, we will note that sandman is the only comic that we can recollect that has won the world fantasy award for short fiction. puts gaiman in company with fritz leiber, joe haldeman, john ford and johnathan campbell and others. frank mcconnell, who were on the pulitzer prize fiction jury numerous times, were a big fan o' sandman... said that "the doll's house" were best published work o' fiction 89/90... didn't distinguish as a comic neither. is awards and opinions o' pundits definitive? 'course not, but sandman got approval from the larger literary community... which might actually be why some comic geeks hated it so. HA! Good Fun!