Gromnir

universal like? am not certain anybody has ever striven for such. am doubtful that any sane person ever considered such a benchmark to be a reasonable goal or measure. that being said, some authors is both popular and appreciated by the folks in the ivory towers. jack london made loads o' money as an author... which were pretty much unheard of til the mid 20th century. at the same time, london gots academic cred. cormac mccarthy is a more modern example o' an author who finds considerable commercial and academic appeal. mccarthy books almost invariably makes bestsellers lists, and has frequent been turned into movies. at the same time, mccarthy is gonna be on the short list o' greatest living authors cobbled together by most any critic or professor one cares to question. yeah, authors such as joyce or pynchon pretty much thumb their noses at the dirty, unwashed masses... dares the public to like their works. regardless, there is no insurmountable dichotomy o' popularity and quality, eh? is actual kinda funny that josh brings up faulkner and hemingway in the present context. while faulkner novels may have frequent scared the faint o' heart, he were also quite successful as a writer o' popular and sucessful movie screenplays. is not as if faulkner dumbed down his writing for movies neither- he simply recognized the differences and limitations o' the respective medium he were working with. in point o' fact, faulkner wrote the screenplay for To Have, and Have Not, a movie based 'pon a hemingway novel. heck, feel free to mention this tidbit o' trivia when next you speak to the obsidian writers. if they ever adopt a "pearls before swine" mentality, kick 'em in the chops with faulkner's The Big Sleep or Gunga Din movie credits. as for pmp comments... is startling that we already addressed most o' your concerns earlier in this thread. wacky setting for sci-fi and fantasy IS almost a given, but that don't mean that the characters needs necessarily be wacky. regardless, no matter how wacky or alien a character is, the author needs make the character fundamentally human or the audience will not be able to empathize. no empathy = no emotion = fail. etc. if we repeats our self yet again, tale could chastise us for spam. am not seeing a pmp issue we didn't already address. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

Oooh, Tale loves the game. What do you love about it? What about the SP was excellent? For however much I love it, there's several people around here who felt it was repetitive. most o' the reviews we read echoed the above sentiment. reviewers loved the game... for the first hour or so. followed by grind, grind, grindgrindgrindgrindgrindgrindgrindgrindgrind. characters and story were too shallow to overcome the ultimately tedious and repetitive gameplay. we have not played, but the warhammer franchise intrigues us enough that we has been following. HA! Good Fun!

oh sure. let us get out our script o' fo:nv and dead money. shucks, we don't have no script, so a "critical literary appraisal" is gonna be somewhat problematic, eh? *snort* we already pointed out the fortune-cookie flow/be like water nonsense from dog/god, but the best examples o' problematic chrisA stuff is from motb. now, we has all witnessed the stereotypical and clich

have no idea what eastenders is, but your beckett comment is childish straw-man. indulge in hyperbole much? in any event, while the setting and situations in sci-fi and fantasy is frequent over-the-top, the characters need not be... and should not be. the more remote characters become from reality, the less a reader is able to empathize. phillip k. d1ck's Roy from blade runner is an android, but he is very human. what makes roy ultimately such a great character is not his super strength or his shortened life-span. is his humanity... and **** didn't have to spell that out, did he? give sci-fi characters wacky attributes is fine... is why we mentioned geek love's freaks. the problem with chrisA characters is that he stops at the wacky, and for gets to make genuine and human. no matter how unique or alien is the sci-fi character's attributes, if his/her humanity is clich

yeah, "moving" in a cartoony kinda way. is too bad that the pc were not voiced, 'cause when we told dog/god (paraphrased) to be or flow like water, it sooooo needed a bruce lee impersonation. and am not even gonna detail the maudlin camp that were the dog/god positive epilogue. however, just as sawyer recognized that crpg fans demand very little o' the mechanics in games, we has observed that crpg fans tends to be far more accepting o' bad writing in games than they is o' writing in other media. some o' that is understandable as games gots different limitations than does drama, novels and even comic books. even so, as there is instances o' quality writing in games, there is obviously nothing that makes such admirable attempts impossible. am recalling a crpg roundtable in which chrisA noted the overwhelming importance o' character concept in crpg writing. is possible that chrisA has over-invested in his own theory, 'cause his dramatis personae tend to suffer from the wacky. 'stead o' making compelling through what the characters does, chrisA takes the shortcut and makes unique by having 'em suffer from mpd or similar oddities. he then gives his freak show menagerie dialogs that is overdone and a bit campy. there were a novel written in the late 80s or early 90s... were called geek love. the characters were actual freak show oddities. the thing is, while the situations and characters o' geek love were obviously unusual, the albino dwarf and fish-boy were both very human and genuine. is our opinion that mr. avellone is far too reliant on the wacky concept. even so, he did ravel... and we liked kreia, dean domino, and many other chrisA characters quite a bit. as a whole, planescape is still our favorite crpg, and we enjoyed dead money Writing if not the gameplay. we applaud much o' chrisA work, but like any young author he tends to overwrite. the thing is, he ain't a young author no more. HA! Good Fun! (edit: might need a new keyboard as we had multiple missing "t"s in our post. fixed)

have you ever read chrisA stuff? is frequent overwritten to a comical degree. a noteworthy example o' this failing is the dog/god dialogues and epilogue from dead money. on the other hand, chrisA does come up with some uniquely compelling characters, but he is just as likely to indulge in the comic book silliness you identify. he writes like a young author. am gonna guess that the thing that has hurt chrisA the mostest since planescape is his reputation. mr. avellone needs a take-no-prisoners editor to review his work and point out the heavy-handed nonsense that creeps into his writings. unfortunately, established writers often find it more difficult to gets good criticism than does tyros. for some folks it is harder to criticize updike than joe shmoe, eh? 'course, am only guessing that the writing you reference is chrisA... and the fact is that we didn't read the linked material 'cause we not like to be spoiled. even so, when we hears obsidian writing being described as cartoony or comic book, we cannot help but thinks o' dove from motb, god/dog from dead money, and a half dozen other characters that suffered from chrisA overindulgence. HA! Good Fun! ps visas mar may be the worst example o' the comic book silliness we can recollect, but am having a foggy 'membrance that a writer other than chrisA were responsible for most o' the blind sith's lines in kotor. could be wrong.

is amazing how personal experiences differ. we got ps:t on day 1 from a local computer gaming store at a nearby mall in CA. at the front o' the store were a cardboard cutout some 4' tall that included images o' tno and most o' the ps:t joinables. we cannot speak to how the game itself were displayed on shelves because Gromnir arrived almost contemporaneous with the delivery... were still in shipping box behind counter. ... also, for you folks who claim that ps:t were under the radar for mostest o' the crpg world, we calls bs. really. ign did more than a dozen stories on the game for the year leading up to release, and we can recall more than a few print stories in magazines such as cgw. am not certain how many ps:t full-page and 2-page ads we saw in print magazines, but it were more than a few. virtual every online magazine site had some ps:t preview in which the writers were obviously drooling to get their grubby little mitts on the game. additionally, our totsc disk had a nice long preview/advertisement for ps:t... although we concede that while the preview got kewl points, it were more than a little inscrutable. there were many problems with ps:t, but lack o' marketing is hardly at the top o' the list. HA! Good Fun! ps we always regret that we did not go back to the game store where we purchased ps:t... coulda' made an offer on the advertising display. we gots a 1987 buick grand national gnx, but am thinking that the advertising display would top it for geek love... and would be easier to maintain.

this kinda silliness is actually rather traditional and nostalgic 'round these parts. sure, is not exact parallel, but there is a die hard element that has been claiming that a major reason why ps:t were a financial failure is 'cause of the box art. *snort* oddly enough, there were an ign article that detailed the making o' ps:t box art... showed pictures o' guido henkel getting the makeup treatment. ps:t box art were kewl in april or july o' 1999. don't recall too many protests when the article were still being read the first time by those anticipating ps:t. nevertheless, there is a decade-long tradition o' interplay/black isle/obsidan fandom suggesting that box art transgressions is serious biz. HA! Good Fun!

that were 'posed to be a funny? well, we agree that there were a "sense of humour failure." poking fun o' junai takes so little effort, but you make it look difficult. in any event, is doubtful that the folks from 30 rock ask for walsh to join the writing team anytime soon. HA! Good Fun! This put down would be a good deal more cutting if you ever updated your own act. you think? well, if you says so, then we definite ain't updating... kinda a negative barometer as it were. regardless, am not sure what lack o' updating our schtick has to do with your failed attempt at a funny. have mentioned a few times that the Gromnir bit ain't 'posed to be funny or clever: is a ponce detection device. congrats. HA! Good Fun!

that were 'posed to be a funny? well, we agree that there were a "sense of humour failure." poking fun o' junai takes so little effort, but you make it look difficult. in any event, is doubtful that the folks from 30 rock ask for walsh to join the writing team anytime soon. HA! Good Fun!

... uh. ... *scratches noggin* ... what are you talking 'bout? a "forward-looking" and "positive" message is equaling a tacit admission that al-qaeda didn't carry out 9/11 attacks? ok, we can play too. statement: let us focus on rebuilding in libya. actual meaning: oby/lof (and to a lesser degree #) were right that colonel Q were actual a swell guy and a victim o' muckraking by western media. statement: I have a dream that one day on the red hills of georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. actual meaning: clearly mlk were advocating gay marriage. ... nuts HA! Good Fun!

you don't have to scroll back in this and the other libya threads to be seeing that we thinks that things is gonna be better for the west with Q gone. he active sponsored terrorist activities in multiple parts o' the world. he used fear to control his own populace... which is no doubt why he had to rely on mercenaries during the recent fighting. etc. a libya without Q will eventually be a better place. regardless, there is gonna be many stories coming outta libya in the near future that is gonna present atrocities and horrors. more than a few o' those stories is gonna be true. eventually things will be better, but is best not to expect anything other than chaos for the near future. chaos in libya ain't necessarily a bad thing for the west. however, keeping the chaos completely limited to libya is a best case scenario that seems mighty unlikely. there is gonna be some... spillage. HA! Good Fun!

oby/lof is a nutter... but her/his brand o' insanity is actual appropriate in the present context. the one good thing that Q offered the world were stability. Q could make reliable contracts and keep oil flowing. Q could maintain a monopoly on force within his own boarders. #'s laundry list o' what ifs may not all come to fruition, but until late in 2010, we knew that Q could prevent those what ifs. 'course Q's control o' his own country were dissolving months before the first european or American plane dropped ordinance on libyan soil. ok. now what happens? personally, we got no certainty regarding the future o' libya save that for the near future we predict chaos. lots o' bad things can happen before the chaos dissipates. sure, oby is posting every wacky conspiracy theory and bs faux news drop she/he can find, but the truth o' the matter is that chaos will reign for the near future. bad things is gonna happen in libya. weapons will be smuggled out o' libya by bad folks. criminal elements that has been non-existent in libya for decades will sudden become very active... just look at post soviet russia for examples. there will be rapes, murders, thefts and all matter o' evils perpetrated by libyans and against libyans. come up with every terrible scenario you can imagine and we expect that there will be some real atrocities occurring within the days, weeks, and months ahead that will exceed the most nightmarish conjectures of even oby. things is gonna be bad in libya for some time to come. oby may be a little addled, but whatever nonsense she/he posts, worse will actually be happening somewheres in libya. it would be callous and inhuman to sit back and simple accept the horrors that is forthcoming, but am thinking it is equal naive to believe that things is gonna be better any time soon. HA! Good Fun!

well, speaking on behalf o' oppressed minorities everywhere... huh? ... oby/lof has heard o' the non sequitur? HA! Good Fun!

yes and no. Congress is actual having the potential to be very powerful. however, Congress is a collection o' disparate personalities who typical is most interested in being reelected. the things most Americans blame on the President is, as often as not, actual the result o' Congressional law making. also, in spite o' the fact that a large % o' Congressman is lawyers, federal laws are very often intentional ambiguous (leave to judges or bureaucrats to fix problems) or insane complex and convoluted. these clowns should know better. also, if one were to look at the Constitution with a more jaundiced eye and question the powers afforded by the commerce clause, 14th amendment due process, etc., then perhaps Congress would be having even less power. even so, Congress could be powerful. even so, is not weakness so much as inefficient. the power is available, but procedural and practical considerations tends to make the process inefficient. the Prez is very important in setting domestic agendas, but is Congress that is creating law. nevertheless, 'cause the Prez is so recognized by all Americans, we typical blame the Prez for most big problems. some has actual suggested that the US should adopt a parliamentary form o' govt with a prime minister... would be more efficient. after all, the world moves much faster today than it did in 1787. furthermore, the fed govt has far more responsibility today than it did when the Constitution were first penned. there is some very compelling arguments that the US system is too inefficient to tackle 21st century problems. the Chinese gots a Constitution too. on paper it would appear to actual be more protective o' individual freedoms than the US Constitution. is our personal opinion that our Constitution ain't designed to foster weakness, but it is structured so that tyranny becomes extreme unlikely. dunno. faced with economic issues it is easy to see the need for more efficient govt, but am thinking that at such times it is easy to forget some o' the lessons o' history. more than one great nation has voluntarily given up freedoms in the name o' necessity. HA! Good Fun!

lord knows we never questioned the effectiveness o' the business practice in play. sure, we likened to a drug dealer stringing out a junkie, but that don't mean the business approach is flawed. is very effective even though perhaps Gromnir indulges in a smidgen of hyperbole... but not too much. additionally, am imagining that if obsidian decided that the dialogues for some o' the joinable npcs were indeed kinda weak and created a $4 dlc just to fix shortcomings o' core game joinable npcs, (and the honest hearts joinables?) we suspect that there would be some raised eyebrows, no? HA! Good Fun!

brings us back to cost. Gromnir applauds the redux: fix the inequities 'tween base game weapons. is bad when there is clear win weapons, and if the dlc fixes such, then we thinks that is fantastic. am simply wondering if such fixes deserves a price tag that is equivalent o' 40% o' the gameplay dlcs. perhaps is quibbling on our part. yeah, josh efforts looks commendable (whether it works as planned or not,) but the commercial aspect o' paying for what amounts to a fix is kinda greasy. and yeah, we used lame "fix" pun purposeful, and we won't apologize for doing so. HA! Good Fun!

This is reflected by the fact that GRA costs 40% of what any of the previous four DLCs cost. dunno... isn't that precisely the point? didn't josh makes some relevant comment 'bout failings o' crpg design at the recent gdc? sorry, we didn't actual read, but there were some lifted quote at a magazine site 'bout largely empty and meaningless numerical improvements o' weapons and abilities. all the mass effect minor mods improvements were silly, right? well, typical these weapon packs result in a handful o' new super-weapons that is effective just providing some minor statistical improvement or difference over all the weapons in the base game. is no additional gameplay offered in the weapon/armor dlcs... is just a way for folks who has already exhausted everything in the game to feel even more 1337. 'stead o' kill everything save legendary deathclaw in .6 seconds, with the dlc now you manage in .4. *shrug* 40% seems far too high for something that not actual add anything. am just not seeing the point o' juicing the weapons a tad. by the same token, the dlcs is optional, so is not as if you gotta buy. no harm save that it would seem to be pandering to the crpg junkie mentality... needs their new fo:nv fix, and anything, no matter how trivial, will gets the addicted to pay. HA! Good Fun! ps the weapon dlcs is kinda insta-fails... is almost a no-win. if you make small improvements to weapons, then you got the mass effect problem wherein the improvements is so negligible as to be pointless. however, if you makes genuine observable improvements to existing weapons in a game in which it is already pretty easy to kill everything...

Yeah, unfortunately his only real success has been internationally. The two wars, while still moving at a snails pace, haven't gotten worse. He has had much better interactions with foreign powers than the previous administration. The revolutions that have forced changes in the Middle East and Africa can also be spun as a positive for him. But none of that really matters, because the economy is effed up, and he hasn't been seen as handling it well at all. He can't bridge the two parties, and his approval ratings are in the dumps. He's going to need a miracle, or a Republican party that gives their ticket to a moron. The latter is unfortunately very likely. am thinking that obama's biggest problem is gonna be overcoming the perception that he is a pushover. is not limited to domestic or foreign policy. republicans don't respect him 'cause they thinks they can walk all over him and democrats hates the big talk from the white house followed by half-measures. the president gets far too much credit for success, and receives disproportionate blame for failure, but obama has exhausted his ability to blame all current problems on the previous administration. the average american don't believe that things are marked better today than they were 4 years ago, and most believe that obama is a weak president. ... the only thing obama gots going for him is that the republican party candidates does not exactly inspire confidence neither. we liked mccain (not mccain & palin), but we were convinced that a conservative approach would not be able to fix debt and health care issues. btw, when we says "conservative" we don't mean it synonymous with republican. is gonna take some extreme measures to fix problems, and am doubtful mccain woulda' advocated extreme. is why we is so cynical 'bout the upcoming election. the democrats is stuck with obama, and the republicans is not gonna go with nobody extreme as they not need to do so to win. HA! Good Fun!

Those aren't really worst-case scenarios, we've seen them elsewhere so it's not much of a stretch to imagine that Libya could see a repetition of any number of those. As for Q's connections to terrorism and the notion that removing him will lead to less terrorism as opposed to more... that was then and this is now. Funny, too, because depending on who you listen to, the rebels are in fact connected to Al-Qaeda. We'll see if this revolution eventually amounts to anything in terms of real change for the people -much less what was advertised as- which shouldn't be too difficult as Q really sucked as far as statebuilding goes, but if things go wrong down the road, who is going to take the blame? Heh. mention al-qaeda ties o' rebels is pretty weak, no? any large enough group o' gun-toting rebels in the mid east is probable gonna have some al-qaeda ties. the transitional government is gonna be peopled by a broad variety o' characters both admirable and shady. regardless, the rebels is gonna be working on rebuilding libya for some time. organized terrorism that might impact the west coming from libyan sources is not likely to be occurring anytime soon. sure, eventually the new libyans may get organized, and they may decide to pick up where Q left off, but that is gonna be some time in the future. for the time being, the rebels is gonna be relying on westerners to rebuild, so is unlikely they spark up new terrorist activities in the west. heck, one reason why Gromnir were hoping (maybe not entire genuine) that the libyan fighting would continue in perpetuity is that while the rebels and Q were killing each other, they would be far too busy to kill us. however, these regional disputes tend to be difficult to keep complete contained, and the US, in spite o' refusal to commit ground troops, were making a huge investment in the campaign. letting libyan tribals exterminate each other were all well and good, but it were getting inordinate expensive. as for worst case scenarios... *shrug* true, is very plausible that your laundry list o' misfortunes will come to pass. however, those is hypothetical eventualities that may come never to pass, as 'posed to the certainty o' Q opposition to western interests. also, as has been noted numerous times already, the rebels is gonna need western experts and contractors and bankers n' such for the near future. the west is gonna, for better or worse, have influence in libya where they had very little influence previous. "Okay, so then, other than the obvious lucrative reconstruction, weapons and raw materials contracts, how exactly is that a success? A success for whom, anyway?" am not thinking that your questions is difficult to answer. the west loses the stability provided by a west hating despot. there is admitted risk that any abrupt and violent regime change will result in a frying pan-to-fire scenario, but am thinking that such a risk seems slim considering what were the original state o' relations 'tween Q's libya and the west. HA! Good Fun!

"5.9 is a pretty decent size, especially when it's so shallow. The February quake in Christchurch was only 6.3 but had around 3 times the ground acceleration (~ practical effect; barring tsunami of course) of the far larger magnitude Sendai one in Japan[sic; later corrected without prompting to Chile] because it was closer and shallower. " ..each of the bolded parts is a factor apart from Richter that influences effects, found both in the selective part and the rest. I selected the quote I did because it was 100% unequivocal in stating that Richter was not the only factor, and that there were separate measures for practical effects. You were the one fixated on Richter strengths and using it as a sole measure. You're being- at best- disingenuous in trying to say anything different. Still you got another response which I guess was the intent. No, I actually did exactly the opposite and implied that there is not necessarily any direct correlation between deaths and 'severity' and, in a rather small logical step, that it is to a very large extent circumstance (sciencey things like... depth, location and ground acceleration; but also whether the bits of church that break off hit people as in Lorca or miss them as in Washington) that determines 'severity'. It seems I should have put it bluntly. Something like "You should refrain from commenting further as continuing to argue over something about which you are ignorant will make you look both foolish and, given your treatment of those arguing with you in similar circumstances, hypocritical". See, I have no need to prove expertise only your ignorance, and that has already been done. That was the point of the Scalia comment, I don't know or care if you're really a lawyer or not as it is irrelevant and the level of authority granted by any professional qualification is wholly unneeded. The only relevant points are that (1) you were right in that case but demonstrably wrong in this and (2) my expertise in this exceeded yours by the required margin when I was aged ten. your first rebut is actual noteworthy. keeping in mind that you didn't provide any such relevant mercalli factors info for the east coast quake related to shallowness and ground acceleration, but mere mentioned richer. so, we can assume you were just hypothesizing. even so, while maybe your guessing game were not particular relevant, it weren't wrong neither. though again, in ca even the shallow 5.8 range quakes appear to be largely ignored based on the limited info available online. of course you still fail to recognize that our initial comment that you took offense at were your compare of 5.8 to a quake that were "only 6.3." maybe you know 10 year old geology, but you clear don't grasp 10 year old physics and math. sure, there are other facturs involved in earthquake severity, but you clear don't understand the enormity o' the difference in force 'tween 5.8 and 6.3. second point is a fail however, or maybe you were being serious instead o' sardonic. "That quake killed nine. Rather a lot of poorly secured Elvises in Spain, it appears. "I'll make a deal with you, I won't try and correct you on matters of US law, you don't try and correct me on matters of science natural." if you were actual agreeing with us 'bout elvis stuff then we retract our observations, but as you quickly followed with the suggestion that you gots superior knowledge o' the incredible broad fields o' natural sciences than Gromnir (*chuckle*). nevertheless, the statements become somewhat contradictory when tied together. agree with Gromnir then deride? hmmm. third point appears like simple bantam. takes considerable arrogance to claim superior knowledge o' natural sciences based 'pon the thread contents above. HA! Good Fun!

Probably no comfort to you, but you are not the only one (having been on the net since it was something "exclusive" used for information exchange to it became something "vulgar") am not sure that we would says that we find your observation to be comforting, but that is quibbling o'er semantics. in actuality we does find it refreshing that others share our view. our first real hands-on experience with the internet were in 1988 during a summer job while at berkeley. we had used commodore 64s and some oldy apple pcs in high school, but those things didn't have no internet access at the time. first time we used internet were kinda intimidating, and not very fun. we were not using windows friendly interfaces and we was sending/receiving pure technical data. was all very impersonal. sent stuff to computer names, not people. lord knows we does not wish a return to ye good old days. we do not miss all the leg work. nevertheless, am thinking folks has lost something now that internet makes knowledge so accessible. is far less discipline. HA! Good Fun!

eh? we got no problem with admitting that we is hardly an expert on earthquakes. we understand the physics more than the specifics o' geology. our point were that 5.8 not get much press in ca, and that 6. 3 not give a genuine notion o' relative strength o' 5.8. 1) you did use richter to make guesstimates 'bout strength o' quake (selective quote aside) 2) you made false correlation 'tween deaths and quake severity 3) you suggested expertise in natural sciences which you has yet to back up btw, you did not offer mercalli for east coast quake, so your initial point is even more suspect. again, please keep in mind that our initial observation that your christchurch 6.3 and east coast 5.8 being a less than useful comparison stands, no? got schooled? *chuckle* hardly. though we did know pretty much nothing 'bout mercali, so thanks for that. HA! Good Fun! ps is complete aside, but am actually recalling one new zealand scientist, though his name escapes us. he were a chemist, but we not recall why he were noteworthy in his field. am only recollecting 'cause he were a nudist. what were his name? oh well. am thinking that that there were also some famous guy at jpl who were new zealand or australian. am recalling hearing an accent in an interview.

is strange, but whenever we picture or visualize rommel, we almost invariably thinks o' james mason in spite o' the fact that mason didn't genuine look like rommel. we has seen loads o' pictures o' rommel, but he were kinda nondescript, so images not really stick better than mason. is one o' the few historical figures who were born after the advent o' common photography techniques who we cannot help but identify with the actor. now that we consider, karl malden is who we think of when trying to picture omar bradley. huh. HA! Good Fun!

is probable best to assume debunking sites is wrong until proven otherwise. the aforementioned quote is a good example o' why caution is warranted. just so you is aware, we ain't picking on junai. but you know, we were recently contemplating whether we thought the internet were a boon or handicap for education. came to mind initial 'cause we saw multiple online sources that attributed to stalin that which were actual done/said by bukahrin. made us wonder. junai mentioned that his dead-man quote were famous. can you imagine such a questionable quote becoming famous in 1985? before the internet, folks had to actual does research and decide for themselves if info were trustworthy. you would go to library and use electronic and physical search aides to find sources. then you would read sources... not necessarily in their entirety, but you would have the physical copy in your hands, and you could/would read more than simple selected quotes. some questionable quote, authored by a nobody, and attributed to a man who had died 4 years before the quote were first used would become famous pre-internet? maybe. unlikely. again, set way-back machine for mid-late 80's. if somebody on a college campus handed you a cheesy looking pamphlet that did posit some conspiracy theory, how likely would you be to repeat the contained quotes as if they were trustworthy? ... knowledge has become so... cheap. is no longer earned with toil and sweat, and anybody with a website can be an authority. is not necessarily a bad thing. having so much more info available is a good thing... an amazing thing. is hard to explain to folks who has grown with the internet what it were like before such a thing were wide available. even so, am slightly saddened by how the perception o' knowledge has changed. HA! Good Fun!