Pathfinder 1E Paizo Copyright Issues at Obsidian Portal?
TheAuldGrump
First Post
It is worth noting that the Boston Globe article was also by Geoffrey Pullum. Any guesses as to who wrote the Wiki article?
No proof, but I do have a guess....The Auld Grump, in the manner of being the one dentist who does not recommend brushing after every meal, his good judgment is to be doubted.... *EDIT* There is a reason that I do not rely on Wikipedia.... Fair and unbiased it is not.
*EDIT* Read Mark Garvey for a more positive, and in my opinion more accurate, consideration of The Elements of Style.
Last edited:
TheAuldGrump
First Post
A quick summary:
1. Forbidding EU e-tailers from selling to Australia, on the grounds that they are 'freeloading' on GW's work. GW meanwhile charges double the market value of their miniatures when retailing in Australia.... *EDIT* Yes, they actually said freeloading.
2. Switching their casting material to resin (less expensive than metal) at the same time as a large price increase.
3. Severe manufacturing problems with the new resin - some stores are returning more than 50% of the stock due to casting errors. *EDIT* And a window display melting in the window, due to the extremely bright sun of, ummm, England?
4. Claiming that casting in resin was the biggest innovation in years... even though they are nowhere near the first miniatures company to make the switch, and most companies do not have a 50% return rate due to faulty casting. (Also worth noting - when Mantic switched some of their metal miniatures to resin they doubled the number of figures in the box, for the same price....)
5. Claiming that using other people's resins can cause cancer. (True for older resins, not for the resins currently used for detailed miniatures.)
*EDIT* All of this in the course of a single month. Any time I feel that WotC is acting crazy all I need to do is look at GW to realize just how much worse they could be.
The Auld Grump
Last edited:
I didn't know all that- UGH!- but here in the Dallas/FW area, they burned a lot of bridges with their game stores.
See, they wanted to open their own store in Grapevine Mills Mall. Which they did. No problem there. Then they set a minimum price for all their products for the retailers in the area. Still not really a problem.
Then they started undercutting the price they set for all the other retailers in the area. Not so good.
The reaction was swift: clearance sales of all GW product in many stores in the D/FW Metroplex. I mean like prices set at cost. So they gained a huge regional near-monopoly on their own product, but it cost them a lot of distribution outlets. Not the brightest business move I've ever seen.
I don't know how well that store is doing, but it does have customers every time I pass it. However, because of this course of action, they're effectively a hostage to the rental rates in the area. If they don't maintain their own store, GW could virtually disappear (at least, as a product in physical stores) from the D/FW market, since many of the game stores that sold their supplies off have NOT reordered, and have expressed no interest in doing business with the company again. (A few have relented, but not all of them.)
See, they wanted to open their own store in Grapevine Mills Mall. Which they did. No problem there. Then they set a minimum price for all their products for the retailers in the area. Still not really a problem.
Then they started undercutting the price they set for all the other retailers in the area. Not so good.
The reaction was swift: clearance sales of all GW product in many stores in the D/FW Metroplex. I mean like prices set at cost. So they gained a huge regional near-monopoly on their own product, but it cost them a lot of distribution outlets. Not the brightest business move I've ever seen.
I don't know how well that store is doing, but it does have customers every time I pass it. However, because of this course of action, they're effectively a hostage to the rental rates in the area. If they don't maintain their own store, GW could virtually disappear (at least, as a product in physical stores) from the D/FW market, since many of the game stores that sold their supplies off have NOT reordered, and have expressed no interest in doing business with the company again. (A few have relented, but not all of them.)
pawsplay
Hero
It is worth noting that the Boston Globe article was also by Geoffrey Pullum. Any guesses as to who wrote the Wiki article?
Well, it wasn't me.
S&W are exalted by being recognized, not by being expert. I consider debunking S&W no more iconoclastic than calling into question Dr. Phil's expertise on relationships. Much as with Pluto's planetary status, the brontosaurus, and the oft-misunderstood "the exception proves the rule," we cling to "facts" we were told we could rely upon, with perhaps less than ideal understanding of the logic, and yes, rules, that underlie the learned consensus.
The main value of S&W is that it will teach you the style that everyone else has been taught. It will not, however, teach you correct grammar, nor does it admit to much in the way of geographic variation in English, i.e. how it is written in England. It gives senseless and archaic advice that was perhaps practical at one time, but which has eroded in value, such as the distinction between classical names and non-classical names and the possessive S. That rule only existed because people continued to read books with archaic and irregular possessives, such as popular versions of the Bible.
Not only do they malign the passive voice, but they do no not understand it. Thanks to their dubious advice, modern software still reliably identify adjectives such as "confused" as though they were verbs.
When I want to theologize English, I prefer Fowler's. Even his British English is arguably more useful than S&W, since his usage, grammer, and linguistical command are better. And as for vernacular, there is no better grammarian than Google.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Fowler's?! Even in 1908 his grammar - 'The King's English' was considered inaccurate, even for British English. Stretching it to cover American English would be folly. 'Dictionary of Modern English Usage' was even worse! (We had a teacher who openly ridiculed Fowler's. Amusingly, this same teacher was a huge proponent of Wheellock's Latin.
) My English Comp professor was a student of E. B. White, so my opinion may well be biased, but Fowler's?!Read the introduction of S&W's Little Book - it admits that it does not cover the vagaries of English as it is spoken Across the Pond. It pertains only to the proper usage of American English.
The Auld Grump, also, it is 'linguistic', not 'linguistical'....
*EDIT* Let us leave this discussion here - suffice it to say that I will be sticking with S&W over Wikipedia....
TheAuldGrump
First Post
All better authorities than Wikipedia.
Even I won't argue with a Smith & Wesson....
The Auld Grump, though Glock has a compelling presence as well....
pawsplay
Hero
Linguistic is "of or relating to language." I meant "of or relating to linguistics." Plus, linguistical is an accepted variation of linguistic anyway. Hence, linguistically, rather than linguisticly.
Similar Threads
