Goodman rebuttal

[rounser]

Let it go, Rounser.

Take your own advice, Cirno. You're the one who's jumped in with the accusation here based on semantics and something you think is implied that may or may not actually be there. I was just responding to an accusation based on calling anyone some other poster disagreed with "denialists".

If you're not going to engage in discussion, don't offer me unsolicited advice that you clearly need to take yourself. And kindly don't be patronising in that way towards me again.

 

[jdrakeh]

That was what I was responding to, and you let that go without comment.

What? I responded directly to your assertions regarding objective evidence and the acceptance or denial thereof by the "sides" of your proposed all-encompassing conflict. Right here. I think something else that I said may bear repeating, too: "I can be passionate, yes, but it has nothing to do with a love of 4e or hatred of other games — it is about liking or disliking individual arguments."

[Edit: In case it's not clear, in this instance, I dislike the argument that the hobby is divided into those who like D&D 4e and those who don't and that one of these sides is right and the other wrong.]

 

[rounser]

What? I responded directly to your assertions regarding objective evidence and the acceptance or denial thereof by the "sides" of your proposed all-encompassing conflict. Right here. That said, I can clearly see where this is going with your suggestion that I deliberately ignored something in favor of boosting 4e, so I think it best that you and I just end our discussion on the subject.

I'm saying that you didn't respond to their claims, not mine. I'm completely aware you're jumping down my throat, and letting their claims of denialism and the way the anti-4E group acts completely off the hook.

The fact that I pointed out they were doing this is apparently objectionable. Implying that there are opposing groups engaged in "denialism" is seemingly A-OK in your book, but calling them out for it isn't?

You're both attacking me, when I didn't start this, I'm just responding to it, and pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm not suggesting you're boosting 4E, nor that you're part of some sort of team you don't consider yourself to be part of. Heck, I don't.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm saying that you didn't respond to their claims, not mine. I'm completely aware you're jumping down my throat, and letting their claims of denialism and the way the anti-4E group acts completely off the hook.

You're both attacking me, when I didn't start this, I'm just responding to it.

First, I didn't attack you at all, I commented on perceived "sides" of your proposed conflict, but not on you. Second, I didn't ascribe motives to you, where you have now all but called me a liar and suggested that I have some kind of hidden agenda as a secret 4e booster. Let me clarify things for you. I don't like 4e. If you think I'm lying, then say so, but please — grow a spine, quit hiding behind abiguities and misdirection, quit playing the victim card, and speak your convictions or shut up.

 

[rounser]

First, I didn't attack you at all, I commented on perceived "sides" of your proposed conflict, but not on you.

I'm telling you I'm responding to people who set that ball rolling through implying it rather overtly, I didn't do it myself.

Second, I didn't ascribe motives to you, where you have now all but called me a liar and suggested that I have some kind of hidden agenda as a secret 4e booster.

No, I haven't called you a liar, nor do I consider you a 4E booster. I'm just trying to tell you that I'm a respondent to the "sides" issue, not an instigator, and I'm saying "hey, you let that part pass without comment, so since I'm just responding to them why don't you go pick a fight with them?"

Let me clarify things for you. I don't like 4e. If you think I'm lying, then say so, but please — grow a spine, quit hiding behind abiguities and misdirection, quit playing the victim card, and speak your convictions or shut up.

You've really misread things between us here, none of that applies. I'm responding to this post and more directly, this post. I've been trying to say that if you find the sides thing objectionable, go pick a fight with those guys, because they started it.

And you're being really rude. There was no need for any of that snark, you're reading things into my words that weren't there.

 

[Jack99]

Orcus is Clarke Peterson.

Clark.

 

[jdrakeh]

BS

You specifically accused me of victimizing you and deliberately giving 4e supporters leeway where I gave you none. When I told you to either stand behind those accusations or stop making them, you instead went back and edited your post substantially to downplay your previous position, but not before playing the victim even more. I see that you edited your post again to add a bit about my being unnecessarily rude. Nice. I guess growing a spine wasn't an option. Now that was an attack on you. See the difference?

 

[jdrakeh]

Clark.

Thanks for the spelling correction, Jack.

 

[S'mon]

I'm curious about hard data, too. I'm just reiterrating what Mr. Goodman said, a great portion of which S'mon ignored in his attempts to get on with the doomsaying.

No I didn't.

 

[S'mon]

You seem to be taking his post entirely out of context on purpose, going so far as to ignore very specific parts of it. Mr. Goodman very specifically says that 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008. Or, in other words, D&D 4e is doing as well as D&D ever has, with the exception of two. . . er. . . exceptional years.

Why is 4e a year after launch not comparable to 3e a year after launch?