Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 54165" data-attributes="member: 2205">Actually, let me direct you to the following portion of one of your recent posts in this thread:Now, let's talk about consistency and credibility in your &quot;argument.&quot;&nbsp; Actually, never mind.&nbsp; There's no need to.You're right, not necessarily.&nbsp; However, thinking that one edition is good and one edition wasn't isn't an unreasonable assumption either.&nbsp; Just because I like one certainly doesn't mean I have to like all of them, as you appear to be implying.Except that we're talking mostly about the mechanics.&nbsp; Or the fact that 1e was little more then mechanics and basic frameworks.&nbsp; So what if there are other methods of judging a game based on mechanics?&nbsp; Does that mean no one can say that the mechanics of 1e sucked, or that 1e sucked because the mechanics were so primitive?&nbsp; These aren't logical conclusions from any comment you're making.Close-minded would be like the initiators of some recent posts that claimed that 3rd edition sucked and 1e roolz without having seen 3e.&nbsp; Close-minded is jumping into a thread and insulting people because your fanboy worshipping mentality of a system that is so outdated that you might as well call it a horse and buggy compared to today's system is offended.&nbsp; Close-minded is a lot of things.&nbsp; Close-minded is not folks that have played role-playing games since nearly their inception in the seventies on tons of systems who can see that a system is so seriously flawed compared to what we've grown accustomed to that, yes, it sucks.&nbsp; Insulting folks who are making logically reasoned statements about their opinion of a roleplaying game that is different than your own golden opinion is the kind of black and white thinking associated with 3 year olds.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 54165, member: 2205"] [i][/i] Actually, let me direct you to the following portion of one of your recent posts in this thread: Now, let's talk about consistency and credibility in your "argument." Actually, never mind. There's no need to. [i][/i] You're right, not necessarily. However, thinking that one edition is good and one edition wasn't isn't an unreasonable assumption either. Just because I like one certainly doesn't mean I have to like all of them, as you [i]appear[/i] to be implying. [i][/i] Except that we're talking mostly about the mechanics. Or the fact that 1e was little more then mechanics and basic frameworks. So what if there are other methods of judging a game based on mechanics? Does that mean no one can say that the mechanics of 1e sucked, or that 1e sucked because the mechanics were so primitive? These aren't logical conclusions from any comment you're making. [i][/i] Close-minded would be like the initiators of some recent posts that claimed that 3rd edition sucked and 1e roolz without having seen 3e. Close-minded is jumping into a thread and insulting people because your fanboy worshipping mentality of a system that is so outdated that you might as well call it a horse and buggy compared to today's system is offended. Close-minded is a lot of things. Close-minded is [i]not[/i] folks that have played role-playing games since nearly their inception in the seventies on tons of systems who can see that a system is so seriously flawed compared to what we've grown accustomed to that, yes, it sucks. Insulting folks who are making logically reasoned statements about their opinion of a roleplaying game that is different than your own golden opinion is the kind of black and white thinking associated with 3 year olds. [/QUOTE]

Verification