Charles Ryan speaks - 4.6 million Americans claim to play D&D

[Knight Otu]

Anyone can abuse the dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shill&x=0&y=0

"also : one who makes a sales pitch"

Note the also. The decoy meaning still stands, and is the more common one. Do you think that meaning of the word is meaningless? The negative connotations also still stand. Why do you try to defend your use of the word when there is a perfectly usable word that says the same without being negative?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Anyone can abuse the dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shill&x=0&y=0

"also : one who makes a sales pitch"

Just went with what the American Heritage Dictionary tells me dude. And "abuse"? I take great care of my dictionaries. If you mean the English language and that you're attempt to portray the word "shill' as non insulting, well that I can agree with.

 

[Sammael]

Sammael, would you happen to know the address of the said store? If I find the time, I might drop by. Thanks!

The address is Vojvode Milenka 44 (it's near the Slavija square; the American embassy is located at the intersection of this street and Kneza Milosa); to reach the store, go through a passage with several shops in it and turn left, then up the stairs. It's possible that they'll re-locate to a slightly larger locale at the same address before November 5th, but that'd only make them easier to find.

Current info about the Game Day in Serbia can be found here. I'll probably be DMing Assault on the Fane of Lolth there.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I don't have access to private messaging here. You may now return to your regularly scheduled WotC official-bashing (EDIT: and dictionary throwing contest).

 

[Sammael]

The absence of participation in the event by shops in England, France, Germany, Spain, Israel, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan is puzzling to me.

It is very strange, although it's possible that they simply aren't listed on the WotC site.

 

[eyebeams]

Note the also. The decoy meaning still stands, and is the more common one. Do you think that meaning of the word is meaningless? The negative connotations also still stand. Why do you try to defend your use of the word when there is a perfectly usable word that says the same without being negative?

Because the connotation of influence for the sake of an agenda would be less vivid. Of course, if you review the thread, I didn't start using the word "shill," myself and explained the worth of the usage in detail. If, after this, you are still upset, then it has more to do with how you choose to comprehend content than what I am saying, doesn't it?

 

[Jim Hague]

Because the connotation of influence for the sake of an agenda would be less vivid. Of course, if you review the thread, I didn't start using the word "shill," myself and explained the worth of the usage in detail. If, after this, you are still upset, then it has more to do with how you choose to comprehend content than what I am saying, doesn't it?

That's a little disingenious, EB. I was the one that introduced the word shill, in its negative connotation...a connotation you explicitly agreed with when you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Hague
Which is exactly my point. Just because he's Brand Manager doesn't automatically make him an EEEEEEEvvvvvillll Corporate Shill (tm), nor does it mean he's lying. Correlation does not equal causation.

It has nothing to do with EEEEEEvvvillll. But yeah -- he is a corporate shill. It's his job to be a corporate shill.

 

[eyebeams]

Just went with what the American Heritage Dictionary tells me dude. And "abuse"? I take great care of my dictionaries. If you mean the English language and that you're attempt to portray the word "shill' as non insulting, well that I can agree with.

"Shill," is not inherently insulting unless you feel contempt for anyone whose job it is to persuade you of something (this indicates to me that you have far less respect for Charles Ryan than I, really) or its intentional usage is related to fraud or deception. The M-W definition is clear on this.

It's also clear that you've missed the object lesson on why parroting a dictionary definition in place of a substantive argument is a bad idea. 'Cause doing that is "abusing the dictionary."

 

[eyebeams]

That's a little disingenious, EB. I was the one that introduced the word shill, in its negative connotation...a connotation you explicitly agreed with when you said:

How did I explicitly agree with it when I explicitly *dis*agreed with your characterization of it as EEEEEviilll? I went out of my way to say that there wasn't a moral component at all.

 

[Jim Hague]

How did I explicitly agree with it when I explicitly *dis*agreed with your characterization of it as EEEEEviilll? I went out of my way to say that there wasn't a moral component at all.

Reduction to absurdity - you're trying to pick out the context a la carte, instead of using the word in context. 'Shill' in the common usage is pretty insulting, and it's how I used the word to make a certain point. If there's no moral component, as you're claiming, then why use the word 'shill' at all? Salesman works just as well and carries no negative connotations.

And that's the last I'm saying on this. It's devolving into academic wankery when the dictionaries come out, and it's threaddrift to boot. Charles has explained more or less where the numbers've come from. Really the only debate left is whether those numbers mean something good, something bad or anything at all for the hobby as a whole.

 

[Knight Otu]

Because the connotation of influence for the sake of an agenda would be less vivid.

Then we propably must agree to disagree, because I think that businessman makes that connotation quite visible as well.