jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[Rystil Arden]

Heh, thanks for the kind words. I think that making mistakes and embarrising yourself is something authors have to get used to. If you don't it seems like the only other option is to turn into a raging jerkwad.


joe b.

Heh, I've met my share of raging jerkwads. Its not just authors but anyone who thinks that they are the master who must sometimes be humbled. After being on top of the rules with my gaming group for years, my second post on ENWorld wound up containing rules errors (grr...spell turning should sooo turn ray spells).

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think this is the longest thread I've ever seen actually come to an amicable and agreeable conclusion. Something new every day.

Yup, just shows you that we were three nice guys flinging hypotheses around and having fun, rather than trying to start a flame war. Other threads should read this thread and take an example. Just goes to show that the new thread title is very apt.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think this is the longest thread I've ever seen actually come to an amicable and agreeable conclusion. Something new every day.

heh... you know, now that I think about it you may be right.


DAMN you! You peoples and your "LOGIC!"


That better?

joe b.

 

[sullivan]

Oh its not that I hate having the flaws pointed out, its just that I hate to be the one who has to do it, and the same for grammar and spelling flaws. It has been ingrained in me as not a good idea to bring up the fallacies from trouble I had when I did point out logical fallacies in less intellectual forums, and this caused my supporters and detractors alike to decide that I was just being erudite and band together in deciding that I must be wrong. Fortunately, it seems like people here on ENWorld know what they are, which is good.

As for grammar and spelling, I still won't bring them up, even rouge for rogue. I just try to do my absolute best to keep my writing as civil as possible, even making sure I used the right form of affect and effect in this thread...

Well at least part of the job is done to keep you from bringing up mistakes that have little to no bearing on the topic at hand. Spelling and grammar, check! Poor wording that suggest faulty logic but where the rest of the post has a different meaning and the error does not invalidate the point being made? Well lets just shuffle that over to the "To Do" list, mmmkay?

I will first attempt the gentle method, since, well since I don't know you and have not yet noticed any particular reason why this wouldn't work. Notice the bolding I added to your quote. I suggest that you reflect on and challenge your perception of nessesity.

P.S. There are other boards where I use the moniker "blakkie, godess of spelling" (SIC). I can tell you your experience has served you well. Internet boards are more akin to conversational speech than printed text. Why is this generally accepted? I suspect it is somewhat due to the presence of two-way communication that can refine the message.

EDIT: BTW I do have good grammar skills. The problem is that they are slow grammar skills. However they can be brought to bear on a target such as someone attacking my grammar or spelling when their attack is really just a diversion from the issue at hand. Little errors slip into our language all the time. Some so small and obscure that very, very few people notice and the intended message gets through just fine. I've found that the chances of any given person making a handful of lengthy posts without at least one error is slim.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Here's an analogy. The spell is a virus that only targets X type computers, if I magically turn into a Y type of computer while the virus is running, I don't have any worries because the virus can't exist on Y computer.

The reason there is a type change at all is to show that things that don't effect the new type don't effect the creature using the spell. If creatures were effected, regardless of type, there would be no need to indicate a change at all. Conversly, the creature is affected by spells that affect the new type.

joe b.

Damn. This ended before I got a chance to bring the heavy guns to bear.

 

[JDowling]

just to raise a point about all the "begging the question" finger pointing in this thread:

There are many forms of "begging the question" and most of them are harmless. All deductive arguments are "begging the question".

P -> Q
P
---
Q

You are asserting the conclusion in the premisses (by god, that's nearly the very definition of a valid argument! ). One way that people try to solve this problem is to say that you need to assert the conclusion in one premiss instead of more than one (however: P. Therefore P. is logically sound/valid, etc and a perfectly good argument, it just doesn't say much interesting).

Another way to escape the conclusion that all arguments are question-begging is to say that question begging is an ontological matter. This allows the cogito to escape the charge of question-begging.

Also, most if not all definitions of things end up being question-begging, but not necessarily in a vicious way.

I think after you examine the literature and arguments around it you might decide that question-begging is rarely vicious and is about as good a counter to most arguments as "reasoning in a vaccume" is, as you really can't ever take everything in the universe into account for any argument, so there's always a chance that you're leaving something important out.

So, anyway, carry on, but question-begging isn't a very good objection to most arguments.

 

[Rystil Arden]

just to raise a point about all the "begging the question" finger pointing in this thread:

There are many forms of "begging the question" and most of them are harmless. All deductive arguments are "begging the question".

P -> Q
P
---
Q

You are asserting the conclusion in the premisses (by god, that's nearly the very definition of a valid argument! ). One way that people try to solve this problem is to say that you need to assert the conclusion in one premiss instead of more than one (however: P. Therefore P. is logically sound/valid, etc and a perfectly good argument, it just doesn't say much interesting).

Another way to escape the conclusion that all arguments are question-begging is to say that question begging is an ontological matter. This allows the cogito to escape the charge of question-begging.

Also, most if not all definitions of things end up being question-begging, but not necessarily in a vicious way.

I think after you examine the literature and arguments around it you might decide that question-begging is rarely vicious and is about as good a counter to most arguments as "reasoning in a vaccume" is, as you really can't ever take everything in the universe into account for any argument, so there's always a chance that you're leaving something important out.

So, anyway, carry on, but question-begging isn't a very good objection to most arguments.

Fortunately, there is no need to carry on, as the discussion is over. However, I would point out that "I assume A is right, and assuming that I am correct, you must be wrong. Therefore, you are wrong." is a misuse of begging the question, and that's exactly what we saw up above.

 

[Arnwyn]

I know this is more of an interpretation and not a RAW question, but do you think this is fair?

So yeah, the conclusion is, it was more than fair.

 

[andargor]

LOL. When I read the title, I though it was "jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf walk into a bar".

Andargor

 

[Rystil Arden]

LOL. When I read the title, I though it was "jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf walk into a bar".

Andargor

Hmmm....I'll take a shot:

jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf walk into a bar. But somehow Hypersmurf and Rystil Arden manage to convince the bar that it isn't allowed to walk into them under current 3.5 rules.