Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4943324" data-attributes="member: 18280">How can I prove you wrong, even if that was my goal?  What I am trying to do is gain a clear and consistent idea of what your opinion(s) related to these matters actually are.Being logically consistent doesn't require intentionally setting up logic trails -- it merely requires a series of statements which, when taken together, do not mutually contradict each other.You imagine that I am "eagerly searching for....a contradiction", but my pointing out the contradiction (and, AFAICT, Celebrim's doing the same) is rather an opportunity to explain either (1) why what appears contradictory actually is not, and/or (2) to refine your position so as to remove the contradiction.  There have certainly been times on EN World where others have pointed out the inherent contradiction in views I've held, and I've changed my mind accordingly. There have also been times on EN World where others have pointed out what seemed contradictory to them, allowing me the opportunity to refine my statements so that the apparent contradiction is resolved.  This is just part of trying to communicate clearly.Presumably, since you're making cracks about English as a first language, your goal is to communicate clearly?  And, if not, what is the point?Perhaps your logic is tight, but if it is not communicated in such a way as to allow us to follow it, it is hard to understand what you mean.  That's why I asked you to provide some form of definition for "cinematic" and "epic" that will allow us to differentiate what these terms mean, to you.Saying that what you are saying is logically inconsistent is not the same thing as saying that what you are trying to say is logically inconsistent.Showing you where you lose the reader, and why the reader is drawing the assumptions they are is, again, not intended to misrepresent your position.  Rather, it is "AFAICT, this is what you are saying.  Is this what you really mean?"Yes, because I cannot tell at all what you mean by "cinematic".Rather than saying "we're looking at D&D from very different viewpoints which is naturally shaping the language we use to discuss it", I would suggest that we are trying to discuss D&D from different language definitions, which is hampering our ability to share viewpoints.  AFAICT, we might actually all agree with you if the terminology barrier were overcome.When I read "cinematic" I think "Of or of a quality related to the cinema", which is a pretty broad and inclusive definition.  It seems to me that your definition is a lot tighter.  Indeed, it must be for you to hold your stated opinions.Personally, if "cinematic" means one thing to you, and another to Celebrim, and yet another to me, I am more than willing to go with your definition for the purpose of this discussion.  It doesn't matter how we individually define it for other purposes; all that matters is that we understand how you define it for this purpose.  For this purpose, I am willing to accept any definition you care to use, so long as I can then relate it to your statements, and see where they make sense.RC</blockquote>

Verification