NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5106113" data-attributes="member: 4937">I agree.  They are, as I've already admitted, shorthand for large complex ideas.  In order to understand their meaning, you have to have some understanding of the large complex idea and some understanding of what part of that complex idea relates to what the person is describing.So I hope you see that this 'problem' doesn't really undermine what I'm saying at all.It would be more sensible.  But I suspect the problem here is that the precise language for doing so doesn't exist or is isn't in wide usage.  I'd have to go digging through FORGE to see if someone has defined language for discussing the things that seem to be at the root of this.  I know some of FORGE-speak, but not enough to describe this in those terms or even whether this is something that has been precisely described.  As for the complaint that the term is so vague that it's possible to derive a meaning from it that is neither meant or desired, I find that to be rather odd complaint in as much as many words and terms fit that description.  And even if more precise language did exist, all that would happen is that we would know have some consensus definition for what the shorthand term 'videogamey' meant - and that's not something I have an objection to.  'Videogamey' would still then be a supercategory of some list of more precise ideas.Meanwhile, I note that my precise definitions aren't considered worthy of argument even when I provide them.  People who want to argue against me would rather speak in generalities about the reasons for their objection, namely that the word supposedly can't be defined.  The repeated complaint that I'm being 'too vague' after having provided an Aristolean definition and specific examples, or that there is no evidence that a consensus definition exists don't provide me alot of evidence that the people making the counter-claims are motivated by strong commitments to using language in precise and accurate ways.  It's possible, but one of the rules of being a good listener is not to assert that your lack of understanding is solely due to some mental defect of the speaker when trying to understand them.  It's just as likely that people are continually engaging in ad hominem attacks on those that use the word (including the one you just made) because they find dismissing things that they don't understand easier than trying to understand them.   Asserting that the other side is simply insane or stupid gets us no where, and while doing it in a way that slips under the mod's radar is a popular EnWorld sport, if you really care about understanding I'd rather you didn't engage in it now.</blockquote>

Verification