Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5138528" data-attributes="member: 18280">I'll grant you that you may well be reading things I am not, and so might be coming from a different perspective.&nbsp; You are welcome -- more than welcome -- to cite your evidence!But I don't deny that being a living creature is an important part of the definition of fish, or that being African might be an important part of the definition of some specific species of fish.&nbsp; Likewise, I don't deny that some OSR folks are evangelical, or that some are easily offended.&quot;Living&quot; is part of the definition of fish, but it does little to help define fish from, say, lions. If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.Likewise, being evangelical occurs AFAICT in roughly equal parts across all groups of gamers -- it just isn't as easy to see, perhaps, in the majority group -- and thus does little to help define OSR folks from, say, 4e folks.&nbsp; If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.Similarly, being easily offended occurs AFAICT in roughly equal parts across all groups of gamers, and thus does little to help define OSR folks from, say, Pathfinder folks.&nbsp; Again, if X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.&quot;African&quot; is a part of the definition of some fish, and some lions, but not a quality of all fish or all lions, so trying to use &quot;African&quot; as a means to describe fish (or to differentiate fish from lions) is not going to be very helpful.&quot;Evangelical&quot; is a part of the definition of some OSR folks, and some current edition folks, but not a quality of all OSR or all current edition folks, so trying to use &quot;evangelical&quot; as a means to describe OSR folks (or to differentiate OSR supporters from supporters of the current edition) is not going to be very helpful.&quot;Easily offended&quot; is a part of the definition of some OSR folks, and some current edition folks, but not a quality of all OSR or all current edition folks, so trying to use &quot;easily offended&quot; as a means to describe OSR folks (or to differentiate OSR supporters from supporters of the current edition) is not going to be very helpful.The minute you start painting &quot;Them&quot; with a broad brush, you are also saying something about yourself.&nbsp; I don't see any way around that.&nbsp; I don't see how it really matters who &quot;They&quot; are.&nbsp; And, if the broad brush you are using isn't something flattering, what it says about you isn't, either.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5138528, member: 18280"] I'll grant you that you may well be reading things I am not, and so might be coming from a different perspective. You are welcome -- more than welcome -- to cite your evidence! But I don't deny that being a living creature is an important part of the definition of fish, or that being African might be an important part of the definition of some specific species of fish. Likewise, I don't deny that some OSR folks are evangelical, or that some are easily offended. "Living" is part of the definition of fish, but it does little to help define fish from, say, lions. If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful. Likewise, being evangelical occurs AFAICT in roughly equal parts across all groups of gamers -- it just isn't as easy to see, perhaps, in the majority group -- and thus does little to help define OSR folks from, say, 4e folks. If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful. Similarly, being easily offended occurs AFAICT in roughly equal parts across all groups of gamers, and thus does little to help define OSR folks from, say, Pathfinder folks. Again, if X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful. "African" is a part of the definition of some fish, and some lions, but not a quality of all fish or all lions, so trying to use "African" as a means to describe fish (or to differentiate fish from lions) is not going to be very helpful. "Evangelical" is a part of the definition of some OSR folks, and some current edition folks, but not a quality of all OSR or all current edition folks, so trying to use "evangelical" as a means to describe OSR folks (or to differentiate OSR supporters from supporters of the current edition) is not going to be very helpful. "Easily offended" is a part of the definition of some OSR folks, and some current edition folks, but not a quality of all OSR or all current edition folks, so trying to use "easily offended" as a means to describe OSR folks (or to differentiate OSR supporters from supporters of the current edition) is not going to be very helpful. The minute you start painting "Them" with a broad brush, you are also saying something about yourself. I don't see any way around that. I don't see how it really matters who "They" are. And, if the broad brush you are using isn't something flattering, what it says about you isn't, either. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification