Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 8242582" data-attributes="member: 48965">I'll probably engage with this topic less after this post but I just want to give one example.&nbsp; Now [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER] you aren't the only poster who has done this in the thread but this was the most recent example and so I grabbed it. I'd love for posters to tell me how there isn't a certain air of pompousness or arrogance when one side (A) can claim an imaginary word (Protagonism) that is clearly rooted in a real word (Protagonist) define it and restrict it in any way they please and when it is asserted by the other side (B) that they are using a word that has caused confusion, or made it unclear for many posters to engage with the ideas being put forth are basically told to suck it up, it was defined and we are being petty, argumentative and difficult by engaging with the nomenclature instead of the ideas behind it...Side B then claims a phrase(Living World) and are willing to define it in the way they wish to use it but side A summarily declares it unfit, unclear and for all intents and purposes refuses to engage with it on the basis of nomenclature...How is one side (A) able to control the entire discussion in this way, including not only what is or is not valid for their own nomenclature and ideas, but what is or is not valid for the other side as well?EDIT: As a secondary thought, I would ask [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]... what do you get from these discussions?&nbsp; I've never seen either of you actually declare that something about your playstyle was changed or that you've adopted a different playstyle and/or goals during these discussions, so I'm just curious what is your pay off here?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 8242582, member: 48965"] I'll probably engage with this topic less after this post but I just want to give one example. Now [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER] you aren't the only poster who has done this in the thread but this was the most recent example and so I grabbed it. I'd love for posters to tell me how there isn't a certain air of pompousness or arrogance when one side (A) can claim an imaginary word (Protagonism) that is clearly rooted in a real word (Protagonist) define it and restrict it in any way they please and when it is asserted by the other side (B) that they are using a word that has caused confusion, or made it unclear for many posters to engage with the ideas being put forth are basically told to suck it up, it was defined and we are being petty, argumentative and difficult by engaging with the nomenclature instead of the ideas behind it... Side B then claims a phrase(Living World) and are willing to define it in the way they wish to use it but side A summarily declares it unfit, unclear and for all intents and purposes refuses to engage with it on the basis of nomenclature... How is one side (A) able to control the entire discussion in this way, including not only what is or is not valid for their own nomenclature and ideas, but what is or is not valid for the other side as well? EDIT: As a secondary thought, I would ask [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]... what do you get from these discussions? I've never seen either of you actually declare that something about your playstyle was changed or that you've adopted a different playstyle and/or goals during these discussions, so I'm just curious what is your pay off here? [/QUOTE]

Verification