Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 8242710" data-attributes="member: 6993955">Let's clear the air, for the sake of this thread, about 'your style'. Bedrock enjoys a very oldschool sandbox approach (among other things, of course). I also play that style of sandbox and enjoy it immensely, as does [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] and probably most of use here. There's no element of denigration of that style involved.What that leaves us with is word use and mockery. That's been flying think and fast from most corners here at times. I do hope you aren't disclaiming any part in that? Moving on to your second post. If you aren't seeing higher level discussion you aren't looking hard enough. There was no critique of the 'average gamer' implied there. They don't have to be interested in this kind of conversation in order for it to have merit. I notice that your immediate response there is to ride to the defense of that (entirely fictional) average gamer in the face of my, IDK, intellectual bullying? I didn't say I was 'above' the average gamer, only that I was interested in aspects of our shared in hobby that they aren't. Is this something you pulled from my use of 'higher level discussion'? Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's not what that means. Perhaps, rather than ascribing me the worst intellectual failings you can think of, you could just respond to the actual content? Analysis isn't a bad thing, deeper understanding isn't a bad thing - and neither need to be the product of intellectual arrogance. Also, I'm not bloody robin hood, I'm not trying to 'bring the message to the people' (and neither are you in this instance).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 8242710, member: 6993955"] Let's clear the air, for the sake of this thread, about 'your style'. Bedrock enjoys a very oldschool sandbox approach (among other things, of course). I also play that style of sandbox and enjoy it immensely, as does [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] and probably most of use here. There's no element of denigration of that style involved. What that leaves us with is word use and mockery. That's been flying think and fast from most corners here at times. I do hope you aren't disclaiming any part in that? Moving on to your second post. If you aren't seeing higher level discussion you aren't looking hard enough. There was no critique of the 'average gamer' implied there. They don't have to be interested in this kind of conversation in order for it to have merit. I notice that your immediate response there is to ride to the defense of that (entirely fictional) average gamer in the face of my, IDK, intellectual bullying? I didn't say I was 'above' the average gamer, only that I was interested in aspects of our shared in hobby that they aren't. Is this something you pulled from my use of 'higher level discussion'? Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's [B]not[/B] what that means. Perhaps, rather than ascribing me the worst intellectual failings you can think of, you could just respond to the actual content? Analysis isn't a bad thing, deeper understanding isn't a bad thing - and neither need to be the product of intellectual arrogance. Also, I'm not bloody robin hood, I'm not trying to 'bring the message to the people' (and neither are you in this instance). [/QUOTE]

Verification