Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7444655" data-attributes="member: 5142">Over half of your wall-of-text is just snide, passive aggressive bickering. These aren't the sort of &quot;arguments&quot; that one should even respond to. It's not helping anything. Please chill down. So, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], in meatbag communication I have found it extraordinarily helpful to let people know how the message of their speech come across, whether intentionally or not. Most people will say, &quot;Oh, sorry about that. That is not my intention. Let me rephrase that.&quot; or &quot;I guess that I am just frustrated by X / feeling Y.&quot; This is not about looking to purposefully misread anyone. It's about what I was hearing in your statement. This is even why I began what I wrote with &quot;What I perhaps unfairly hear in your questions...&quot; Sometimes the subtext is the real &quot;content&quot; of the post rather than the text, and sometimes people don't realize how they are coming across, myself included. I have been instructed before that one should not simply listen to what is said at face value, but also what is unsaid or may be the &quot;impulse&quot; behind the words. You took this &quot;mis-reading&quot; as an attack, but it's not. And based on the &quot;likes&quot; I received to my subtextual &quot;reading,&quot; I suspect that I was not the only person who walked away from your post with a similar impression. You know why I didn't &quot;just address my argument and why you disagree with it&quot;? Honestly, it's because I did not want to. I wanted to see how Campbell answered because I myself was curious, and I even said as much when I quoted you a page ago. I did not see it as my place to wade too deeply into this conversation between you and Campbell. I was content to stand and watch in the shallows by the shore. But I foolishly thought that I could just dip my toe into the water without being dragged down to the deepest depths of discussion. And now I know that my silence would have been a wiser course of action but instead my decision to speak made fools of us both. I am somewhat confused here. I thought that you initially were inquiring whether D&amp;D could reproduce this experience, yet here you appear to have already landed at the conclusion that it can. I cannot answer about whether Sorcerer could be emulated in D&amp;D, nor do I dare speak about Campbell's experience here. This lies outside of my ken. What sort of concrete &quot;whats&quot; are you looking for from Campbell? You say that you are looking for some concrete things but you are casting a fairly nebulous net here. If you have experience with both Sorcerer and D&amp;D, then perhaps you could provide some concrete examples of your own to facilitate discussion?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7444655, member: 5142"] Over half of your wall-of-text is just snide, passive aggressive bickering. These aren't the sort of "arguments" that one should even respond to. It's not helping anything. Please chill down. So, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], in meatbag communication I have found it extraordinarily helpful to let people know [I]how[/I] the message of their speech come across, [I]whether intentionally or not[/I]. Most people will say, "Oh, sorry about that. That is not my intention. Let me rephrase that." or "I guess that I am just frustrated by X / feeling Y." This is not about looking to purposefully misread anyone. It's about what I was hearing in your statement. This is even why I began what I wrote with "What I perhaps unfairly hear in your questions..." Sometimes the subtext is the real "content" of the post rather than the text, and sometimes people don't realize how they are coming across, myself included. I have been instructed before that one should not simply listen to what is said at face value, but also what is unsaid or may be the "impulse" behind the words. You took this "mis-reading" as an attack, but it's not. And based on the "likes" I received to my subtextual "reading," I suspect that I was not the only person who walked away from your post with a similar impression. You know why I didn't "just address my argument and why you disagree with it"? Honestly, it's because I did not want to. I wanted to see how Campbell answered because I myself was curious, and I even said as much when I quoted you a page ago. I did not see it as my place to wade too deeply into this conversation between you and Campbell. I was content to stand and watch in the shallows by the shore. But I foolishly thought that I could just dip my toe into the water without being dragged down to the deepest depths of discussion. And now I know that my silence would have been a wiser course of action but instead my decision to speak made fools of us both. I am somewhat confused here. I thought that you initially were inquiring whether D&D could reproduce this experience, yet here you appear to have already landed at the conclusion that it can. I cannot answer about whether Sorcerer could be emulated in D&D, nor do I dare speak about Campbell's experience here. This lies outside of my ken. What sort of concrete "whats" are you looking for from Campbell? You say that you are looking for some concrete things but you are casting a fairly nebulous net here. If you have experience with both Sorcerer and D&D, then perhaps you could provide some concrete examples of your own to facilitate discussion? [/QUOTE]

Verification