Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3814332" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, either it would indicate that JK and I have very different opinions of what is mechanically interesting or not, but since I have already agreed numerous times that win/lose scenarios are mechanically interesting, the only real benefit would be that I could answer his question.&nbsp; And, given my answers to this point, I would likely largely agree with him that it was mechanically interesting (guessing, of course, sight unseen).Especially given, in the post where I made the request, I said specifically:&nbsp; Yet, throughout this discussion, Gizmo33 and I have been clear that we agree with you that a win/lose scenario can be exciting. That tells us nothing about whether or not a situation where you clearly cannot lose can be exciting.The problem is only that I neither wish to refuse answering his question, nor can I answer it on the basis of the information provided.&quot;30 paragraph posts&quot; and &quot;timecubes&quot; only appear when, after stating &quot;The car was red&quot; I receive an answer like &quot;what do you mean by car?&nbsp; Which car?&nbsp; What do you mean by red?&nbsp; What if it was under the light of a blue star?&nbsp; What if I was wearing sunglasses?&quot;&nbsp; I have tried to keep the waters as clear as possible, and have gone so far as to break down my argument in a point-by-point form.&nbsp; (shrug)&nbsp; I suppose I could plot out the argument thus far, including all objections and responses to objections.&nbsp; But it would seem like a colossal waste of time.YMMVRC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3814332, member: 18280"] Well, either it would indicate that JK and I have very different opinions of what is mechanically interesting or not, but since I have already agreed numerous times that win/lose scenarios are mechanically interesting, the only real benefit would be that I could answer his question. And, given my answers to this point, I would likely largely agree with him that it was mechanically interesting (guessing, of course, sight unseen). Especially given, in the post where I made the request, I said specifically: [indent]Yet, throughout this discussion, Gizmo33 and I have been clear that we agree with you that a win/lose scenario can be exciting. That tells us nothing about whether or not a situation where you clearly cannot lose can be exciting.[/indent] The problem is only that I neither wish to refuse answering his question, nor can I answer it on the basis of the information provided. "30 paragraph posts" and "timecubes" only appear when, after stating "The car was red" I receive an answer like "what do you mean by car? Which car? What do you mean by red? What if it was under the light of a blue star? What if I was wearing sunglasses?" I have tried to keep the waters as clear as possible, and have gone so far as to break down my argument in a point-by-point form. (shrug) I suppose I could plot out the argument thus far, including all objections and responses to objections. But it would seem like a colossal waste of time. YMMV RC [/QUOTE]

Verification