Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7769274" data-attributes="member: 85555">I am not going to sit here in inquisition over my enjoyment of the article. I like it, that is all that matters. If you think it sucks, that is up to you. I'm not going to assume things about you, simply because you disliked an article I liked. I like it for reasons I've given and I don't think I have to defend my character for enjoying an article (nor will I do so). And if you do want to attack me personally over it, please do so in a way that accurately reflects what I am saying. I never said the article captured new school 100% accurately. I said it reflected a real perception of new school. And I have said countless times, I don't think old and new school are mutually exclusive approaches engaged in a zero sum game. If you want to specify where you think the article is incorrect about new school style, I am happy to engage you and tell you if I agree or disagree. But I am not going to just sit here and just be a punching bag for vague declarations of my ignorance or idiocy.&nbsp; So far I haven't seen any specific criticisms from you about the the claims in the article (at least in exchanges with me). Naturally when talking about something as broad as &quot;new school&quot; and &quot;old school&quot; there is often going to be disagreement over what those two things actually embody. There is room for disagreement and discussion (and there is room for people getting things wrong, then other people stepping in and giving a more complete picture).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 7769274, member: 85555"] I am not going to sit here in inquisition over my enjoyment of the article. I like it, that is all that matters. If you think it sucks, that is up to you. I'm not going to assume things about you, simply because you disliked an article I liked. I like it for reasons I've given and I don't think I have to defend my character for enjoying an article (nor will I do so). And if you do want to attack me personally over it, please do so in a way that accurately reflects what I am saying. I never said the article captured new school 100% accurately. I said it reflected a real perception of new school. And I have said countless times, I don't think old and new school are mutually exclusive approaches engaged in a zero sum game. If you want to specify where you think the article is incorrect about new school style, I am happy to engage you and tell you if I agree or disagree. But I am not going to just sit here and just be a punching bag for vague declarations of my ignorance or idiocy. So far I haven't seen any specific criticisms from you about the the claims in the article (at least in exchanges with me). Naturally when talking about something as broad as "new school" and "old school" there is often going to be disagreement over what those two things actually embody. There is room for disagreement and discussion (and there is room for people getting things wrong, then other people stepping in and giving a more complete picture). [/QUOTE]

Verification