Based On What We Know: Rate Civ 4

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Actually Boris, if you look at the translation to English, you will see that Carmina Burana is VERY SECULAR..

Reread what I said. I'm not asserting otherwise, nor have I ever asserted otherwise. The statement by Sir Ralph that I did is utter fiction. I suspect he either misconstrued something I said or mistook another poster for me.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry Boris, I completely misread your post. I do humbly apologise! Consider me suitably chastised !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So, do you think SMAC was "broken?" Since a hefty number of folks here think it is the gold standard of strategy games, I don't see how one could assert this.

Are you a member of the "You hate Bush - must hate America, freedom and democracy" crowd?

One can sincerely dislike a feature and perceive that it makes a game much worse than it could be. But he still can like a game as a whole. Besides, I didn't like SMAC much, however I can see that many did (and still do).

You'll have to explain this to me. Eliminating ZOC and allowing different nations' units to occupy the same tiles indeed eliminates a strategy of placing units in such a way as to make choke points and cut off large areas from rivals. Is that not so?

(added, as I forgot to respond to that) Yes, but how would you know what are my favorite strategies? Besides, eliminating strategies does make a game poorer. A don't deny however, that this feature adds new strategies as well, and that's why I said, that I can grudgingly accept it.

Come on, there's an obvious difference here. We all are here because of a love for Civ at some level. And you yourself admit you were wholely excited about the game until this revelation. So there's a difference between a positive feeling of excitement and a negative one of pessimism.

I say without hesitation, when I like a feature and did so multiple times. But I will also state clearly what I dislike, and I don't care one bit if somebody gets his panties in a twist over that.

It's perfectly reasonable to get excited about a yet-to-be-released product based on previews and what not. It's not nearly as reasonable to get pessimistic and negative about it. Why? Well, simply put, pessimism is a bad emotion and it makes you sad. It's good to feel joy when it may not be called for, much worse to feel sad when it isn't necessarily called for.

Non sequitur.

It's belittling to want you to not be so pessimistic about the game?

It is belittling to say "Hey, I want you to feel better, Ralphie". Can't you see that, Boriska?

But now I begin to see you maybe were just looking for a reason to go all melodramatic.

Getting into new wild assertions?

First, even if this were true, it's pathetic to bring such a thing up in this context and just looks like a petty attack.

Interpret it as you wish. It's more like an account clearing. I wanted to tell you what I always wanted, but never did.

Second, this is categorically not true. I ask you to provide a cite and prove this assertion. I've sung in Carmina Burana three times, am well acquainted with the text, and know and have always known that it is not a religious piece. That I would have ever asserted it was anything but secular is laughable, and I will have to demand you prove it. Go on, quote me.

You said that. But it's been several years ago. The shortliving of off topic threads even in the archive saves you. It wasn't nearly enough to care about, but now that I know how you stand to your word, I'll take a screenshot next time.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Joseph
The FBI could still throw him into jail.

Can the federal police throw somebody in jail in America? Wow! We have courts for that matter. (yep, nitpicking, I know)

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Can the federal police throw somebody in jail in America? Wow! We have courts for that matter. (yep, nitpicking, I know)

Thanks to the Patriot Act they can.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Are you a member of the "You hate Bush - must hate America, freedom and democracy" crowd?

What? And you accuse me of non-sequiturs?

One can sincerely dislike a feature and perceive that it makes a game much worse than it could be. But he still can like a game as a whole. Besides, I didn't like SMAC much, however I can see that many did (and still do).

True. But you said "broken." Perhaps you should also choose your words more carefully, since saying "broken" implies a whole lot more than this.

(added, as I forgot to respond to that) Yes, but how would you know what are my favorite strategies? Besides, eliminating strategies does make a game poorer. A don't deny however, that this feature adds new strategies as well, and that's why I said, that I can grudgingly accept it.

If you take the time to devote multiple posts in more than one thread, calling it an "abomination" and saying it lowered your opinion of the game dramatically, what else am I to think other than it's one of your favorite strategies? Hell, it's been one of my favorite strategies. Regardless, change it to "a strategy you like to use a lot," and my meaning is the same.

Altering game mechanics will always eliminate strategies someplace or another. It's simply impossible to include all strategies conceivable, after all. You should see the forest rather than staring at the trees--as those who have actually played the game attest, this does not in any way "break" the game. This isn't Civ3, it's Civ4, and new mechanics like this need to be evaluated in the context of Civ4.

I say without hesitation, when I like a feature and did so multiple times. But I will also state clearly what I dislike, and I don't care one bit if somebody gets his panties in a twist over that.

Fair enough, but I think the panty-twisting was on your part, not mine. Dropping your rating of the game 2 slots, calling it an "abomination," complaining about it in multiple threads--that's going a bit further than just saying you dislike a feature. It's...melodramatic?

Non sequitur.

That's a pat response that says nothing.

It is belittling to say "Hey, I want you to feel better, Ralphie". Can't you see that, Boriska?

As I said, I can see why you took it that way, and I'm sorry it came across such, but that wasn't my intent. It was a friendly "Cheer up." I've had people tell me to cheer up when I've gotten agitated over a relatively minor occurance. I don't think they're belittling me.

Getting into new wild assertions?

Nah, making logical deductions based on observation.

Interpret it as you wish. It's more like an account clearing. I wanted to tell you what I always wanted, but never did.

See, this is really a non sequitur. Why wouldn't you have mentioned it then? That would make sense and nobody would have complained about it (I wouldn't have, had I been in such error).

You said that. But it's been several years ago. The shortliving of off topic threads even in the archive saves you. It wasn't nearly enough to care about, but now that I know how you stand to your word, I'll take a screenshot next time.

Ah...like that time you confessed to being a serial child pornographer in the OT. I can't find the thread, as it was years ago and it's been cleared from the archives, but I remember it clearly...

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. If you want to make a wild claim like that, you'd better have something to back it up. Otherwise, bringing it up is just a desperate lashing out with baseless attacks, which makes your indignation at being "belittled" rather hollow. I'd rather have someone tell me not to be so glum about a game than accuse me of saying something I never did.

Hey, wait... weren't you putting me on ignore? Or was that whole paragraph you devoted to making that link and saying so just you being...melodramatic?

[Spiffor]

cat fight!

[Freddz]

After reading the previews of solver and the one in civfanatics, I think option 1 still looks like the winner...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Spiffor
cat fight!

Well, somebody must be the wet blanket to dampen the spirits of all us fanboys.

[Willem]

Well now that Yin has gone all nice on us, someone has to pick up the torch.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What? And you accuse me of non-sequiturs?

Yes. Not liking one feature does not equal considering the whole game broken. Not liking the president does not equal hating America, let alone freedom and democracy.

Yep.. looks similar.

True. But you said "broken." Perhaps you should also choose your words more carefully, since saying "broken" implies a whole lot more than this.

Yes, it was bad wording. It's not a game breaking feature. Its a horrible abomination, but not game breaking. Happy now?

If you take the time to devote multiple posts in more than one thread, calling it an "abomination" and saying it lowered your opinion of the game dramatically, what else am I to think other than it's one of your favorite strategies? Hell, it's been one of my favorite strategies. Regardless, change it to "a strategy you like to use a lot," and my meaning is the same.

Fair enough, but I think the panty-twisting was on your part, not mine. Dropping your rating of the game 2 slots, calling it an "abomination," complaining about it in multiple threads--that's going a bit further than just saying you dislike a feature. It's...melodramatic?

I devoted it exactly one post in one thread. All other posts I had to devote for my defense, because I was jumped at by people like you. Solver called me a cheater in the very next post (ok, he said exploiting). Had you and all others shown a tad bit tolerance to somebodys opinion or limited your response to a polite "you find it bad, I find it good, we can agree to disagree", I wouldn't have spent one single more post. But you felt the urge to talk me it out.

And yes, it significantly dropped my opinion about the game. It was a solid 90%, now it's like 75%. Not by 2 poll slots, but by one as I mentioned, but the wording of the slots is misleading: I wouldn't limit my research to Apolyton reviews only, that would be one-sided. It is only one of many sites devoted to TBS games.

That's a pat response that says nothing.

"It's not nearly as reasonable to get pessimistic and negative about it" does not follow from "pessimism is a bad emotion and it makes you sad". One talks about reason and the other about emotions. Hence, non sequitur.

It makes me sad as hell, that the world is still suffering from poverty, hunger and wars. But why in the hell would I not talk about that? And before you complain - yes, that is an analogy.

See, this is really a non sequitur. Why wouldn't you have mentioned it then? That would make sense and nobody would have complained about it (I wouldn't have, had I been in such error).

Ah...like that time you confessed to being a serial child pornographer in the OT. I can't find the thread, as it was years ago and it's been cleared from the archives, but I remember it clearly...

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. If you want to make a wild claim like that, you'd better have something to back it up. Otherwise, bringing it up is just a desperate lashing out with baseless attacks, which makes your indignation at being "belittled" rather hollow. I'd rather have someone tell me not to be so glum about a game than accuse me of saying something I never did.

As I said, I can not prove it anymore. Next time I will take a screenshot, but wait, I could have photoshopped it. Never mind. Consider it not mentioned. It just changes my opinion about you. By five slots.

Hey, wait... weren't you putting me on ignore? Or was that whole paragraph you devoted to making that link and saying so just you being...melodramatic?

I had you on ignore for a while, but that feature is annoying, it messes up the page metric. Just try it and you'll see. So I removed you again. Besides, nobody has been on my ignore list yet and the whole thing is not worth to differ from my principles.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Yes. Not liking one feature does not equal considering the whole game broken. Not liking the president does not equal hating America, let alone freedom and democracy.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Yep. It's a gamebreaking feature for me.

And then you admit:

Yes, it was bad wording. It's not a game breaking feature.

So you said it broke the game, I argued with that, and now you're trying to say in the same post that that you both did and didn't say the game was broken. Since you like political comparisons, are you John Kerry?

Look, you said initially that it was a gamebreaker and that it dropped your opinion so much and etc. etc. You then went on to temper your statements. Isn't that evidence enough your initial posts were over the top, ergo...melodramatic?

I certainly don't see the point of your Bush comment in the light of the fact you explicitly did say it was a gamebreaker. Sheesh.

I devoted it exactly one post in one thread.

No, you posted in two threads. Markos's review thread, and this one. And you said it was an abomination, it ruined your day, it was a gamebreaker, etc., gnashing of teeth, ad infinitum. You don't think this is a little bit extreme for...a game?

All other posts I had to devote for my defense, because I was jumped at by people like you. Solver called me a cheater in the very next post (ok, he said exploiting). Had you and all others shown a tad bit tolerance to somebodys opinion or limited your response to a polite "you find it bad, I find it good, we can agree to disagree", I wouldn't have spent one single more post. But you felt the urge to talk me it out.

What's wrong with trying to convince you that something you find unpleasant may not be as unpleasant as you think? Since you haven't played the game, why shouldn't those who have try to assuage your fears and say it doesn't have the bad effect you think it will?

That Solver thinks it's an exploit is his opinion, but that doesn't remotely equate to him calling you a cheater. More hysterical hyperbole--despite your mentioning that he really said it was an exploit, which was a lame attempt to mitigate your false claim that he said you were a cheater. Why even use that term if you know it's completely false? This is evidence of the problem, as I see it: you got unreasonably defensive, took offense where none was meant and escalated it to a level of a flame war because you didn't like people suggesting you calm down and wait to actually play the game. Oh noes, what an oppressive notion!

And yes, it significantly dropped my opinion about the game. It was a solid 90%, now it's like 75%. Not by 2 poll slots, but by one as I mentioned, but the wording of the slots is misleading: I wouldn't limit my research to Apolyton reviews only, that would be one-sided. It is only one of many sites devoted to TBS games.

All well and good, but I still think this is being hypersensitive about the game mechanics. Despite all the wonderful additions you will admit to being in the game (since before you were prepared to give it a 2), changing this one thing--which I say again isn't even a core Civ concept--you want to get upset and pessimistic over the game as a whole? That's your right, but it's my right to say that it's silly and you're unneccessarily making yourself upset over something pretty minor in the scheme of things, especially since you, erm, haven't played the game.

"It's not nearly as reasonable to get pessimistic and negative about it" does not follow from "pessimism is a bad emotion and it makes you sad". One talks about reason and the other about emotions. Hence, non sequitur.

It makes me sad as hell, that the world is still suffering from poverty, hunger and wars. But why in the hell would I not talk about that? And before you complain - yes, that is an analogy.

Reason and emotion aren't unrelated, you know. Despite what some of the more hysterically emotional may claim, they are very much intertwined. And especially in this case, there is no reason to get upset to the point of calling something an "abomination" (hello, hyperbole anyone?) when you haven't even experienced it yet. As a gut reaction, it's possibly somewhat understandable, but as a sustained argument? That's just silly. You can make a conscious choice to take a "wait-and-see" attitude and not get so worked up over what really amounts to your imagination.

People use reasoning to assuage bad feelings all the time. When someone dies suddenly, people mitigate the sadness by saying "at least he didn't suffer," or "he's in a better place." That's perfectly rational, as it helps us feel better. But your counterexample doesn't make sense, as there's not much reason to temper feelings of excitement or happiness. Sure, there are the wet blankets out there, but most people tend to take happy things as they are and not let them be clouded by pessimism.

And that analogy really sucks, considering we're talking a computer game versus the horrific reality of true human suffering. In fact, the analogy just makes your griping look all the worse, by comparison. Considering all those miserable things do happen, and you're aware of them, letting a single mechanism in a computer game get you so upset isn't too flattering.

Tell me, do you walk around constantly depressed because of that suffering you mentioned? If not, isn't that because, despite the fact you know it's out there, you're able to rationally decide not to let it bother you in your day-to-day existence? Would that be reason controlling emotion, perhaps?

As I said, I can not prove it anymore. Next time I will take a screenshot, but wait, I could have photoshopped it. Never mind. Consider it not mentioned. It just changes my opinion about you. By five slots.

Well, I honestly didn't have much of an opinion of you one way or the other before, but now I know you're incredibly petty and possibly dishonest. At any rate, the archive goes back to 2001. I'm sure you can find this supposed thread without much surfing. Consider it a challenge. Find this quote, and I'll make a new thread in the OT stating how I was oh so wrong and you were oh so right.

But it's an empty hope. I've certainly been in error before about classical music, but the notion that I'd say something so egregiously wrong--when I've performed the damned piece 3 times and have been well-acquainted with its text since the beginning--absolutely preposterous. Why would I say something like that when I've been intimately acquainted with the piece and known better since 1996?

Now, I will throw you a rope here to extricate yourself. A little while back I started a thread out of boredom (and spoofing all the web browser-themed threads) wherein I asked people to ask me about opera. Several people mentioned pieces that weren't opera (like Scheherezade). One person mentioned Carmina Burana, and I told him it wasn't an opera, it was a cantata (Orff's subtitle was "Scenic Cantata For Soloists, Choruses & Orchestra.").

Therein may lie your confusion, as you might have wrongly assumed that meant it was a religious cantata. But there is no such implication, as the term does not denote sacredness (it literally means "sung"), and there are plenty of secular cantatas going back to the 17th century. Is that hole big enough for you to wiggle through?

Beyond all that, I find the notion that you've been bottling up this mistaken belief of yours for years waiting for the right moment (or, as it seems here, any moment) to bring it up in a fit of spite pretty amusing. That's assuming, of course, you're not just telling stories.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, for the LOVE of PETE!!!! Seriously guys, can you PLEASE stop with this pointless bickering. Bringing up stuff from almost three years ago is just downright childish-I admit-but this has just gotten beyond a JOKE!!! I confess that I once gave up on Apolyton completely, largely due to the flame wars which were erupting around the time Civ3 was released. I certainly don't want to have to do the same this time around! Could you both just agree to disagree and move on? If you want to go further, by all means do so, but PRIVATELY!!! I don't know about anyone else, but I want to have a calm, rational and intelligent discussion about WHY people have voted the way they have in the polls. Is that too much to ask?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So you said it broke the game, I argued with that, and now you're trying to say in the same post that that you both did and didn't say the game was broken. Since you like political comparisons, are you John Kerry?

No, not even American, and proud of it. Are you Boris Godunov?

Look, you said initially that it was a gamebreaker and that it dropped your opinion so much and etc. etc.

I said it was a gamebreaking feature for me. I am sorry if you interpret the word gamebreaking as making the game impossible to play for all. I certainly learned a new English nuance now. What I meant was simply, that it made the game so much unattractive for me, that I considered not to play it from start, but later, and not fully devoted like Civ2 and 3, but rather occasional, if at all.

I have to bring a sacrifice to play Civ full-steam. It is a very time consuming game. And at the moment I am involved in 2 online role playing games (besides TBS my favorite game genre), which I would have either to leave or to severely cut my activity, because they are also very time consuming and my time pool is limited. This involves leaving guilds, giving up offices, disappointing lots of friends etc. etc. I would do it at the drop of a hat if Civ4 was still the epitome of awesomeness it was a few days ago. But now arise doubts if it's worth the trouble.

You then went on to temper your statements. Isn't that evidence enough your initial posts were over the top, ergo...melodramatic?

I am always open for a sane discussion and ready to reevaluate my opinion, if somebody convinces me with facts. Like new strategies possible with this feature (actively help an ally) and old bugs fixed with it (sub bug). Thus I changed my position and mentioned multiple times, that I'm still not happy, but can grudgingly accept it.

Of course, "don't be so pessimistic about it because it makes you sad" is not a fact I would consider convincing. It is emotional drivel and possibly not even sincere. "I am really concerned about your health, signor Rossi" said the protection money extorter with a worried face. I would accept it from a friend, but I haven't raised enough pints with you to consider you one.

I certainly don't see the point of your Bush comment in the light of the fact you explicitly did say it was a gamebreaker. Sheesh.

Yes I did. Sorry for not knowing English in all nuances, I am doing my best, but I'm still learning. You certainly have the moral right to be nitpicking. I explained my former understanding about the word above. Could you accept this along with my humble apologies, Sire?

No, you posted in two threads. Markos's review thread, and this one.

I posted in one - on topic - and changed my vote in another, because my opinion has changed. I did not mention it here in the first place. Only after being asked. It is people like you who took that discussion over in this thread. I certainly did not ask for it.

And you said it was an abomination, it ruined your day, it was a gamebreaker, etc., gnashing of teeth,

With gamebreaking defined as I explained above, that's still what I think, even though I can accept it with bad feelings.

ad infinitum.

Yes, defending myself from attacks such like yours. If you would be ready to agree to disagree, like all others do, I would not mention it one more time.

What's wrong with trying to convince you that something you find unpleasant may not be as unpleasant as you think? Since you haven't played the game, why shouldn't those who have try to assuage your fears and say it doesn't have the bad effect you think it will?

Have you betatested it, or did you get a review release like Markos and Solver? If not, what's the point in you trying to convince me again, and again, and again? The others have stopped it long ago, we agree to disagree and that's perfectly fine with me.

That Solver thinks it's an exploit is his opinion, but that doesn't remotely equate to him calling you a cheater. More hysterical hyperbole--despite your mentioning that he really said it was an exploit, which was a lame attempt to mitigate your false claim that he said you were a cheater. Why even use that term if you know it's completely false?

Yes, I like talking in hyperboles. So what?

This is evidence of the problem, as I see it: you got unreasonably defensive, took offense where none was meant and escalated it to a level of a flame war because you didn't like people suggesting you calm down and wait to actually play the game. Oh noes, what an oppressive notion!

Whom did I flame? And who flamed me?

Or was that an hyperbole? If so, sorry, you are of course granted the right to use them where you think it's appropriate.

All well and good, but I still think this is being hypersensitive about the game mechanics. Despite all the wonderful additions you will admit to being in the game (since before you were prepared to give it a 2), changing this one thing--which I say again isn't even a core Civ concept--you want to get upset and pessimistic over the game as a whole?

1 - if units of opposite factions can under circumstances share tiles or not is a core Civ concept. Imagine chess (a TBS!) with the tile sharing rule. It would make it a completely different game! Yes I know it is not completely equivalent, as chess opponents are always at war, but look at it from the standpoint, how the introduction of such a rule very well can change a game fundamentally.

2 - I didn't get upset and pessimistic about the game as a whole. That's nonsense. Granted, it dropped my opinion about the game, because my opinion about the game is a summary of my opinion of all features. I gave it a 90% before - awesome game - now it is around 75% and hence still a very good game. Of course you, attacking me over my incorrect use of the word "gamebreaking" ad nauseam, would ignore my multiple mentioning of this conveniently.

That's your right, but it's my right to say that it's silly and you're unneccessarily making yourself upset over something pretty minor in the scheme of things, especially since you, erm, haven't played the game.

No, I haven't played it. I did not even apply to the betatest despite having had the chance. I betatested 2 games, a MMORPG, and Conquests. After both of them looking nice in the beta and so bad after release, I decided never to betatest a game again. Yes, it's illogical, perhaps superstitious, but hey, what's wrong with that?

Reason and emotion aren't unrelated, you know.

No, I don't.

Despite what some of the more hysterically emotional may claim, they are very much intertwined. And especially in this case, there is no reason to get upset to the point of calling something an "abomination" (hello, hyperbole anyone?) when you haven't even experienced it yet.

Umm, SMAC? Besides, even if I didn't know it from SMAC, it takes little imagination to see the consequences.

As a gut reaction, it's possibly somewhat understandable, but as a sustained argument? That's just silly. You can make a conscious choice to take a "wait-and-see" attitude and not get so worked up over what really amounts to your imagination.

I am not worked up about the feature nearly as much as about you not being willing to accept a simple statement based on personal liking, not more. Yes, I don't like one single feature in a computer game and dared to say that openly. Boo effing whoo! Big deal! Why in the hell can you not accet this as fact and get over it?

People use reasoning to assuage bad feelings all the time. When someone dies suddenly, people mitigate the sadness by saying "at least he didn't suffer," or "he's in a better place." That's perfectly rational, as it helps us feel better.

Sorry, emotional drivel and unrelated at that. No matter how much you soothe your mind, dead is still dead. Yes, I have lost people dear to me too. Among others I had a very good friend dying from cancer. I know perfectly well that she is not in a better place now, and I know that she suffered all pains of hell even though she didn't tell me that. But I had to accept the inevitable and you know what? I did. Period. I was sad as hell (it's years ago, so spare your condolences) but I got over it without soothing my mind with senseless drivel.

Emotions have the shortcomings, that they are highly subjective. Reason - as in the sense of logic - is unique. And even in the sense of rationality (following values defined by ethics) it is not as multiform as emotions. So no, they have not much in common.

And emotions have another property. You can not extend yours to another person. If I don't like a feature I don't like it, period. You can not convince me to like it by any means. The best you can hope for is to convince me to accept the inevitable. But in this case you don't have to, others succeeded in that by confronting me with facts (new possibilities, bugfixes etc.) instead of emotional blabber. I still don't like it, and I don't know if I ever will, but I can grudgingly live with it. So there.

But your counterexample doesn't make sense, as there's not much reason to temper feelings of excitement or happiness. Sure, there are the wet blankets out there, but most people tend to take happy things as they are and not let them be clouded by pessimism.

Wonderful. Perhaps I should have a joint, too? It would certainly bring me in an absolutely happy world without any shortcomings and ailments.

Sorry, but I still don't see a reason not to state, that I don't like a feature if I, well, don't like it.

And that analogy really sucks, considering we're talking a computer game versus the horrific reality of true human suffering. In fact, the analogy just makes your griping look all the worse, by comparison.

Awww, that's why I wrote that it's an analogy and not a comparison. Look at it from the standpoint of logic, because that's how it's meant.

Considering all those miserable things do happen, and you're aware of them, letting a single mechanism in a computer game get you so upset isn't too flattering.

Yes, what is a computer game compared with hunger and death in Africa. Bad bad me for disliking a feature in a game.

Or were you just being melodramatic?

Besides, I am not striving to flatter you, far from it.

Tell me, do you walk around constantly depressed because of that suffering you mentioned? If not, isn't that because, despite the fact you know it's out there, you're able to rationally decide not to let it bother you in your day-to-day existence? Would that be reason controlling emotion, perhaps?

No, but the mentioned feature does not bother my day to day existence either. The disappointment abuot it ruined one day, granted, but I tell you what, that was days ago!

Well, I honestly didn't have much of an opinion of you one way or the other before, but now I know you're incredibly petty and possibly dishonest.

And I know that you are either extremely forgetful or also dishonest, big deal.

At any rate, the archive goes back to 2001. I'm sure you can find this supposed thread without much surfing. Consider it a challenge.

This statement is false. The OT archive is purged regularly and only a few threads considered worthwhile by owners or the general audience (asked in purge threads) survive a purge. So it is consistent only back to the epoch of the last purge, I think somewhere 2004. A thread filled with balderdash about classical music is likely not among the favorite OT threads archived for eternity.

Find this quote, and I'll make a new thread in the OT stating how I was oh so wrong and you were oh so right.

I wasn't right, as I didn't argue with you. You called it religious, I said politely that I disagree, you laughed and wrote something about monks getting drunk every night and singing silly songs. I didn't respond, as it was certainly not worth an argument.

Now, I will throw you a rope here to extricate yourself. A little while back I started a thread out of boredom (and spoofing all the web browser-themed threads) wherein I asked people to ask me about opera. Several people mentioned pieces that weren't opera (like Scheherezade). One person mentioned Carmina Burana, and I told him it wasn't an opera, it was a cantata (Orff's subtitle was "Scenic Cantata For Soloists, Choruses & Orchestra.").

Therein may lie your confusion, as you might have wrongly assumed that meant it was a religious cantata. But there is no such implication, as the term does not denote sacredness (it literally means "sung"), and there are plenty of secular cantatas going back to the 17th century. Is that hole big enough for you to wiggle through?

No, I didn't post in that thread, although I remember it. I mostly lurk the OT only. The thread I mentioned was significantly earlier, I'd say 2002 or 2003 at the latest.

Beyond all that, I find the notion that you've been bottling up this mistaken belief of yours for years waiting for the right moment (or, as it seems here, any moment) to bring it up in a fit of spite pretty amusing. That's assuming, of course, you're not just telling stories.

I grant you that one. I am a choleric, which means I am getting upset fast, but just as fast I calm down.

Overall I am tired of this discussion. It leads nowhere. Accept the fact, that I have a different opinion than you about both computer games and the relations between emotions and reason. Is that so hard?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Could you both just agree to disagree and move on?

That's all I asked for multiple times. But I was not granted that privilege.