1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Hail Guest!,
    Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Author Wes Locher has teamed up with Stratics for a giveaway of his new book Braving Britannia. This book explores the history and impact of Ultima Online and includes interviews from current and past dev team members as well as many UO and Stratics community members. Click here for more details!
    Dismiss Notice

I ObJeCt !!!!

Discussion in 'UO Spiels N Rants' started by Fayled Dhreams, Jan 16, 2011.

  1. The now locked OP which this is in reference to.
    The question raised IN that op ...
    has been rendered MOOT ... hehehehe
    read on with this in mind.
    The Moot is the anvil and my logic is the hammer that MAY form that malleable metal(mettle?) of your mind and behavior.


    The problem with homilies is sometimes they are based on "false premise". Actions based on a false premise will generally take a turn for the worse.

    The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese.
    both are "true premise" ...
    first come first served, is true when there is a supply of worms.
    be careful of what you reach for, look before you leap ... consequences "can/may"(will) happen Try to learn from yours and others mistakes.

    The "grand goal" of stratics (as I see it) is to discuss the >Ideas< that concern UO ... not the persons what be bringing >the ideas<.

    In examining "ideas" one should allow that the premise that the idea is based on ... is false.
    Equally (key word) when challenging an idea that you see AS false ... may in actuality >be true<.

    The "Logic" of analyzing an idea ... is well established. Broad view, "just" Fallacies.

    Which rounds to the "nature" of Moot ... :thumbsup: a good place to start.

    A Moot is, by definition, arguable. But it is More than that simple definition. It is also defined as a "settled point" ... a decision has been made OR the need for a decision is past. (examples in the broad view link above.)

    A settled question CAN BE used as a "teaching tool" IF one approaches the moot >>as settled< & KNOWING that< : the only "product" of the debate/argument to follow, is ONLY to show where those "counter arguments" are false in their construction.
    One "attacking" arguing against a known moot ... will usually have the errors of their logic pointed out to them
    (IF they would have worked that out for themselves ... it would not show "brilliance" to proceed ... Doh!)

    A moot can be useful as a teaching tool IF the results produce "learning". The Moot, however ... will REMAIN moot ... still arguable
    REGARDLESS of the presence/absence of any learning being obtained.

    Classic shards ARE a moot point.
    Time travel is a moot point (if there "will be" time travel in the future ; and IF they have traveled back to before now. THIS is the best they could do to "fix" us.) MOOT.

    The OP has stated a desire to eliminate as much as possible the use of "personal attacks"(jab's - slights - slanders "against a person") and steer more to limiting discussion to the "Merits of an Idea" REGARDLESS of the messenger/person presenting the idea.

    It is logical to do so. I will comply.
    Hopefully the mods can "regain" their logical composure (as it was alluded to having been lost in the op ... I HOPE they can succeed/comply)

    :danceb:Moot :danceb:MOOT :danceb: MOoOOOooOTTTT!!!!!
  2. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    So, in summary: Fayled disagrees!
  3. *ahem*
    While on occasion, I indeed do, "disagree"
    I do not feel that that is the case here, this thread, this topic ...
    From above
    Perhaps you fell into "disarray" ... and actually meant:
    Fayled is disagreeable?
    Please to explain how you arrived at your summary ...
    contextually, of course.

    If I have erred in the above ...
    Perhaps you meant: Fayled disagrees with bad logic as being sufficient to settle a matter?

    that is not necessarily so either ...
    What is it that you summarily believe that I disagree with?

    hehehehehe ... Fayled
  4. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    I believe I need to admit error here.
    My morning tea had not yet finished brewing when I read your post, and replied to it.
  5. hen

    hen Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Jul 2, 2008
    Likes Received:
    That thread sure deflected attention away from the heinous decision to physically move the Oceania server without telling anyone.
  6. An error only of precision.

    I do disagree with the appropriateness of comparing posters with "insects".

  7. Beer_Cayse

    Beer_Cayse Guest

    How-some-ever, there are instances where one does get "bugged" by posters. Does that not qualify?
  8. Of course that does not qualify.
    kind of an awkward phrasing there cayse ...
    What are you "qualifying"?

    an excuse to depart from civil discourse?

    tsk tsk ... if ya need to do that
    your civil discourse premise is :twak:weak-foo.
  9. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    If we're taking a metaphor literally, then in the case of the aforementioned post, then the posters themselves wouldn't be the flies, they'd be the fly-catcher, while the post would be the method employed to catch said flies, and the readership would be the flies.
    Although that would mean that in many cases, the role of fly and fly-catcher would be filled by the same person, bringing an image to mind of something like a fly version of Robert Muldoon, hunting its own kind with vinegar in one hand, and honey in the other.
  10. hmmm, metaphorically speaking then ...
    Wouldn't "the mods" be the fly herders ?

    :) metaphor trump!
  11. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    Or spiders?
    Wrap the flies up in infractions then...
    Then the metaphor becomes rather grisly...
  12. grisly?
    Tis that not a more natural "circle of life" sort of occurrence ?

    While I can see it as proposed ...
    I see a "failure of parallel" for metaphor purposes in that the "spiders" did not originate the hunting spot under discussion/consideration.

    the Forums appeared before the mods ... in most cases ... and their "nourishment" (ethically) should not rely on consuming random entrapment.

    Obviously(?assuming?) the original construct
    (the forums) were not designed to nourish the following spiders NOR the accumulation of flies ...
    but rather a safe place for gathering of humans sharing a common interest ...

    polishes the trump metaphor point.
  13. As I was preparing to "contemplate" a possibility
    It occurred to me that there could be something for the forums to do ... of an "improvement" nature too!

    Let us call it "a path to civil discourse" ... and this little bend in the path: the nature of "personal attacks"
    (which we shall assume to be non-civil ergo non-productive choices to lay ones feet upon, much less post for public view)

    two random examples (chosen for recentness of occurrence) are here.

    By my names presence within ...we may assume they are directed at me.
    Both are examples of "arguing from ignorance".
    Easy to see that nature in Coppelias post ... he out right declares his "lack of knowledge" ( I don't know what you expect ...)
    A bit more subtle in Vlaudes post, but there nonetheless.

    Both examples share a common trait(with others of this nature) ... They both have at one time or another stated words to the effect: They(and others) "do not understand" me(fayled)

    I'll further submit, at this point, that:
    Ignorance is no defense(excuse, acceptable reason) for departing from the path of civil discourse.
    Hopefully, that is a Tautology or at least axiomatic.

    Attending to vlaudes error:
    His use of "we" falls to several forms of fallacy, chief of which would be an appeal to authority or popularity
    (there is no informed "we" ... except those >in ignorance< OF the fallacy which I pointed out to Decimiie)
    and the "in your face style" is a fallacy of appeal to emotions
    (he is attacking YOU ... I was not ... >the idea< was my focus)
    and then wraps it neatly in HIS misinterpretation of petra's "advice" ... to wit:

    I was not "talking / speaking to him" ...
    I did consider petra's advice, as I have NEVER been punched in the face when addressing a semi intelligent human in that manner ... and I have actually addressed same.
    That Dicimiie also did not take a "violent counter attack" but rather stated her position/objections ... rebuttal >in the form of a civil enough question< ...
    Vlaude was merely interjecting his view that NO one could possibly understand >me<

    (*ahem* Several do ... I do believe, though >just one< is sufficient to disprove his position ... see?)
    And while HE may choose to take a swing at me(won't happen, I've people to "weed his sort out") ...
    He is departing from the path of civil discourse to suggest that "he knows" with sufficient certainty of "facts" to remain "correct/right" to advise Dicimii
    He is thus proven to be arguing from ignorance and further attacking that which he does not understand.

    Coppelias post Also falls to arguing from ignorance ... just not so deeply ... his is based more on "taste & style" preferences.

    Just a few closing points and we're done.(hopefully you've been taking sufficient breaks to get this far)

    Consider this: While extremely admirable to seek "civil discourse" one needs fully understand the components/parts and strain to remain on the "high ground" ... it ain't easy, it is a developed(evolved) set of testable propositions (through logic as linked in above). Attaining it does not require an adoption of "stilted speech", but it does require constant attention to forms and patterns of SELF expression ... and it is a form of "silly" to attempt it with flies *ahem*

    Now aren't all of you "don't get fayled" >Happy< that I de-parsed/unraveled one level of what I say? Still not "simple enough?" O'well! Try harder to get happy.
    *shrugs* Breaking it down any farther (and I could, learn to trust) would be seen >by me< as an attack on your personal nature and composition/potential.
    I shan't.

    Mods and fellow readers ...
    Whether or not I am on to something(OPening para) I am going to take MY time for careful reveiw and vetting and will decide at a later date as to whether or not to "share" ... right or wrong ... inconsequential ...
    Attacks against my person ... are what you should be looking for ... and since there is NO IDEA for ANY to "attack/comment on" ...
    'tis highly likely to be an "argument from ignorance" ... tsk tsk! check yourselves and check your logic's ... don't be sorry, be Right !!
    Tis a CLEANER thing to have an empty forum ... rather than one infested of flies ...
    Am I right or am I Genius? (obvious is all >I hope< )
    Remember ... I always DO strive to correct my errors, and I do so in public when that's where my errors are.
    History is the only judge that I cater towards ... tis logical ... it is longer lasting.

    Good Luck and Fortune, till next, if ever

    Fayled Dhreams
  14. Tina Small

    Tina Small Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend 4H

    May 12, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I hope you'll decide to share.

    :popcorn: <----Something to do while waiting on Fayled
  15. Vlaude

    Vlaude Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Aug 7, 2003
    Likes Received:
    My goodness. You try so hard Fayled, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Posts like this just make you look like you need to leave. Everything you write is easy to understand because you aren't as complex as you like to think you are (as I indicated in the post you quoted). I would suggest you take a break from this place but I know it won't happen, so perhaps it should be a forced break (but that's not for me to decide, lucky you). You are by your own definition "civil" but the rest of us don't view you as such (see Decimiie's post later in the thread).

    Here it is for you in simple terms Fayled, because it's come to this: You do a lot trolling around the forums, knock it off.
  16. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    There are two sides to the tangent this thread has taken.
    Three, if you count mine, but that's not as relevant to this post.

    On the one hand there's Fayled.
    To you, I say, you know by now what sort of response your posting style attracts.
    You have a long and glorious history of posting as such, although in my opinions, you were much more artful the further back you go - almost poetic, one might say.
    In any case, in comparison to general levels of human communication, your posts require a far above average amount of interpreting, which is almost guaranteed to attract some attention. So, for as long as you continue with such a style, there will be such responses - it is inevitable.

    On the other hand, there are the posters who attack Fayled.
    To you, I say, don't.
    That should be enough to say, but if you don't find yourself thinking along the lines of "Ok, fair enough" at this point, read on.
    I direct you to the RoC, which I'll link to handily, so there is no need to scroll up to find the link:
    The URL
    Should you take the time to read that, you'll find that personal attacks are prohibited (or you could take my word for it, should you find yourself unwilling to read). That means, in no uncertain terms, "do not post personal attacks".
    There's no mitigation. Even if you're trolled, attacked, paid to do it, or otherwise encouraged, it's still prohibited.
    There are a few alternative approaches you can take...
    Firstly, you could take the time to understand what Fayled's trying to say.
    Secondly, you could use the ignore feature, to parse ignored peoples' posts into an easy-to-digest "You are ignoring this user"
    Thirdly, you could just not reply.
  17. I'm sorry ... perhaps the "moot nature" of the post escaped you?
    I'll edit in a "moot point to consider" if you think it remains necessary.
    As for:
    It would indeed qualify as "moot" and easily solvable in different ways.
    Artful? how so? easily attributable to "vagaries of taste", ergo: possibly your "tastes changed"
    also easily attributable to "failing memory" ... since there is a 2.5yr? nhb block where that CERTAINLY should not be considered art.

    Another maybe: t'were art when it was seen practiced re: "others" that you disliked;
    until some point when YOU felt its "bite" ...
    ie. somewhere you formed a strong(less appreciative) counter opinion about "my style" when something that You "supported" was addressed by myself.
    That would require a "more precise"(and available) point in time / specific post.
    Feelings and opinions ... well, sometimes they form of their own, or in response to some empathetic tug ...
    I "fayled" something you "liked" ... even something as trivial as someone elses "opinion".
    (regardless of IF "fayled state of correct"="true" ... I'm less attractive for proving a friend "wrong")
    *shrugs* mootest point of all, perhaps.

    One more maybe: The shine wore off, of the newly found rhythm ... Like a childs rhyme which lulled you to sleep ...
    is not so "peaceful" when you consider what happened to that baby after the fall and what the hell was the child/cradle doing in the tree in the first place.
    Or even some "non related" aspect occurred ... I used to like Streisand's voice ... till I heard her political stance ... to the point where I cannot manage a shut-up and sing ... shutup! is all I can manage.
    Along the same line: I cannot recall either the singer nor used to be "favorite song" that s/he sang and removed it from "favor" ... completely apparently ... o'well
    moving on.

    My natural "defense" remains as it ever has been.
    I do not see myself as an "artist", and lacking that, so goes an artists nature "to be appreciated"(else why they share)
    Nor do I see myself as some "serious contributor" whose "authority" is to be "respected".
    My reply to HDRG(hotdogsrgross) earliest Query: who is Fayled Dhreams?
    I replied: DarkwingDuck! followed by a darkwing like riff ... *shrugs*

    So: how could I possibly take your "opinion" as any way approaching a "personal attack"?
    I cannot ... though others might ... and where those "others might" ...
    it is also revealed why they should not.

    I would suggest that "in addition to" your advice to #1"try and understand" That:
    asking a clear direct question in relation to the PART of the idea that is Not Understood MIGHT get a response more to your(askers) personal liking.
    CIVIL discourse being the overall goal ... eh?

    Well done then!:thumbsup:
  18. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    Perhaps it is just me, although I do remember a time when your "spinning" of words struck as more creatively inspired, especially compared to your modern works which, if I may be blunt, often seem as though are intended to obfuscate a simple point.
    My theory for this, true or not, is that your chosen audience for a time responded almost solely to the indirect nature of your posts, leading to something akin to atrophy.

    In any case, the subject of my post was one of relevance, even if it were prompted by a moot point.
  19. Awwwww ... See?
    When you agree that you may have just a feeling
    an opinion ... the confusion falls away ...

    That you mistook anything I did as art ...
    Which it never was ... ya see?
    ain't my fault.

    THIS is art ... precious krim
    Myspace Player

    crank it baby ... a gift for you.

    My GreatGrandaddy Dhreams
    Told me the secret of life amongst humans..

    "Never refuse nothing boy, no gift
    no compliment
    no insult
    nor beating
    The secret is to
    give as good as ya get
    on a good day
    even more and better ...

    THAT is the other side of the golden rule fool"
    See how that would work?

    Farenheit 451
    (Faber to Montage?
    * You're afraid of making mistakes. Don't be. Mistakes can be profited by. Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people's faces. They beat me with sticks. By the time I was forty my blunt instrument had been honed to a fine cutting point for me. If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn.)]

    I caught on a little quicker ... like 14.
    Consider this.
    If indeed I ride a high horse, and to this someone takes offense to the point that they say to me
    Get off that high horse and meet me on my level ...
    why should I ?
    Would it not be better for the earth bound rouge to find his own mount ...
    So as to meet me "eye to eye" ... as a man as it were?
    Write your own parable for those that say
    Fayled is pretending to be smart ...


    I am your: Fayled Dhreams
    Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum

    by the way Krim ... you still have a link to that avatar with the horns?
    My oldest girl, the surgical nurse ... wants to work something like that into her full torso angel wings ...
    something small, in one of the feathers ...
    File:Fiat justitia ruat coelum on Drew family crest.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  20. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    I would contend that, an artistic outcome and an intent for an artistic outcome aren't necessarily connected.
    "Art" is subjective, and in the eye (or other senses) of the beholder.
    In any case, I'm paying you what is intended as a compliment.

    For the thing with horns, I don't recall anything with horns in particular.
    The horniest-looking thing to memory would be:
    If that is what you mean, then "huzzah" (and better quality images may be locatable), if not then more details would be most handy.
  21. Person's first ...
    nope, not it *hangs lip* very close, but it was just a head with ram like curled horns. again ... only if it was a tip-o-the-brain-recovery that would then be "slected" by another set/inclination of "taste".
    whoo!! nice seque.

    Compliment noted. But you just talked about how(in essence)
    ANY random observation can be perceived as "art"
    as a counter-pose:
    The clouds don't seem as fluffy any more, as I have not seen many bunnies in their random nature ...
    certainly not as many as last year ...

    Subjectivity realized from a mere shift of perspective.
    Easier to see that, from the clouds perspective ... there could never have been an "intent".

    Easy to cross relate:
    Fayled is just a fog of words on the interwebs ...:danceb:
    a recondite enigma of fog.
    Some feel enlightened
    Some feel hatred for "not getting it" (returns to starein' and hating)
  22. BaconEgg

    BaconEgg Visitor

    Mar 25, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Yes, you remember correctly...but that was a very long time ago.... :)

    Hi, Fayled!