Had another 48hr game jam this weekend...

[Joakim]

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 13:23:19 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 11:26 AM, Joakim wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>>> Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
>>>
>>> That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.
>>
>> By whom?  [...]
>>
>
> When communication fails, there is usually not a single side 
> responsible for it. (Unless one side is trolling. Trolls are 
> typically anonymous.)

Except that trolling has nothing to do with communication failure 
and one would think those zealots are the ones trolling, despite 
using what are presumably their real names, because of how dumb 
their arguments are.

>>> "Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks, 
>>> even if
>>> that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion 
>>> topic. "Any"
>>> impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a 
>>> well-reasoned
>>> argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing 
>>> something
>>> more interesting.
>>
>> I call it like I see it.
>
> Great.

Except that you then criticize me for "personal attacks" and 
name-calling, make up your mind.

>> An impartial observer can determine if what
>> you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the usually 
>> silly or
>> wrong tenor of their arguments
>> and what kind of person generally makes such dumb arguments, 
>> are accurate.
>
> How? Accuracy of conclusions of fallacious reasoning is mostly 
> incidental. Consider googling "ad hominem", "association 
> fallacy" and "fallacy of irrelevance".

I don't think you know what "incidental" means. :) In any case, 
if you can't see that they make several statements that are just 
factually wrong, I don't know what to tell you.  If you are so 
ignorant that you don't even know the facts, there can be no 
discussion, which is why I bailed on that thread.

>> If you want to take a long thread full of arguments about the 
>> topic
>> and pick out a little name-calling
>> and then run away, clearly the argument is lost on you.
>>
>
> Frankly, I'm unimpressed. It's you who picked out the 
> name-calling instead of arguments when summarizing the past 
> discussion. In case any valuable arguments were part of that 
> discussion then I'd advise to pick out those instead and put 
> them in a coherent form.

I called them what they are, zealots, which isn't really 
name-calling but an accurate description, and noted one of their 
main dumb arguments, so I did both.  I'm not going to summarize 
that thread for you: either read it or don't.  I could care less 
either way, because you seem to make almost as many mistakes as 
them.

>> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix 
>> wrote:
>>> You seem confused by the difference between saying something 
>>> and
>>> providing conclusive evidence.
>>
>> That thread _is_ conclusive evidence.  If you think otherwise, 
>> you are
>> deeply confused.
>
> (Please do not mess up the threading.)

Responses to the two of you are best lumped together.  I don't 
like it when people like you spam threads with multiple separate 
short responses to every other response in the thread.  This is 
better.

> Well, if this kind of simply-minded pseudo-reasoning is to find 
> resonance, it has to be targeted at a less critical audience.

Except there was little reasoning in my above two sentences, only 
two statements about the other thread.  The "critical audience" 
is not the problem, as you haven't been able to muster a 
"critical" response to any actual arguments in that thread.  All 
you two do is make a bunch of dumb twits about the tone or 
character of the other thread, so I'll leave this 
"meta-discussion" here, as you two are clearly incapable of 
dealing with my actual arguments.