Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: woneal@*******.NET
Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes <OT-burn, baby, burn (it's a disco infern
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 20:33:11 -0005
On 2 Jul 97 at 16:01, Greg wrote:

> At 04:25 PM 7/2/97 -0400, Ashlocke wrote:
> > IIRC you fired the first shots.
>
> <snip requests for anatomical impossibilities yada, yada, yada>
>
> >You've misquoted him, called him a liar, and refused to concede any point
> >at all. When he offered factual information, you claimed it to be
> >"immaginary".
>
> <snicker> FACTUAL!?! Hoo boy has this gotten out of hand or what?
> Look, when grown men are writing angry, biting comments about the "facts"
> of "megacorperations" hiring paramilitary "shadowrunners" as
"deniable
> assets" then it's time to take a break, get a cup of tea and rest your
> eyes for a while.

The reference I made, FYI, was a post in which Paul listed an estimate of
Nestle's net worth and a stated figure of the US 1994 defense budget,
which Bob called accused Paul of "making up". I did some checking, and
Paul's 1994 figures were correct. I haven't found an estimate on Nestle
yet, but I won't be surprised if Paul's estimate was close. In slightly
more than a year of reading Paul's posts here and in news groups I've
never known him to make wild guesses. That comment had very little to do
with what happens in the game at all.

>
> <snip rapid-fire Spike Lee style name-calling>
>
> >stood up to you. Don't expect anybody who's followed this thread to for
> >even the slightest instant believe you to be the innocent party here. You
> >picked a fight, you got your nose bloodied, and now your crying about it.
> >Try posting something useful, after you've grown up.
>
> Oh man <snicker> talk about over the top.
That was more or less how I felt about Bob's never ending rant. Which
btw, he said repeatedly he was going to drop, only to turn around and fire
off yet another post dripping with sarcasm. At 20k+ post of that for over
a week now, I got a tad tired of it.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman
Message no. 2
From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes <OT-burn, baby, burn (it's a disco infern
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 15:37:15 -0500
I thought I'd start here, because this was the most entertaining of his
posts (aside from the "flame" but most of that's in here anyway). I will be
replying to all of his previous messages in due time, though...

At 08:33 PM 7/2/97 -0005, Ashlocke wrote:
>On 2 Jul 97 at 16:01, Greg wrote:
>> At 04:25 PM 7/2/97 -0400, Ashlocke wrote:
>> > IIRC you fired the first shots.
>>
>> <snip requests for anatomical impossibilities yada, yada, yada>
>>
>> >You've misquoted him, called him a liar, and refused to concede any point
>> >at all. When he offered factual information, you claimed it to be
>> >"immaginary".

I've not misquoted him. Every quote I've used I assure you was direct from
a message he used. I'm far too lazy to edit his posts to change words and
if you seek to accuse me of just that, I'll gladly send you all the previous
posts on this thread. I keep them just for such occasions as these. If
Paul says corps won't go after runners unless it's worth it and then says it
isn't worth it to track down runners (after all, they're just too wily),
then Paul implies that corps won't go after runners. He's done this on
several occasions. As I said, merely ask for the posts and you shall
receive. Though, with the amount of mail you'll be recieving over the next
day or so from me on this topic, you might not have time to read much more.
There are also several other aspects which have been brought up in this
argument which factor into the whole, so I'd suggest reading and maybe even
thinking about those too before jumping into this thread.

As for Paul being a liar, he's told no lies (at least not on this topic) and
I've not called him a liar. Lies imply knowing the truth and stating
otherwise. He simply hasn't opened his mind to the full scope of the thread
and just doesn't (want to) understand anything other than his shortsighted
view on it.

I've refused to concede any points because I'm right and he's wrong. He'd
tell you that he's right and I'm wrong and you'd tell me that he's right and
I'm wrong. You don't seem all that willing to concede and I'll bet you
remain steadfast in your own brand of shortsightedness even after I tear
apart your little ramblings.

Get all that? I talk about Paul's fictional numbers down a little further
in the post. You'll like that part, I know I did...

>> <snicker> FACTUAL!?! Hoo boy has this gotten out of hand or what?
>> Look, when grown men are writing angry, biting comments about the
"facts"
>> of "megacorperations" hiring paramilitary "shadowrunners" as
"deniable
>> assets" then it's time to take a break, get a cup of tea and rest your
>> eyes for a while.

Agreed, I'm still far from angry though I do confess to a bit of bite in my
words (more for fun than anything else, have to keep the wit sharp). It is
a game and there are realistic views of it and there are unrealistic views
of it. I choose to support realistic gaming and argue against the
unrealistic view. Not "real", but realistic given the setting of Shadowrun...

>The reference I made, FYI, was a post in which Paul listed an estimate of
>Nestle's net worth and a stated figure of the US 1994 defense budget,
>which Bob called accused Paul of "making up". I did some checking, and
>Paul's 1994 figures were correct. I haven't found an estimate on Nestle
>yet, but I won't be surprised if Paul's estimate was close. In slightly
>more than a year of reading Paul's posts here and in news groups I've
>never known him to make wild guesses. That comment had very little to do
>with what happens in the game at all.

Here's what Paul said... read and enjoy...

"Let's assume it doubles between now and 2007"

Score! "Let's assume it doubles" that's what I call imaginary numbers.
Wouldn't you call that imaginary? Disagree with me here at will, I'd love
to see you claim that "assumption" to be anything but imaginary... heh

Sorry if this means you honestly have to think on your own instead of
letting Paul do it for you...

>>>stood up to you. Don't expect anybody who's followed this thread to for
>>>even the slightest instant believe you to be the innocent party here. You
>>>picked a fight, you got your nose bloodied, and now your crying about it.
>>>Try posting something useful, after you've grown up.

I'm crying? My nose is bloodied? I picked a fight? What posts are you
reading, lapdog? Only fighting I've seen comes from you and it isn't really
fighting, it's hopping on the Paul bandwagon with some weak flames and no
realistic support for your/Paul's views, which isn't surprising because
there's little support if any available for them. As I said before,
restating an incorrect view over and over won't make it right.

I've posted some very useful information here, whether or not you choose to
regard it as such is your choice to make, but others seem quite pleased so
far with the quality of it. I'm also quite "grown up", as one could
ascertain from my manner in dealing with flames from sources which know not
that of which they speak, nor whom they speak it to, nor why they speak at all.

Why do you speak on this, Ashlocke? Because you thought I was being mean?

>> Oh man <snicker> talk about over the top.

>That was more or less how I felt about Bob's never ending rant. Which
>btw, he said repeatedly he was going to drop, only to turn around and fire
>off yet another post dripping with sarcasm. At 20k+ post of that for over
>a week now, I got a tad tired of it.

Rant? I've expressed my opinion within these messages, adressed and refuted
points made by my opposition on the subject, and tried to maintain a
semblance of continuity by including as much of the previous post as
possible. Rants are characterized by screaming a lot and stomping around
excitedly. I'm not one for doing this and I have shown myself to be beyond
"ranting" in my posts. Your little tantrum here and in several of your
other posts might well be classified as a rant, though...

I never said I would fire off another post "dripping with sarcasm". I was
more than ready to leave the thread be until Paul felt a need to get a
little heated in his discussion. Since he decided to do that rather than
attempt logic and level-headed debate, I decided to break my word (which I
apologized for) and rejoin the thread. I choose to use sarcasm simply
because I like to keep my wit sharp and make memorable statements. Besides,
flames say nothing more than "GRR!"...

I just can't get myself angry to a point where "GRR!" is all I can think to
say, because I find that I can express myself and my views well regardless
of whoever I'm dealing with and the chosen discussion. It's what keeps me
and the rest of intelligent human society above the apes on the evolutionary
ladder and in nice, air-conditioned homes instead of the caves or trees.
Apes get mad and throw their feces around when they aren't happy. They beat
their chests and growl and grunt and stomp around until they get tired or
scared off by some other ape's throwing, beating, growling, grunting, or
stomping. I, and the rest of intelligent human society, choose to develop
our use of language and depth of thought.

If you're truly tired of seeing my posts on this, delete them. If you wish
to debate, then prepare for quality and quantity of opposition (at least
when it comes to this thread). If you want to flame, then by all means,
please do. I've already torn this post down and I'll easily handle anything
else you throw at me in that regard. Feel free to test me on this...
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net
Message no. 3
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes <OT-burn, baby, burn (it's a disco infern
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 00:07:17 +0100
In message <199707032037.PAA28786@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> writes
>Here's what Paul said... read and enjoy...
>
>"Let's assume it doubles between now and 2007"
>
>Score! "Let's assume it doubles" that's what I call imaginary numbers.
>Wouldn't you call that imaginary? Disagree with me here at will, I'd love
>to see you claim that "assumption" to be anything but imaginary... heh

Okay, Bob. I took a stab at an upper limit because not many corporations
of that size, maturity and variety pull off the feat of doubling in a
decade.

What's _your_ opinon, then? Come on, Bob, show us the big picture. Give
us your educated opinion. You don't like my numbers? Don't whine about
how I'm "making them up", offer something better.

You _do_ have a better idea and evidence to back it, surely?

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 4
From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes <OT-burn, baby, burn (it's a disco infern
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 01:20:48 -0500
At 12:07 AM 7/4/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
>TopCat <topcat@***.NET> writes
>>Here's what Paul said... read and enjoy...

>>"Let's assume it doubles between now and 2007"

>>Score! "Let's assume it doubles" that's what I call imaginary numbers.
>>Wouldn't you call that imaginary? Disagree with me here at will, I'd love
>>to see you claim that "assumption" to be anything but imaginary... heh

>Okay, Bob. I took a stab at an upper limit because not many corporations
>of that size, maturity and variety pull off the feat of doubling in a
>decade.

Who knows exactly what Nestle did in SR over that time? Maybe they bought
out several other companies, worked their way into computer software,
whatever. I don't know, you don't know. The point is that nobody really
has a number there and there's nothing anyone can do but guess.

>What's _your_ opinon, then? Come on, Bob, show us the big picture. Give
>us your educated opinion. You don't like my numbers? Don't whine about
>how I'm "making them up", offer something better.

There are situations where there is no answer, your magical number is one of
them. I don't like to make up numbers, I like canon. So as long as canon
doesn't give a number, a number shouldn't be assumed. I can guess, but then
I'd be guessing and as guilty as you of making up numbers. I don't do that,
but it doesn't mean that I have to accept someone else's imaginary numbers
either. It isn't canon, it isn't known. Anything guessed at is nothing
more than a guess.

I've shown you the big picture and you've chosen not to look. Am I to fault?

>You _do_ have a better idea and evidence to back it, surely?

Not for that given number (or lack thereof) I don't. I could make up a
number (999,999,999,999,999 sounds good) and I'd be making up a number.
Yay, that went nowhere. You assumed something that effectively can't be
assumed, it could only be guessed and it couldn't be supported by anything
more than "well, it sounds good to me".

Bad way to argue, Paul, and a bad piece of "evidence" to pick an argument
over. Surely you have *some* debate experience? I'd think that anyone
would've known that or are you just too angry to think clearly? If so, take
a couple of deep breaths, count to ten, and then reply. I'll be here waiting...
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Runner's Attitudes

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!