Jump to content

'Dutch'Biography of Ronald Reagan


Recommended Posts

Within the last year, Edmund Morris (sp?) published a biography of Ronald Reagan. It was terrible. It wasn't terrible because it was poorly written. It wasn't terrible because it was funny or not funny. It wasn't terrible because it was particulary accurate or inaccurate.

It was terrible because it had evolved into a biography not of Ronald Reagan, but of Edmund Morris!! It was off topic and thus irrelevant to most readers.

How does this relate to CM?

Madmatt- I don't give a rat's ___ how you got your nickname, or that you were fat as a child, or whether you are funny or not. In fact, I don't care in the least about you!! I come here to read about CM-not about a difficult personality.

The rest of you- I also don't care in the least what kind of punk rock music you like.

I don't care whether we are having a love=fest over some of the participants on this board ("oh, fionn, i love you so" "oh, me too! I love him too" christ).

It wasn't long ago that people apologized for being off topic when they discussed other tactical WWII computer games!

If nothing new is occuring with regard to CM (which is, of course, absurd-there is plenty of stuff to talk about concerning CM) just SHUT UP!

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, lighten up. OT stuff isn't getting in the way of the stuff on cm, and if you don't wanna read it, don't. I actually rather like that people are posting such things, not because I'm terribly interested in Madmatt's childhood, though it does make for a kinda nice story, but because it shows we have a community here, not just a bunch of people interested in information about a game. And unless you just want to play the computer, a vital community is far more important to the continued enjoyment of the game than any game design issue...

-John Hough

btw, the problem with Dutch was not that it was about Edmund Morris, as that technique of biography through a foil is generally accepted, but that his involvement with Reagan was entirely fictional, but he didn't bother telling anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"btw, the problem with Dutch was not that it was

about Edmund Morris, as that technique of biography

through a foil is generally accepted, but that his

involvement with Reagan was entirely fictional, but

he didn't bother telling anyone."

Hmmm. I'm not convinced of this. I haven't read the book-I've only read several reviews/editorials about the book. My impression is that EVERYBODY knew that Edmund Morris' insertion of himself into the biography was fictional-and they disliked the book anyway. In other words, the source of their dislike was not the deception (the fact that edmund was in the book and didn't tell anybody that it was fictional)-rather, it was simply the awkward way in which he inserted himself-that the fictions represented by having his own fictional character 'bump into' Reagan throughout the biography called into question other statements of the book (which were probably factual). In other words, by introducing a fictional character, it opens the doors to introducing fictional events, fictional quotes, fictional attitudes, etc, and the reader has no way of knowing which was which.

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can't really state that Madmatt or Fionn, or anyone blatantly diverted attention ala Edmund Morris. Where are you getting this from? The posts that they added to were called "Ok, Lets Clear this Up RIGHT FREAKING NOW!!!" or "MadMatt and Fionn are my heros(n/t)". They weren't changing the topic from "Monkies must be driving my Shermans" to a self centred topic. They were all responding to things said about them. Capt_Manieri said something that Madmatt and Fionn, and a lot of people had to respond to. They didn't change the topics, they weren't the bad biographers. It would be like blaming Regan for the horrible biography written about him. I have no problem with Capt_Manieri, he is young, and indeed is not trying to start anything, he is just overly curious. If you thought it was so off topic before, just take a look at this entire post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmund Morris used the technique out of "desperation", he said. Reagan apparently was not the type of person to share his thoughts with others. Remember the guy was an actor turned politician. When the lights turned on we got the vision of a President we all really liked... substance was, IMHO, lacking. Taking Edmund Morris to task is fair game. The book was not "terrible" in my judgement. Maybe it just showed you a picture of the Gipper you didn't care to see. You comments Re: MadMatt are actually irrelavent. The thread was started after some goofy comments by our CaptM. They hurt Matt's feelings and he spoke his mind...This is a communty here...a family if you will. Not all post are great, on CM-Topic. By the way did you read Edmund Morris's TR? You might find it a bit more to you liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Madmatt

Just to clarify the past slightly (and I do appologize for all of this going on for so long) but my initial anger was caused by something posted by Captain_Cigarette and NOT our young CapM. I also understand that CapM is young and to him waiting a month or so is like torture! Hell, I am not young at all and its still like torture. In an effort to set this scratched record straight I have no hard feelings toward anyone here at this time. In the orginal thread which sorta started all this CapM was impatient for an update to CMHQ which I had just spent ALL DAY working on so you can see how I was a little ticked off by his comment, but it was the left field thread by Capt_Cigarette that threw me for a loop and added fuel to my already simmering heat. I have tried to in the last few posts to make everything as right as I could and Steve has (rightly so) closed down the original thread. Lets all just end this here and now and get on with the REAL reason we are here: COMBAT MISSION

but please be understanding as to how things can get a little misdirected from time to time, we are just humans after all.

Respectfully,

Matt S. Faller

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 12-29-99).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings.

Actually, I am with Steve in that I think a message board about a game should be exactly that: a message board *about a game*. I think it would make reading useful posts an easier affair instead of trying to sort through bloated posts filled with arguments and name-calling. In fact, the exciting claim about the large number of posts on this message board is somewhat less exciting when you sort through and find out what many of these posts are about. I truly wish this great game could have an equally great message board.

That all being said, thanks to my profession (physician), I clearly recognize the nature of Humans and our (mine included) lack of perfection. Therefore we will most likely continue to be what we are: human.

Jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Captain Foobar

Stephen,

I would have to say your comments about the book Dutch are WAY off topic of CM. I don't come here to listen to people debate why other people didnt like a certain biography of Ronald Reagan. If you could keep your posts on topic in the future, I'd appreciate it... There was a time that people would apologize for posting off-topic, maybe you should lead the way by apologizing for wasting our time. wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Captain Foobar (edited 12-29-99).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, I am with Steve in that I think a message board about a game should be exactly that: a message board *about a game*. I think it would make reading useful posts an easier affair instead of trying to sort through bloated posts filled with arguments and name-calling. In fact, the exciting claim about the large number of posts on this message board is somewhat less exciting when you sort through and find out what many of these posts are about. I truly wish this great game could have an equally great message board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that if you look, there are quite a few OT posts, but most of them stem from topics at hand... And quitre a few are marginally on topic (discussing hardware upgrades is not technically on topic, but wanting a rig that will run this game well is). I think that if every post were about game mechiancs and historical realism about game facets only, then this board would be a crashing bore. One of the reasons that I thikn that so many of us come back is that we can discuss a great game and other gaming related topics (and military history as a topic, even if you are not dicussing history on the game's scale is on topic as it help to give context). The way off topic threads... the frustrations and wrangeling are mostly marked and are not a large portion of the posts here.

We are not talking about the Derek Smart saga here... The amount of noise is actually quite low, and I think that those posts aside, the other "sort of" off topic posts add spice and flavor to the board. I feel like, as mostly a lurker, I can scan the messages fairly quickly and havea good idea of the veracity of most of the posts by knowing the history behind some of the names.

Let me ask you... How narrow of a definition do you have as to what's 'on topic?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Compassion

When I first joined this board back in August, there was Just So Much awesome discussion about the game. Fionn's and Moon's AAR's of the alpha build enraptured me, and the Message board became a delectable buffet of useful and exciting info. Over the last 45 days, it has mostly held only leftovers and spoiled milk. This is, in a large part, because the large part of the population has downloaded the demo, played it and the bonus scenario to pieces, had most of our questions answered on the board and now just want the game (this is not a derogatory reference to the time required to make the game just right: I am happy with whatever Steve and Charles need to do). The Board is essentially filled with people who have nothing new waiting for them until the game is released, and are finding 'discussion' of OT to be more interesting than just quietly waiting. Again, this is human behavior. I myself am contributing to Off-topic discussion by even writing this post. Shame on me!

Jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom punkrawk

Hrm...this amazes me.I feel special now.I umm, how shall I say this, upset or annoyed someone by talking about my musical tastes.

Well damn us all who like to discuss topics other than the game.Why here you ask then?Because it's nice to talk to people w/ some sort of knowledge of say music, and of ww2.

Maybe I should talk about how I like Glenn Miller, he was in ww2, so that's kinda on topic, is that better?

It's astonishing how someone can get so upset over having to take the time to read something they don't find interesting.I often find stuff like that, but I skim through it,see if there's something useful in it.

haha,you're a hypocrite,this whole thread is off topic.oh well, and just in case, no I can't spell that well.

Josh McNair

------------------

Dork Punk Productions and Design

WW2Games page-

http://www.geocities.com/ww2games

Battle Of The Bulge TC for ww2gi-

http://www.geocities.com/botbtc

Ww2gi Screaming Eagles multiplayer group-

http://www.geocities.com/screamingeagles1

We ain't got no place to go,let's go to a punk rawk show

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick comment:

Freyland,

If you want to have on-topic and detailed discussions then by all means ask the questions yourself.

FWIW I'd like to draw attention to the fact I have posted publicly several times over the past two months about what I saw as a degradation of the forum. No-one supported that position then and asked for something to be done so, now, you're in the situation you're in because nothing was done then, when support from the same people who are complaining now could have done something. I don't want to say I told you so but let's just say that it is no use complaining of a decline if you aren't posting good, solid questions which would increase the quality of discussion.

I and others am willing to answer questions but only very rarely does anyone ask a good, researched, never-before-asked question.

Stephen, you are not forced to participate in OT discussions. If you want to hear interesting things then ask interesting questions instead of posting complaints.

I find it interesting that people who complain about others usually contribute FAR less than those they complain about.

Nothing personal Stephen, I just try to tell it like I see it no matter how many people get peeved off about that.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fionn

Oh, I agree totally, and I appreciate your excellent help as well as others. The problem is that an on-topic post inveritably leads to some off-topic discussion lately. Again, as I said above, the pattern of behavior is reasonably normal. Just my contribution, nothing else.

Jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit that all this "hero and I love you" posts makes me chuckle but it doesn't bother me at all Personally I got different heroes, people like Max Manus, Wittman, Hartmann etc. I think it's nice to have some personal posts in between if nothing else than to know each other a little better. It wouldn't hurt to state it was off topic in the thread though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussions now going on on this board remind me of what was going on before the beta demo was released. There wasn't much to do.

And now we've had questions which have been asked and answered a dozen times. Right after the demo we had lots of discussion about what features could be added, etc. Now there is no point discussing features for CM1 because nothing will get in.

The last topic I had any questions about was the use of Infantry Guns. I got some really good answers out of people.

I personally can't think of anything to really comment about and my lack of posting recently shows it. After my three current PBEM games finish up I'll have some comments about my tactics and the results. I've got all the turns saved and maybe that will provide some entertainment for folks out there. It's great to get strategy from experts, but average players like me can help provide examples of what not to do.

Jason

Keeping my fingers crossed that the level of discussion will increase when the gold demo is released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, like I've said before (and some people are confirming here), the quality of the answer depends on the quality of the question.

Jason, if you are going to analyse your play turn by turn do you want to post the analysis and movies on CMHQ? If so drop me a line and we can chat about this. That's the kind of stuff I've always liked reading about and I'm sure others would like it also.

Howardb,

I think Matt and others can tell you that I don't like the "x is my hero" stuff either (especially when X includes my name wink.gif )... Not my fault if someone says it about me though is it? wink.gif

Freyland,

I think Jason has hit the nail on the head... People have asked pretty much all they can think of and have nothing more to ask.

Are you all reading CMHQ daily? I just ask because I keep expecting questions to be asked about either the tactics or game pictures etc we post but never see them being asked. Some of this stuff is stuff that hasn't ever been asked about here but I don't know if people are reading it if we post it even.

Anyways, later all.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think Matt and others can tell you that I don't like the "x is my hero" stuff either (especially when X includes my name )... Not my fault if someone says it about me though is it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Of course not Fionn, of course not smile.gif Btw I think you've earned the right to call me Howard by now. Hate that b just as much as being called Mr wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That all being said, thanks to my profession (physician), I clearly recognize the nature of Humans and our (mine included) lack of perfection. Therefore we will most likely continue to be what we are: human." someone here, not me wrote that...up near the top i think. (how do you quote posts?)

Well, some of us are human, and some of us are pods, but once in a while we like to interface with humans. It is easier to do so in a forum like this because our fake skin isn't detectable. So, some people don't like off topic stuff. It also appears that some people don't like the shade of German uniforms and another human is pissed off about rate of fire and some other guy doesn't like some nitpciking historical inaccuracy and now some guy is having a cow that some pods and humans are doing things like talking about tangential stuff not directly related to CM. Seems to me that all pods and humans here have some kind of interest in THE GAME. seems to me also that part of playing THE GAME is to interact with other humans and pods. Elvis and I have played many games for many years. WHY? BECAUSE WE LIKE TO PLAY GAMES WITH EACH OTHER!!! We have similar interests in things other than ASL and SP3 and CM. Strangely enough we are FRIENDS. eeeewwww!!! Gross, but i said it. So maybe there are some pods and some humans here that would like to form friendships and play THE GAME with something other than an AI. So as the human(?)John Hough points out "a vital community is more important than game design issues" is right on target. I have only been posting (lurking mostly) for a short while, but I have done a fair amount of searching, and some playing, and it seems like the forum is at point where we are all holding our breath waiting for the big day. While we are waiting it seems like a perfectly good idea to find gaming partners, eh? 'OT' discussions seem like a good way to sort out compatible gamers. I have already seen people pairing up to kill each other in nasty ways. I'm ready to die. How about you?

Peng. Pod and Proud

[This message has been edited by MrPeng (edited 12-30-99).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Smith said...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Within the last year, Edmund Morris (sp?) published a biography of Ronald Reagan. It was terrible. It wasn't terrible because it was poorly written. It wasn't terrible because it was funny or not funny. It wasn't terrible because it was particulary accurate or inaccurate.

It was terrible because it had evolved into a biography not of Ronald Reagan, but of Edmund Morris!! It was off topic and thus irrelevant to most readers.

How does this relate to CM? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then in respons to the comment about the books style...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hmmm. I'm not convinced of this. I haven't read the book-I've only read several reviews/editorials about the book. My impression is that EVERYBODY knew that Edmund Morris' insertion of himself into the biography was fictional-and they disliked the book anyway. In other words, the source of their dislike was not the deception (the fact that edmund was in the book and didn't tell anybody that it was fictional)-rather, it was simply the awkward way in which he inserted himself-that the fictions represented by having his own fictional character 'bump into' Reagan throughout the biography called into question other statements of the book (which were probably factual). In other words, by introducing a fictional character, it opens the doors to introducing fictional events, fictional quotes, fictional attitudes, etc, and the reader has no way of knowing which was which. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok... if I follow this right, you start this thread to complain about the OT stuff, then your next reply is commentary about a book "about" Ronald Reagan. How is your own reply on topic? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I don't really care to read a bunch of OT stuff, but it doesn't bother me. Most of the time, the message titles give me a good enough idea wheter or not it's an on topic post, and I read accordingly. It's not a skill that's hard to master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I LIKE off topic posts becuase they are usually interesting and discussed by people who have a shared interest. If I see a post not of interest I dont read it.

In particular I enjoy the wide ranging historical debates and occasional forays into military thinking. The WW2 movie thread was invaluable to me and I have enjoyed digging out movies on that list.

Hey ho

_dumbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Maragoudakis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If nothing new is occuring with regard to CM (which is, of course, absurd-there is plenty of stuff to talk about concerning CM) just SHUT UP!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who do you think you are coming in here like this. Learn some manners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madmatt,

The way you responded to Stephen Smith is just the way you should have; in a calm and responsable manner, despite another nasty attacks directed at you. I was about to skip that thread thinking you will get all over that "man", until I read your post.

Bravo, and most importantly thank you.

Sincerely,

Karl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody mentioned Derek Smart; I stopped checking in to comp.yadayada.war-historical when somebody began yammering about how much they loved (or hated I can't remember) Derek Smart. The inevitable flamewar ensued.

Say what you will, this forum is still WAY WAY more in-line with its stated purpose than a LOT of forums/NGs/whatevers out there.

The way I look at it is similar to the work ethic where I'm employed: if there's really nothing going on, then you can do personal stuff or surf the web or whatever.

DjB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...