WHY ARE WARGAMERS SO FRIGGIN' PISSY?

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Well, what can you expect from a country that was smart enough to buy the F-111 from the United States and cannot recognize that their cultural center is Tasmania. Oh yeah, and that whole Paul Hogan thing.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've spoken to you about this F-111 thing elsewhere Slappy. Get over it already.

However I have no defense over the Hogan bit.

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Well, that is just the point. Modder or no -- should he be able to censor dozens or hundreds of people with the threat of gathering his crayons and running to his room?

I see people treat some forms of celebrity like this all the time. I have seen a celeb throw a drink at an intern for reminding him that he needed to be on set, and people said, well, she should expect that -- he is famous.

I totally don't believe we as an intellectual community need to encourage the impression that certian people can flame and twist with impunity, while others are gagged from participating in intellectual conversations.

I think Tiger could have set a better tone, accepted and participated better in the conversation, and maybe kept the threat going better (he should have expected it to be a place of debate) or he could have contacted BTS privately if that was not possible. On the other hand, he was not responsible for the number of side issue posts, the anti BTS Hooligans, that Echo thing, and the like.

I can just note that Tiger's "Farewell" was not meant to be a community building thing, but to create division and ill feelings on those he left behind. Its just not a very nice thing to do. I predict that it will spawn 48 discussions and add more flames and bitterness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I see it Slapdragon, you flame to. You just do it with better command of the language then most. Its not any different really. You just get more respect for it because you twist it with words. Sometimes there isn't any difference between f u and a long winded twisted dialogue.

Just my 2 cents.

Anyway...

[BloodyBucket]

Courtesy costs nothing. Many things can put one out of joint. A death in the family, stress from work, etc. Even if offended, often extending a little courtesy in return will defuse an antognistic situation.

If someone is being rude, I try to remember that they are either having a bad moment that I can't begin to fathom or they are by nature unpleasant, and can't help it. Either way, rudeness in return is uncalled for.

Of course, I can't say that I have been treated rudely on this forum at all.

[Mark IV]

Threads about closed threads spawned by even more closed threads are so interesting. The recapitulation of 7 pages of nonsense, with ensuing "did so" "did not" analyses, is spell-binding reading.

A fundamental question to this debate is, are we responsible for our own actions, or not?

I was particularly curious about the linkage of Tiger's dead body to the Peng thread, offered by one of the analysts. This reminded me that we're all a little bit to blame for the death of President Kennedy, too. Please carry on.

[Spook]

On a more serious note, it's now time for me to be a hot air bag to relate my view on the departure of Tiger.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Well, that is just the point. Modder or no -- should he be able to censor dozens or hundreds of people with the threat of gathering his crayons and running to his room?

I see people treat some forms of celebrity like this all the time. I have seen a celeb throw a drink at an intern for reminding him that he needed to be on set, and people said, well, she should expect that -- he is famous.

I totally don't believe we as an intellectual community need to encourage the impression that certian people can flame and twist with impunity, while others are gagged from participating in intellectual conversations.

I think Tiger could have set a better tone, accepted and participated better in the conversation, and maybe kept the threat going better (he should have expected it to be a place of debate) or he could have contacted BTS privately if that was not possible. On the other hand, he was not responsible for the number of side issue posts, the anti BTS Hooligans, that Echo thing, and the like.

I can just note that Tiger's "Farewell" was not meant to be a community building thing, but to create division and ill feelings on those he left behind. Its just not a very nice thing to do. I predict that it will spawn 48 discussions and add more flames and bitterness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I concur that when all was said & done, Tiger should've contacted BTS privately about his "mod option" request. After all, when Madmatt closed up the thread of contention, he also said that he'd pass Tiger's request along (with the added caveat not to expect much from it!).

Also agreed, this shouldn't be a forum to allow special treatment or rules for "celebrities." Regardless of past contributions to CM, one has to show an given level of civility if he expects the same shown to him.

I also concur that Tiger's declared departure isn't a "community-building" exercise.

But......here's where the disagreement creeps in. First of all, I for one am not presuming that Tiger's exit post was an attempt at "community-building." Nor, on the flip side of the coin, do I think yet that Tiger is MEANING to create division within the CM community. Perhap's that really is the case (considering in that he also cited you by name in that post), but from his last comments, I could just as well interpret that he's just telling people not to expect his participation anymore, nor to expect new graphics mods from him. After all, he was VERY prolific in mods creation in earlier months.

Now, Slap, you cited that the topic thread of contention "went south" at the very point that Tiger hurled an expletive at another poster. Duly noted, Tiger over-reacted; hell, he could just as well been lambasted by BTS or banned right then & there for his overt name-calling. But I can read between the lines readily enough to see that Tiger snapped when he felt that he was being "lectured on" as somehow being either insensitive or immoral in his request to be able to mod a casualty figure into a bloodied body. (And again, that's why he should've contacted BTS directly on his request if he didn't want a lecture, because such "lectures" on a public forum are to be anticipated.)

Objectively speaking, I think that Tiger is being to thin-skinned about this whole matter, much as I would wish otherwise. And I do hope he reconsiders. But his CENTRAL point, to that previous topic, was as to if it could be POSSIBLE for him to make mods of foot unit casualty markers.

That was the ONLY argument of any merit on that thread---as to whether or not BTS should revise the CM code so to ALLOW a means for CM gamers to make "gore" mods for themselves. An argument that BTS themselves should provide this "gore" (as others did seemed to suggest, even as a optional switch) had zero merit to me, as BTS stated earlier that it's against their principles in what they are attempting with CM's scope. But similarly, the arguments about "scale," "what should or shouldn't be portrayed in a wargame," or "reality of war" all had zero merit to me also.

In the pursuit of "logical positivism," the only foundation of logic to the "gore" arguments was whether or not providing this OPTIONAL ability to CM modsters would be worth the time & effort of BTS. I personally don't see it as so, but allowed from my added personal view that it MIGHT not be difficult to implement. It would be for BTS to judge, so I figured it best that BTS should've been queried directly on the matter.

Borrowing Steve's comments from the "exit" thread:

Before I lock this one up... I took a quick look at the thread in question and found plenty of ill manners on all sides to go around. If you kick at a hornet's nest expect to get stung. The dead bodies topic is one of the worst open wounds ever to fester on this BBS. I'm not at all surprised to see that it ended the way it did. However, I am surprised someone would leave the BBS over it.

Take note of that initial statement; "ill manners on ALL sides." I don't think that any "side" can presume a moral high ground at that thread. Nor do I, either there or in here. But I will post to plant my own flag in this matter.

Tiger, if you're reading this, I again think that you are overreacting, but it's your choice to leave or to stay. Regardless, I commend & thank you for your excellent mod efforts of the past. I am still humbled that after three days of my sweating over an M26 Pershing mod, you posted your M26 mod just a day before I finished, with yours easily being superior to mine IMHO.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mark IV wrote:

I was particularly curious about the linkage of Tiger's dead body to the Peng thread<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I thought he was being a bit unreasonable, but did someone really have to go and kill him?

[Panzer Leader]

You know, Bloody Bucket, I think I have agreed with everything of yours I've ever read. In fact, I will be about to comment, then I will get to the bottom and read your post and think "Well, that about sums it up for me too!"

Anyway, thanks for being so wise, sagacious, understanding, and succinct.

As for Mark IV's comment, if we had ONLY the Peng thread, there would be no problems, fights, arguments, pushing, shoving, crying and storming off in huffs.

Oh wait a minute, that's ALL there would be. But at least it would be done with a bit of style and with a lot of good sportsmanship.

People can get so caught up in themselves that they lose sight of others and of the issue at hand. The truly wise man is one who understands the futility of it all and bears it with a sense of humour. As soon as you start shaking your fist at something, you have lost your objectivity and hence, your position and argument.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[Bigdog]

Slapy

I have to say that I have watched how you and others respond to people on the forum, you have a certain elitist arrogant flavor to your post. Weather it takes you 5 paragraphs to insult someone, or with us peasants a simple FU it’s all the same, unnecessary

Tiger has made this game (and it is a game) so much more enjoyable for me and countless others. His thread was asking such a simple question. As with many threads that you feel we need your insight, it just degraded into a flame fest.

We all know you’re a smart guy; you don’t have to hit us over the head with a brick to make your point.

Big Dog

BTW Slapy when can we resume our PBEM I hate unfinished business

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Bigdog ]

[Sledge59]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I have played around a little bit with the face bitmaps yesterday, and I am now convinced that most of the textures make the face appear to big! One of the bitmaps (the guy with the blue eyes) is frightenly realistic for the low bitmap size, and I am sure that this is because the distances between his eyes and mouth are well related to the size of the polygon head.

I tried to make my own face mod (with MS Paint, no less!!!), but it is very tedious, since every single pixel seems to count. In any case, a lot of care has to be taken when mapping scanned pictures to CM heads!

Regards, Thomm

PS: Sorry for being off-topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You aren't off topic Rolls. This is the answer the question posed in this thread. WARGAMERS HEADS ARE TOO BIG!!! BTS please fix or ... (you know the rest).

It's a good day to laugh.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

On a more serious note, it's now time for me to be a hot air bag to relate my view on the departure of Tiger.

I concur that when all was said & done, Tiger should've contacted BTS privately about his "mod option" request. After all, when Madmatt closed up the thread of contention, he also said that he'd pass Tiger's request along (with the added caveat not to expect much from it!).

Also agreed, this shouldn't be a forum to allow special treatment or rules for "celebrities." Regardless of past contributions to CM, one has to show an given level of civility if he expects the same shown to him.

I also concur that Tiger's declared departure isn't a "community-building" exercise.

But......here's where the disagreement creeps in. First of all, I for one am not presuming that Tiger's exit post was an attempt at "community-building." Nor, on the flip side of the coin, do I think yet that Tiger is MEANING to create division within the CM community. Perhap's that really is the case (considering in that he also cited you by name in that post), but from his last comments, I could just as well interpret that he's just telling people not to expect his participation anymore, nor to expect new graphics mods from him. After all, he was VERY prolific in mods creation in earlier months.

Now, Slap, you cited that the topic thread of contention "went south" at the very point that Tiger hurled an expletive at another poster. Duly noted, Tiger over-reacted; hell, he could just as well been lambasted by BTS or banned right then & there for his overt name-calling. But I can read between the lines readily enough to see that Tiger snapped when he felt that he was being "lectured on" as somehow being either insensitive or immoral in his request to be able to mod a casualty figure into a bloodied body. (And again, that's why he should've contacted BTS directly on his request if he didn't want a lecture, because such "lectures" on a public forum are to be anticipated.)

Objectively speaking, I think that Tiger is being to thin-skinned about this whole matter, much as I would wish otherwise. And I do hope he reconsiders. But his CENTRAL point, to that previous topic, was as to if it could be POSSIBLE for him to make mods of foot unit casualty markers.

That was the ONLY argument of any merit on that thread---as to whether or not BTS should revise the CM code so to ALLOW a means for CM gamers to make "gore" mods for themselves. An argument that BTS themselves should provide this "gore" (as others did seemed to suggest, even as a optional switch) had zero merit to me, as BTS stated earlier that it's against their principles in what they are attempting with CM's scope. But similarly, the arguments about "scale," "what should or shouldn't be portrayed in a wargame," or "reality of war" all had zero merit to me also.

In the pursuit of "logical positivism," the only foundation of logic to the "gore" arguments was whether or not providing this OPTIONAL ability to CM modsters would be worth the time & effort of BTS. I personally don't see it as so, but allowed from my added personal view that it MIGHT not be difficult to implement. It would be for BTS to judge, so I figured it best that BTS should've been queried directly on the matter.

Borrowing Steve's comments from the "exit" thread:

Before I lock this one up... I took a quick look at the thread in question and found plenty of ill manners on all sides to go around. If you kick at a hornet's nest expect to get stung. The dead bodies topic is one of the worst open wounds ever to fester on this BBS. I'm not at all surprised to see that it ended the way it did. However, I am surprised someone would leave the BBS over it.

Take note of that initial statement; "ill manners on ALL sides." I don't think that any "side" can presume a moral high ground at that thread. Nor do I, either there or in here. But I will post to plant my own flag in this matter.

Tiger, if you're reading this, I again think that you are overreacting, but it's your choice to leave or to stay. Regardless, I commend & thank you for your excellent mod efforts of the past. I am still humbled that after three days of my sweating over an M26 Pershing mod, you posted your M26 mod just a day before I finished, with yours easily being superior to mine IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I agree with most of what you are saying. About logical positivism, I prefer to discuss most subjects there. The mod question though was one of taste. I posted in the thread a now forgotten comment that the honor or dishonor of showing blood is a personal thing and I meant it. There is no way to argue that on any level beside the moral level and that never solves anything. We just have to bend to BTS on the amount of gore and understand where they are coming from with their ethical stand.

As some of the issues on modding because of realistic portrayal of the battlefield, I disagree that it is totally without positivistic aspects and that it is not a part of the discussion, but I will reserve my reasons why lest the topic be opened up again.

As for my flaming. I flamed Echo. That was wrong but satisfying. I tussled with Hiedman, but that is a long story and should never have been brought into the thread. But I have seen too many discussion go down the drain because someone like John Waters posts a positivistic argument that someone else thinks is an insult because it uses real world data to support a claim, and that someone else responds FU. Long words and bold statements are not flames at all.

I do believe that western education has fallen down on the job with regards to teaching how logical positivism can be applied to places like the Internet and personal life. If it was used more, there would be less herbal viagra scams.

I proposed a year ago, and I still think it is a good idea that a group create a FAQ discussing how to make logical arguments, what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a discussion, and so forth, and that members of this list sign their names to the FAQ as supporters of it. Of course it would not override the BTS "rules of engagement", and would be entirely voluntary, but it would solve the problem presented by some that new people where not able to function in the more rarified threads.

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Well, I agree with most of what you are saying. About logical positivism, I prefer to discuss most subjects there. The mod question though was one of taste. I posted in the thread a now forgotten comment that the honor or dishonor of showing blood is a personal thing and I meant it. There is no way to argue that on any level beside the moral level and that never solves anything. We just have to bend to BTS on the amount of gore and understand where they are coming from with their ethical stand.

As some of the issues on modding because of realistic portrayal of the battlefield, I disagree that it is totally without positivistic aspects and that it is not a part of the discussion, but I will reserve my reasons why lest the topic be opened up again.

As for my flaming. I flamed Echo. That was wrong but satisfying. I tussled with Hiedman, but that is a long story and should never have been brought into the thread. But I have seen too many discussion go down the drain because someone like John Waters posts a positivistic argument that someone else thinks is an insult because it uses real world data to support a claim, and that someone else responds FU. Long words and bold statements are not flames at all.

I do believe that western education has fallen down on the job with regards to teaching how logical positivism can be applied to places like the Internet and personal life. If it was used more, there would be less herbal viagra scams.

I proposed a year ago, and I still think it is a good idea that a group create a FAQ discussing how to make logical arguments, what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a discussion, and so forth, and that members of this list sign their names to the FAQ as supporters of it. Of course it would not override the BTS "rules of engagement", and would be entirely voluntary, but it would solve the problem presented by some that new people where not able to function in the more rarified threads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slapdragon, I am sorry man, but you really are a big hypocrite. Your tone is downright nasty at times and you are in the habit of never being wrong. Your posts are full of elitism and they just don't seem to stop. You seem to think that everything must pass through you, before it gets to BTS, even as subjective as Tigers request is. You are not alone. You have your elitist crew. Its just too bad becouse the minute someone opens their mouth around here about something that may have been discussed before (btw-search does not work) or what is thought of as a unsubstantiated idea....its free rain. Man its like the FBI.

[Cubbies Phan]

Now before you all jump on this post, I'd like to say that I didn't read the entire thread in question, but I did read the first 2 pages of it. At that point I had heard everything that has already been stated before.

OK, with that said, and I don't know if Tiger had addressed it later in the thread, but IIRC, David Aitken (I think) asked Tiger for what reason he wanted a moddable casualty bitmap. Did Tiger ever respond to this question? or did he continue to argue about piddly quotes from other posts? If so then I'm not surprised the thread got as long and nasty as it did, because IIRC, Tiger never seemed to listen when people would try to tell him something that was obviously the truth about whatever. For instance, the age ol' argument about his mods and dpi.

So with that, what was the final outcome of the thread?

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no way to argue that on any level beside the moral level and that never solves anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

?? Tell that to philosophers, ethicists, anyone associated with religion, lawmakers, etc. Morality, as complex as it admittedly is, provides the basic if not ultimate criteria against which many people gauge their actions and those of others on a daily basis. In fact, there have been and are times/cultures where moral considerations are the foremost ones when any issue was raised. These were the first ones to which critics resorted when judging art or entertainment.

As for solving something, we're not talking about mathematical equations here, but rather differences of opinion most of the time. Those can't be solved, only resolved.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

[QB]These were the first ones to which critics resorted when judging art or entertainment.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And these are very thorny issues that generate a lot of heated debate, simply because even people from the same cultural background can not agree, let alone those from other cultural backgrounds. Which is also what you saw in that thread.

You have a right to your opinion in this matter, I have a right to mine, and BTS has a right to theirs. The argument going on there did exactly zilch to 'resolve' the matter, because the people arguing did not want to budge. All it did was generate a lot of animosity. As Seanachai pointed out there, what was the point of asking the question publicly, when everyone here knows Steve's email address and can raise it privately, knowing that the matter would degenerate very quickly?

Oh, and since that still seems to be overlooked, it degenerated also because Tiger started lashing out at David when he disagreed with him, but that seems to be a minor matter, and excused by the fact that he is a talented modder. I invite everyone to reread the thread. It is quite clear to me who started going for the jugular first.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

Slapdragon, I am sorry man, but you really are a big hypocrite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another "ad hominem." Well, I did have a VERY faint, forlorn hope that a LITTLE more civility would creep in after the day's past events. That'll learn me.

Freak, I expressed my concurrences & differences with Slapdragon without applying labels. You could've tried the same.

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Agreed Franko. I rarely have time to read such threads as "Effectiveness Test of (Insert Weapon here) at 1000 meters" (which, hey, if you've got time to do that, great!) or arguments that get ugly. I spend more time playing the game when I can.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog:

Slapy

I have to say that I have watched how you and others respond to people on the forum, you have a certain elitist arrogant flavor to your post. Weather it takes you 5 paragraphs to insult someone, or with us peasants a simple FU it’s all the same, unnecessary

Tiger has made this game (and it is a game) so much more enjoyable for me and countless others. His thread was asking such a simple question. As with many threads that you feel we need your insight, it just degraded into a flame fest.

We all know you’re a smart guy; you don’t have to hit us over the head with a brick to make your point.

Big Dog

BTW Slapy when can we resume our PBEM I hate unfinished business

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Bigdog ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I am too elite to play you big dog.

Can't find the file, and I am not sure what we were playing or why it was unfinished business, so I guess the answer is never. I am very sorry.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cubbies Phan:

Now before you all jump on this post, I'd like to say that I didn't read the entire thread in question, but I did read the first 2 pages of it. At that point I had heard everything that has already been stated before.

OK, with that said, and I don't know if Tiger had addressed it later in the thread, but IIRC, David Aitken (I think) asked Tiger for what reason he wanted a moddable casualty bitmap. Did Tiger ever respond to this question? or did he continue to argue about piddly quotes from other posts? If so then I'm not surprised the thread got as long and nasty as it did, because IIRC, Tiger never seemed to listen when people would try to tell him something that was obviously the truth about whatever. For instance, the age ol' argument about his mods and dpi.

So with that, what was the final outcome of the thread?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, David and Senechai's question was never answered, but it is probably a good thing that it was not.

[elementalwarre]

er. just to be boring, i'll merely comment on IMHO 'why wargamers are so friggin' pissy'

if you even try a wargame, you're already looking for more realism about historical events/objects than most people ask from games

if you actually prefer wargames, you may well -demand- historical veracity

more realism often means more attention to detail. more detail means more rules. detailed rules means deciding what's correct because the game design often must choose between conflicting authoritative sources

that means the design's often subjective. presto! instant argument, just add free time

look, i wasted time posting this because i was waiting for a turn to compute, ok

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

Another "ad hominem." Well, I did have a VERY faint, forlorn hope that a LITTLE more civility would creep in after the day's past events. That'll learn me.

Freak, I expressed my concurrences & differences with Slapdragon without applying labels. You could've tried the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry Spook, but this is what happens often. You reply to an intelligent post with another post that you have thought out, and a discussion of disagreement ensues. Then this is often the result, leading to flame war.

The above posts strikes a number of issues. There is the issue of intellectual discourse versus anti-intellectual elements, of how deep discussions are "allowed" to get before the peanut gallery pipes in, and the issue of censoring posts because they may cause intellectual debate.

I believe though that you made a good beginning at real discussion, and that it should not be dropped. The real danger of allowing ourselves to be censored from discussion is that every topic on this board will be one person asking BTS to make infantry able to swim and 54 posts saying, "damn right," "more blood," "BTS do somefink" without any discussion. Pretty boring, same thing can be done with an e-mail suggestion box.

Instead, there needs to be a way to catch people who post silly "you are an asshole" posts (including you and me if we do so) and perhaps offering some more constructive way of carrying on the conversation. A flame causing topics faq would also be nice to replace the dead search function.

Freak, as to if I am allowed to post in this forum, better than sling invective, why do you not write BTS and ask that I be banned. That is discussed in the board rules, and I believe they take those e-mails seriously. You may want to find some instance when I have started a flame war or abused another member who did not first start the abuse as an example, and use that as some evidence. BTS is very reluctant to ban people by their own accounts, but they will ban me if you can make a good case.

[Bigdog]

Slapy

That’s to bad I have never enjoyed kicking someone's butt as much as enjoyed kicking yours I hope you don’t drop all the games you start once the battle starts going south for you.

Not only are you a gifted scholar you are a sportsman also, go figure

Big Dog

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Bigdog ]

[aka_tom_w]

"Good Manners Never go out of Style!"

Just try telling that to your teenage kids and see how far it gets you.

-tom w

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cubbies Phan wrote:

IIRC, David Aitken (I think) asked Tiger for what reason he wanted a moddable casualty bitmap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Credit where credit is due – that was Seanachai.

[Bruno Weiss]

Used bicycle for sale: All original parts, new tires and paint. Horn and light included. If interested call.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog:

Slapy

That’s to bad I have never enjoyed kicking someone's butt as much as enjoyed kicking yours I hope you don’t drop all the games you start once the battle starts going south for you.

Not only are you a gifted scholar you are a sportsman also, go figure

Big Dog

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Bigdog ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bigdog, if you are starting a flame war, well -- this is a poor thread to do it, but go ahead.

Personnally, you e-mailed me twice saying we were playing some game, my wife e-mailed you back and said he has been hospitalized and had no answer. I returned and said what game were we playing, I will try to find it but I was in the hospital. You never e-mailed my wife or I back.

If you are trying to say that my not finishing the game is somehow a character flaw, but you are trying to be cute -- then go right ahead. I have one other game in limbo (plus one of Runes that I am waiting on an e-mail about). But this is notice. Starting some sort of flame war over my health condition and the fact that my wife had to watch me code on a damn table is lower than anything you can accuse me of. Lewis tried it, now you are trying it, and I am sick of people implying that my illness makes me less of a human being.

That is all I will say to you on this. If you feel making fun of someone's health is a great way to win points on the board, then I am happy that I never finished this game of yours that gnaws at you day and night.