5087 réponses à ce sujet

[clos]

This thread is great and the professor is breaking some knowledge down. I hope Bioware is listening.

[-Spartan]

For those in the thread interested in the overall arguments, there is an article on Dtoid which warrants reading. It provides an excellent yet concise historical perspective as well as a basic look at the business side of things. You can read it here. 

Modifié par -Spartan, 18 avril 2012 - 10:42 .

[Vromrig]

clos wrote...

This thread is great and the professor is breaking some knowledge down. I hope Bioware is listening.

Still not likely professor exists.

Bothers me thread gets so much attention.

[RiGoRmOrTiS_UK]

Who wants to take bets that Bioware's writers are afraid to come in here to address the lit professor

[M0keys]

Vromrig wrote...

clos wrote...

This thread is great and the professor is breaking some knowledge down. I hope Bioware is listening.

Still not likely professor exists.

Bothers me thread gets so much attention.

Why is that, Mordin?

[Vromrig]

Why is that, Mordin?

Language inconsistent with literary professor, too closely mirrors most popular arguments here.

Not substance of argument, actual argument.

If I say specific thing, and see someone claim to say specific thing on forum, going to conclude they are quoting me, not attributing.

In this case, looks too much like using term "revolting", assigning to literary professor, then using message board arguments.

Very frustrating, does not seem genuine. Do not like dishonest arguments, even if they support position.

[Peregrin25]

Hudson and Walters just got schooled by a lit professor lol. literally!!!

[M0keys]

Are you saying you believe that this thread is perhaps 2 people (or even 1) in cahoots, creating a fake literary authority figure to support an argument?

[Pkxm]

 your professor speaks the truth

[Vromrig]

M0keys wrote...

Are you saying you believe that this thread is perhaps 2 people (or even 1) in cahoots, creating a fake literary authority figure to support an argument?

Yes.

[M0keys]

But why? Fame?

[Vromrig]

M0keys wrote...

But why? Fame?

Why claim to be Bioware artist and leak ending content changes?

Why claim to be attractive woman on Craigs List, then put shoe on head over text messages?

Why claim to be 12 year old girl dtf on yahoo messenger?

Internet full of liars.  When lie supports argument or complaint, fictional validation is easy option, particularly when no scrutiny applied.

Should always assume more extreme or specific claims on internet false until specificity can be provided or verified.

Modifié par Vromrig, 18 avril 2012 - 10:55 .

[G Kevin]

Vromrig wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But why? Fame?

Why claim to be Bioware artist and leak ending content changes?

Why claim to be attractive woman on Craigs List, then put shoe on head over text messages?

Why claim to be 12 year old girl dtf on yahoo messenger?

Internet full of liars.  When lie supports argument or complaint, fictional validation is easy option, particularly when no scrutiny applied.

Should always assume more extreme or specific claims on internet false until specificity can be provided or verified.

What ever the case, the argument is valid.

[Vromrig]

What ever the case, the argument is valid.

Validity of argument not being disputed, authority of source is.

When authority of source based on lies, it is given artificial strength. When revealed, credibility of supporters suffers. Also makes liars of supporters.

Should be mature enough to reject lies even if beneficial ones.

[Kunari801]

OddBodkin wrote...

I don't know how the mumpin' heck they wrote this:

“Hard to imagine galaxy. Too many people. Faceless. Statistics. Easy to depersonalize. Good when doing unpleasant work. For this fight, want personal connection. Can’t anthropomorphize galaxy, but can think of favorite nephew. Fighting for him.”

...while giving us the ending that they did.

^ That.   It leads me to believe the rumor that the Star-brat was not peer reviewed by the whole team and just designed and written by two people.   

The ending feels like just a 180 in the story telling of ME3, it's so jarring, illogical, and not even at all within the lore of the game to that point.  It really does fill like they used a intern to think up the ending. 

[G Kevin]

Vromrig wrote...

What ever the case, the argument is valid.

Validity of argument not being disputed, authority of source is.

When authority of source based on lies, it is given artificial strength. When revealed, credibility of supporters suffers. Also makes liars of supporters.

Should be mature enough to reject lies even if beneficial ones.

Ok.

I was just saying that the argument was what I am interested in. Whether it is a professor or not. If people decide that the person behind the argument can invalidate the argument then, I don't believe there was an argument to begin with.

Modifié par G Kevin, 18 avril 2012 - 11:03 .

[Daedalus1773]

Vromrig wrote...

What ever the case, the argument is valid.

Validity of argument not being disputed, authority of source is.

When authority of source based on lies, it is given artificial strength. When revealed, credibility of supporters suffers. Also makes liars of supporters.

Should be mature enough to reject lies even if beneficial ones.

You can google the guy. He's got an employee page at his university in Australia.

http://www.campion.e...9-dr-colin-dray 

Googling is hard.

Typing like Mordin doesn't make you Mordin. Sorry.  

Modifié par Daedalus1773, 18 avril 2012 - 11:04 .

[G Kevin]

Though I do not want to have people flooding e-mails at drayfish, why not e-mail him and ask him yourself?

Via the link above.

Modifié par G Kevin, 18 avril 2012 - 11:05 .

[M0keys]

Kunari801 wrote...

OddBodkin wrote...

I don't know how the mumpin' heck they wrote this:

“Hard to imagine galaxy. Too many people. Faceless. Statistics. Easy to depersonalize. Good when doing unpleasant work. For this fight, want personal connection. Can’t anthropomorphize galaxy, but can think of favorite nephew. Fighting for him.”

...while giving us the ending that they did.

^ That.   It leads me to believe the rumor that the Star-brat was not peer reviewed by the whole team and just designed and written by two people.   

The ending feels like just a 180 in the story telling of ME3, it's so jarring, illogical, and not even at all within the lore of the game to that point.  It really does fill like they used a intern to think up the ending. 

Patrick Weekes wrote that Mordin quote.

He gets Mass Effect. John Bombrow gets Mass Effect.

I don't know why Hudson and Walters had such problems with understanding it.

[Vromrig]

[quote]You can google the guy. He's got an employee page at his university in Australia.

http://www.campion.e...9-dr-colin-dray

Googling is hard.

Additionally, even if you were correct & it was someone pretending to be someone they're not (which you're still wrong about), it doesn't invalidate the points they make in their arguments/opinions.

Typing like Mordin doesn't make you Mordin. Sorry. [/quote]


"This was the greatest ending of all time and was thematically consistent with the entire series."

Charles David Isbell

Professor of history at Louisiana State University

Can google him, see his job, see he is professor.

Quote still not attributable to him.

Not arguing point invalid. But substance of point built upon reputation of alleged professor. Disconcerting.

Also typing like Mordin doesn't make me Mordin.

Just easier for people to understand.

[quote]
Though I do not want to have people flooding e-mails at drayfish, why not e-mail him and ask him yourself?

Via the link above. /quote]

For sake of integrity would be happy to.  However, does also seem inappropriate, particularly if it turns out to be false.

Not worth wasting hard worker's time over internet debate.

Modifié par Vromrig, 18 avril 2012 - 11:08 .

[M0keys]

Well, it makes it easier for people to remember you. You're the guy who "talks like Mordin," and people enjoy that so you continue posting that way. You probably enjoy it too.

But I think the point about this whole thing is that it seems like a big effort to put into faking a real professor. I mean, if that's his information, it shouldn't be too hard to go find him and ask him if there's someone impersonating him on a forum.

[Daedalus1773]

Vromrig wrote...

You can google the guy. He's got an employee page at his university in Australia.

http://www.campion.e...9-dr-colin-dray

Googling is hard.

Additionally, even if you were correct & it was someone pretending to be someone they're not (which you're still wrong about), it doesn't invalidate the points they make in their arguments/opinions.

Typing like Mordin doesn't make you Mordin. Sorry.

"This was the greatest ending of all time and was thematically consistent with the entire series."

Charles David Isbell

Professor of history at Louisiana State University

Can google him, see his job, see he is professor.

Quote still not attributable to him.

Not arguing point invalid. But substance of point built upon reputation of alleged professor. Disconcerting.

Also typing like Mordin doesn't make me Mordin.

Just easier for people to understand.

Perhaps this is so in your case. For me, the substance of his point is built upon the substance of his argument, not his RL identity. I've known enough professors over the years that I consider to be morons (on some topics) to do otherwise.

[G Kevin]

M0keys wrote...

Well, it makes it easier for people to remember you. You're the guy who "talks like Mordin," and people enjoy that so you continue posting that way. You probably enjoy it too.

But I think the point about this whole thing is that it seems like a big effort to put into faking a real professor. I mean, if that's his information, it shouldn't be too hard to go find him and ask him if there's someone impersonating him on a forum.

There is an e-mail option on the link posted earlier. Like I said earlier I don't want you guys to spam that e-mail with questions I may have an idea.

Mr. drayfish, would you be willing to take an e-mail from someone here to verify that it is you? I can understand if you wish not too but I would like to put the questioning of the author being put to rest.

Daedalus1773 wrote...

Perhaps this is so in your case. For me, the substance of his point is built upon the substance of his argument, not his RL identity. I've known enough professors over the years that I consider to be morons (on some topics) to do otherwise.

 

This is what I believe in. An argument's validity should be based on the argument itself and not on the arguer.

Modifié par G Kevin, 18 avril 2012 - 11:14 .

[Vromrig]

Perhaps this is so in your case. For me, the substance of his point is built upon the substance of his argument, not his RL identity. I've known enough professors over the years that I consider to be morons (on some topics) to do otherwise.

Once more, do not mind substance of argument. Seem to be taking argument too personally. Not disagreeing with substance.

Leery of holding as authority. Argument that "literary professor makes similar case" not just about providing point, but also about demonstrating that authority of great credibility makes point.

Would rather make same argument without turning to dishonesty.

Do not believe this case being made honestly.

Disgusted that I am being attacked for demanding proof of authority.

This is what I believe in. An argument's validity should be based on the argument itself and not on the arguer. 

Then why invoke arguer?

Modifié par Vromrig, 18 avril 2012 - 11:15 .

[M0keys]

Vromrig wrote...

Perhaps this is so in your case. For me, the substance of his point is built upon the substance of his argument, not his RL identity. I've known enough professors over the years that I consider to be morons (on some topics) to do otherwise.

Once more, do not mind substance of argument. Seem to be taking argument too personally. Not disagreeing with substance.

Leery of holding as authority. Argument that "literary professor makes similar case" not just about providing point, but also about demonstrating that authority of great credibility makes point.

Would rather make same argument without turning to dishonesty.

Do not believe this case being made honestly.

Disgusted that I am being attacked for demanding proof of authority.

This is what I believe in. An argument's validity should be based on the argument itself and not on the arguer. 

Then why invoke arguer?

You're not being attacked, we're being skeptical and asking questions, which is something anyone who impersonates Mordin should understand.