Tides of Blood Spells

I'm quite aware. The second part of that is uncalled for. I don't care if the biggest *** on battle.net makes a map; it's still not cool. On the other hand, I'm only being an *** to you.



Actually they don't. If you were right then I would simply be misrepresenting your argument, which is not the same as a straw man. A straw man is a caricature of an argument set up specifically to be knocked down. Neither of us has an argument in this matter, only an opinion. I could make an argument, but that would be a long post.



Ad hominem comments are not fallacies unless you use them incorrectly as part of an argument; they can even be used correctly as part of an argument.

You may have the luxury of antagonizing from the safety of your own home, but you certainly won't find that you can insult me without as much in return. Sorry, that's not how it works. If you punch somebody they're going to punch you back. Crying and getting pissed because they hit you isn't going to accomplish much.

I think you are unfamiliar with Humpty Dumptying. It is a term from an exchange in Journal of Philosophy from the 1960's; I assume dictionaries of philosophical terms have entries on it by now. It's not an ad hominem attack, it's a form of fallacy.



Christians still read the Old Testament. Catholicism and its derivatives are not the only forms of Christianity either. There were all sorts of competitors with it in the early days: Gnosticism, Manichaeism, a slew of individual mystic authors that never got far. That's like saying all Christians believe anybody can get into heaven if they are pious and repent. Sure, the Bible seems to say so, except when it doesn't; and there you have it: Calvinism, ladies and gentlemen. I figured you'd like to know that so you don't make that mistake in the future.



If it doesn't look the same I doubt there would be much uproar. The Arch Druid is to be expected. If weirding is mispelled in the map then it's mispelled in the Dune Encyclopedia, which is certainly possible. I didn't feel like combing the actual books for it though, when I checked.



We have two very different experiences of battle.net. Well, when you release your map, and get all those emails, some of which will be threats--you'll perhaps appreciate the lack of slack I cut people at this point.

Well, obviously one of us isn't tired of bickering. Look, I don't know why you have this chip on your shoulder. As I pointed out in my last post, I think you have a right to keep your work from being circulated, and when people post your code, you certainly have a right to be upset. You don't have a right to be nasty about it, and it is unfair and probably unwise to threaten to "bring the 8th plague to locked maps all over b.net". I even tried to make nice, but you insist on arguing. Now, I was pretty sure I was right about some of these, and I'll defend my thoughts if I need to: You see, in the first case you are trying to detract from my statement that you are behaving in an improper way by saying I write, spell, and or think poorly (in your opinion). But these are all irrelevant. What's more, we already agreed that you are being rude (an example of a valid personal premise). In the second case, you are attempting to say that I am wrong because I endorse the idea that your map should be up for grabs, an argument that I never made, is obviously wrong, and easily defeated.
And while not a Christian (or a Babylonian), I was pretty sure I was right about this too...
And, while I'm not familiar with all the various sects you mentioned, I think that almost all Christians use the New Testament. Most also view its tenents as revisions of the Old, especially when they directly state that they are revisions of previously held beliefs in the text. Or at the very least, just because some Christians have different beliefs than others, it certainly doesn't prove that Christians don't generally teach tolerance over revenge.

Now, like I said, I don't want to argue, just set the record straight. I'm sure you'll make some sort of response to this. Just please try to keep it civil. As you can see, I am not name-calling or trying to be insulting (at least I don't think I am), and for what I said in the past in this vein, I apologize. I am hot headed (and probably not alone).

And speaking of cooler heads, hey Windigo! I'm glad you are posting here, and sort of embarassed because I bet I know why you are posting here :bgrun: But in any case, I think I would be interested in taking you up on your offer to sign up at ToB.com. I have a couple of questions, and maybe a suggestion or two to make that might help. As I said, I like the map, so please take whatever I say in the perspective of "fan" and not "evil asshole critic".

@Litany: First, thanks for pointing out that TriggerSleepAction is generally faster -- I hadn't actually tested this and now my move instantly spell looks much better =)

Second, I'm just curious, could you give an example of when an ad hominem can be a valid argument? It never occurred to me there was such an instance.

An "ad hominem argument" can be a valid point if it's a matter of opinion that both parties concede, or sometimes, that your opponent believes, and you don't. You use his beliefs as arguments to build your case. Often used in political debate, and to frustrate Jehovah's Witnesses.

The "ad hominem fallacy" is when you say that your opponent is wrong because of something based in opinion. Like he dresses funny. Or he needs a dictionary. :nono:

I am quite familiar with what these things are. Perhaps I wasn't clear why they aren't present here: there is no argument for errors to slip into. There are plenty of ad hominem moves in the exchange, but none of them are fallacies; that is how I would argue it anyway. I don't want to have an argument about the logical progression of the exchange (which I would not call an argument in the first place; just a statement of position and bickering) though, I really don't. I haven't had to break down "language" into propositions in months. No need to start now.



I am not positing a reading of the scripture itself, only pointing out that plenty of Christians as well as Jews believe in an eye for an eye. Hell, that belief underlies the death penalty in the U.S. (which is why I mentioned it), which was founded by Puritan religious fugitives. I happen to be studying early colonial religious practices at the moment, and let me just say: these people were nucking futs. For every time the Bible contradicts itself (we couldn't count them), there are 2 (or more) denominations, 1 for every side of the argument, all of whom emphasize their side while minimizing the other.

So yeah, there are Christians that blow up abortion clinics and believe according to the Old Testament as much as the New. The origin of the maxim is of course in the Old, and there is another religion that worships according to it as well, but I didn't mean the origin. I meant 'I am not a Christian, but..'



Of course. I don't (generally) just make the stuff up as I go along. There are reasons behind my judgements, so I might as well state them.

It can be a valid form of argument when the point of contention is a point of character or morality against an accepted system of the thing, say Kant's or Spinoza's ethical systems.

I.e. if the matter argued is a point of character, an attack on character is hardly a fallacy.

Happy to help with the generic waits. We've been experimenting with two spells that draw units along a path, and getting the movement smooth is a pain.

Is it just me or does anyone else suddenly crave a huge glass of ice cold milk every time they see ad Hominem.

I dont care if that quote is taken out of context.

Let's just leave it at that. :ggani:

And about non game time waits...I have noticed that multiple generic waits in a trigger can sometimes have a variable duration. Sometimes they whiz by, as you describe. Sometimes they crawl. I'm not sure why, it may be lag. If it's for something like animation frames, it should be no problem. If it's something important, or potentially show-stopping, I'd use the polled waits because I think they are more constant.

The "wait bug" was always that the first wait worked perfectly and all others after didn't.