User talk:DarthBinky/Archive 2

Botched Joke talk page

Hi, I didn't mean to imply that you had any agenda whatsoever. I was responding to the requests that the controversy be moved to its own article. I apologize if you got caught in the middle. Thanks, Dubc0724 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Medieval 2

i got med 2 total war on 10th(cus i'm in EU)like you said, it runs fine. the demo was pretty crap.the real game is brilliant!

Bobby

Yeah man that's an OK edit by me...I just thought the film needed its own subcategory. I can't wait to see it though! ~Cnota 05:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well comparing it to Gump seems a little different, because this film is named after and focused on the assassination and what is happening the day of 6/4/68. ~Cnota 05:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Chaos Space Marines

Obviously we don't agree on this matter. I hold to the position tha thaving mentioned in the article already that there are points of contention between the Legions as a result of their allegiances (and this has had an effect on gameplay across some if not all the editions of WH40K) then it is pertinent, when the opportunity arises, to point out which of the Legions are affected so that a reader may if they wish follow up on the point. Would you object if I opened the idea up for further discussion in say the project area? GraemeLeggett 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Englunds response to Medieval 2: Total War

You say that according to a translation of Peter Englund´s review, he only praised the aesthetics of the game. I don't know what translation you are referring to (I certainly haven't provided one). Please direct me to wherever I can find that.

Furthermore I am Swedish and have read and reread teh review. Please believe me when I say that the most important point is that he claims that a certain genre has now found its true medium. Since it is not every day a famous historian implies that the release of a computer game has some art historical importance. Therefore a summary of his thinking is not redundant in a wikipedia text.

Sensemaker

It seems that you took it as an insult when you read: " That said, I must add that an American (I have assumed you are American from the DarthBinky article) is certainly excused for not knowing when the middle ages started and/or ended. "

Please believe me that I did not mean to insult American's knowledge of history. I have no idea as to how much Americans in general know about history. What I meant to say is that people tend to know most about their own history. The middle ages is not part of USA's history and thus Americans are excused for not knowing the rather complex issue of when the middle ages ended (I know of at least five suggested end dates) since it is not part of *their* history. For comparison you could say that: "a Chinese is certainly excused for now knowing the year of the battle of Little Big Horn". Little Big Horn is a piece of Native American and US history only and it is understandable if it is not part of Chinese curricula. No insult was intended. I do apologise for writing in such a way that it could easily be interpreted as an insult, though. I have removed the offending section to avoid giving unnecessary insult to Americans. -Sensemaker

The aesthetics thing I based on your initial paragraph. You have since clarified that the emphasis was on the genre, not on the game's aesthetics. The article now reflects that.

We've already been over that, and we've already come to a consensus with which we're both reasonably happy. There is no point in continuing that argument because you are not convincing me, and, judging by the extreme length of that conversation, I am not convincing you. So let's stay with what we know works and leave it at that.

Agreed -Sensemaker

And no, I completely disagree with your final assertion. We should not assume that someone knows something or doesn't know something based on where they live, nor is it relevant to the article. Unless someone tells you what they know or don't know, you cannot possibly know that, and it's wrong to assume you do. While odds are, someone from China wouldn't know about the Battle of Little Bighorn, you never know when you're going to run into someone who DOES know about it- especially so in a place like this! --DarthBinky 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking about your general assertion that it is wrong to assume that someone knows or doesn't know something based on where they live, I am not sure if you mean wrong in the ethical sense ("a bad thing") or wrong in the sense that it is irrational, a fallacy. I utterly fail to see why it would be ethically wrong. If you meant that it was a fallacy I must point out that we make assumptions on what other people know all the time (though not usually based on geography). Whenever I decide to use or not use a word I make an assumption as to whether the listening person would understand the word. Without some assumptions as to what the other person understands, human communication is impossible. It is not often you can make such assumptions based on where the other person lives -but sometimes it is relevant. For instance if you were in a new city and needed directions would you first ask a person from a foreign country or a person from the city you are in? Of course it makes much more sense to ask the local because one can assume that he knows the city better. This is assuming that someone knows or doesn't know something based on where they live. I have hopefully now demonstrated that it is not always wrong to assume that someone knows or doesn't know something based on where he lives.

Returning to the case at hand, I never did assume things based on where you live. I thought you didn't know about the middle ages based on what you wrote. To me you seemed to call 1632 medieval. Therefore, and not because of where you live, did I assume that you did not know when the middle ages ended. Since you did not answer this particular point I thought I had embarrassed you by pointing this out, so I tried to make things better by saying that this is not something an American is expected to know. If an American did know, it would be exceptional.

Using the parallell with a Chinese person you can put yourself in my shoes by imagining that you bring up Little Big Horn 1876 (it was 1876 wasn't it?) and he seems to have thought that it took place during the American war of Liberation. When you point this out, he goes silent on the subject. You assume that you hurt his feelings by pointing out his error and feel bad about hurting him. So you try to make him feel better by making excuses for him. You say that Little Big Horn is not something a Chinese person is expected to know, he certainly shouldn't feel bad about not knowing it. It would have be exceptional if he had know. That is what I was trying to do. I apparently failed abysmally. -Sensemaker

Bolivar page

I just logged in to make the correction myself, moment after you corrected it, so I'm guessing the vandalism wasn't there very long (or Simon just got lucky...)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, and May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg ^{(drop me a line)} 20:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)