myrkul999 on June 02, 2012, 01:55:22 am
I just now realized I wrote "Speaks with a limp" up there... it's supposed to be lisp. Dur.

That was a typo?  Nonsense.  I thought "Speaks with a limp" was bloody eloquent. There are speech impediments such an expression covers which could only be defined otherwise in terms out of Dorland's.


Huh. I may use that, then.

Y'see, I knew Gygax and Arneson when their company was nothing more than an outfit that published rules for "toy soldier" tabletop military games, from the medieval and smoothbore musket eras through World War II tank battles.  "TSR," after all, stood for "Tactical Studies Rules."  They ran in the gaming world along that track which tended to sacrifice playability for "toy soldier" faux-"authenticity" that those of us used to playing on either checkerboarded or hex-gridded maps (Avalon Hill, Simulations Publications, Inc., Game Designers' Workshop, etc.) simply would not tolerate.

TSR got the market share, but I'll never concede that they managed it by turning out a genuinely more elegant, workable, or entertaining product mix, particularly after the lawyers elbowed first Dave Arneson and then Gary Gygax out of the company. 

I'm afraid I came into the hobby a bit later than that... (especially considering that D&D was already a few years old when I started filling diapers) but I've always enjoyed the history of it. I used to sit and read the old Dragon magazines as far back as the library had copies. The strategic side of the hobby likewise has always interested me, but I am not a wealthy man, and must pick my vices carefully.

And on that note, I think we should either let this distraction drop, or start a new thread.

Tucci78 on June 02, 2012, 02:00:15 am
After a succession of maneuvers in which he capers, gibbers, leaps, gimbals, and follows a colonoscopic course all the way up his tochus, we have:
After reading the rest of the thread, it appears I was wrong about Tucci.

Jeez, ya think?

I never confused computer games with the print-on-paper roleplaying systems (some few of which had been designed to treat with military and science fiction gaming situations, too; see SPI's Commando and GDW's Traveler) that first began to hit the market after a "magic" combat mechanism was added by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson to TSR's Chainmail hand-to-hand medieval melee resolution rules to create Dungeons & Dragons for the Tolkien-wannabe fans.

And I put down "mere moderators" for the simple reason that by comparison with the publishers they have - literally - no "skin in the game." 

For almost all of us in the industry back in the '70s and '80s, it was at best a side job, where we sought revenue for not much more purpose than recouping our own monetary investments and getting enough to keep the machinery going.  I loved it when SPI moved out of Manhattan into a loft over the warehouse in North Jersey.  Who in hell wants to pay New York City taxes and other costs?

I never knew all that many full-time games designers and developers who actually made anything close to a living out of their work on conflict simulations.  Jim Dunnigan is the only one of my old acquaintances who comes to mind, and he seems to have lost his market appeal among the lamestream media as a military affairs analyst recently because he's been dismally correct in his appreciations of international affairs as they manifest themselves in the fang-and-claw destruction of lives, liberty, and property in our present era of the Hopenchangey Hubshi.

The obamaphiles of our "fair and balanced" dying legacy news organs really, really hate the sound of Dunnigan's New York accent when he's pronouncing the catastrophic failure of their Occupier-in-Chief's foreign policy malfeasances.

And - damn! - Dunnigan's a Democrat.

"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

wdg3rd on June 02, 2012, 09:11:12 am
The attempt to ban magnesium is, I assume, a parody of the equally ludicrous real life movement to ban chlorine.

Another parody of the real life chlorine movement is the movement to ban dihydrogen oxide.

Can somebody pass me a link to the attempt to ban chlorine in water?  I need a good laugh.

Dont knock the Campus Crusade to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

Regardless of scientific formulae, if youre going to mention a movement, you should at least get the name right.

Also, just so you know, my Amazon.com water is prohibited from being transported on airplanes.

Maybe because of the bright international hazard orange caution sticker on it that says: CAUTION: DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE DELIVERY UNIT.

Or maybe not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

It's a clip from an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! on environmentalism.

There's also a Snopes entry on the subject.  http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

customdesigned on June 02, 2012, 01:35:54 pm

Can somebody pass me a link to the attempt to ban chlorine in water?  I need a good laugh.


There was a movement to ban transportation of *pure* chlorine, and certain hightly toxic chlorine containing compounds.  This was because accidents involving a tanker full of pure chlorine can be *really* nasty.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119121.300-clinton-backs-call-to-ban-chlorine-.html

However, Greenpeace took up the cause without really understanding the science, and actually tried to ban the element:

http://www.free-eco.org/insights/articles/the-anti-chlorine-chorus-is-hitting-some-bum-notes.html

customdesigned on June 02, 2012, 01:47:14 pm
As many folks do, customdesigned is getting the cart before the horse. 

Established actors in a market segment "coopt [government] to preserve the status quo via legislation" and therefore induce regulation - they actually initiate the process - the better to raise market entry and participation costs among potential and actual competitors.

That's exactly what I said.  I guess you are objecting to using the phrase "problem with capitalism" when the real problem is "there is a government available".  I was starting with statist assumptions, and showing a problem, rather than starting with anarchist assumptions.

sam on June 02, 2012, 07:22:53 pm
However, Greenpeace took up the cause without really understanding the science, and actually tried to ban the element:
http://www.free-eco.org/insights/articles/the-anti-chlorine-chorus-is-hitting-some-bum-notes.html

Everyone knows that heavy metals in water are poisonous.  Magnesium is a metal, and any metal is reasonably heavy, right?  As Teamgirl would tell us, better safe that sorry.  Since water containing some metallic salts has harmed people, best to ban any metallic salts.  Lead is a metal, magnesium is a metal.  Let us hope that no one tells her that sodium is a metal.

wdg3rd on June 02, 2012, 10:05:41 pm

There was a movement to ban transportation of *pure* chlorine, and certain hightly toxic chlorine containing compounds.  This was because accidents involving a tanker full of pure chlorine can be *really* nasty.


Has anybody ever attempted to transport *pure* chlorine?  Because it's so much easier on the wallet (containers to hold it are expensive) to transport chlorine compounds (salt comes to mind, but that's also toxic to stupid people) and produce chlorine cheaply where you need it is what we do in industrial civilizations.

As hard as pure chlorine is to contain and as much harder as pure sodium is to contain (actually sodium is easier but we're imagining tankers with just one thing and you can't move metallic sodium on a flatbed even though it's a solid) I'm trying to imagine the special effects to do that traffic accident.  The "Big Stupid Ring" in the Star Wars re-edit wouldn't come close, we'd have to go back to the way they did it in the '50s to fake big explosions by using films of the real thing and that would be as close as a chemical explosion could get to being nookular.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

Tucci78 on June 02, 2012, 10:39:35 pm
Not at friggin' all is this any kind of "common problem in capitalism."  Your concept of "capitalism" is fatally screwed if we recall that the term came into current use as a pejorative for what had previously been called "the free market."

By definition, a segment of the economy "regulated" by government thugs isn't in any way a genuinely free market, but rather the manifestation of what's called "the mixed economy." 

As many folks do, customdesigned is getting the cart before the horse. 

Established actors in a market segment "coopt [government] to preserve the status quo via legislation" and therefore induce regulation - they actually initiate the process - the better to raise market entry and participation costs among potential and actual competitors.

That's exactly what I said.  I guess you are objecting to using the phrase "problem with capitalism" when the real problem is "there is a government available".  I was starting with statist assumptions, and showing a problem, rather than starting with anarchist assumptions.

Yet again, not one friggin' little bit "exactly what [you] said."

Government can be "available" to serve it's functions in the management of retaliatory lethal force - the "breaking things and killing people" operations which individuals have always the perfect right to exercise and therefore to delegate to their hired agents and other people - without interfering in the voluntary acts of sovereign individuals in the marketplace.

Look, customdesigned, let's assume that you're crippled by abysmal ignorance instead of a bloody liar, okay?  That's giving you the benefit of the doubt here. 

Think of the doctrine in these United States which calls for separation of church and state.  In matters of personal conscience - the relationship between the individual (and aggregations of individuals) and whatever he/they conceive to be the Great Sky Pixie, the government generally and the laws particularly stand mute and impotent.  Government's only brief is the preservation of individual human rights.

Similarly, in the economy - in all regards - there is no role for government thugs in determining outcomes of transactions into which the participants enter voluntarily.  No "picking winners," no "social justice."  Government's only brief is the preservation of individual human rights. 

(This includes enforcing contracts. If a label on a bottle of water specifies mineral contents and the contents depart to any significantly deleterious extent from specification, then the consumer's rights as a participant in the contractual relationship between producer and purchaser have been violated, and government may now step in to provide retaliatory force as required in the preservation of the purchaser's property rights.  Y'see how that works, bubbeleh?)

Just as government thugs - particularly popularity contest winners - have no special infallibility when it comes to determining the Will of Almighty Ghu (and therefore can't dictate how all people should kneel in prayer), they also have no special knowledge of how all economic transactions should be conducted in a division-of-labor economy.

In both aspects of human praxis, therefore, government goons should shut the hell up and keep their friggin' hands off, making no efforts either at establishing a Heavenly Paradise on Earth nor the One Best Technocracy for Mankind.

Although quoting from Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal in that earlier post of mine might have been a bit like squishing a flea with a piledriver, I gotta admit that customdesigned is a particularly obtuse critter. He's been pounded flat, but he's still scuttling.

What the hell is any participant in this forum doing "starting with statist assumptions," anyway?

I mean, without throwing in an explicit [/sarc] tag. 

What we're seeing with the character of Plotner and her Mascon massholes is a fictional but extremely reliable instantiation of "statist assumptions" in pernicious action, imputing to capitalism the sorts of "common problem" that people who fail to reason lucidly or logically - like customdesigned - impute idiotically to voluntary commerce in the free marketplace and leverage as justification for having government thugs ram their billyclubs up peaceable folks' butts.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

wdg3rd on June 02, 2012, 10:51:41 pm
Tooch, I'd offer to have your babies except I'm too old and I have a Y chromosome.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

customdesigned on June 03, 2012, 12:06:23 am

What the hell is any participant in this forum doing "starting with statist assumptions," anyway?

I mean, without throwing in an explicit [/sarc] tag. 


Making a feeble attempt to preach to the unconverted instead of the choir.  If you want your words to have any effect on someones opinions, you have to start where they are at - not where you want them to be.  Sometimes reality is a more effective mind changer, but no words are required in that case.

Tucci78 on June 03, 2012, 05:52:57 am
What the hell is any participant in this forum doing "starting with statist assumptions," anyway?

I mean, without throwing in an explicit [/sarc] tag. 

Making a feeble attempt to preach to the unconverted instead of the choir.  If you want your words to have any effect on someones opinions, you have to start where they are at - not where you want them to be.  Sometimes reality is a more effective mind changer, but no words are required in that case.

Purest crap, with the reek of flop-sweat thrown in. 

You do not "preach to the unconverted" by preaching that which is fundamentally satanic, by which - in this case - is meant to the pre-emptive degradation of the AnCap concept itself, by imputing to it the fatal flaws of the mixed economy.

Look, customdesigned, I've obviously had the right "effect" in this exchange with you.  You're not aiming at anything amounting to a "mind changer" because you're not genuinely interested in discussing concepts reflective of objective "reality," preferring (for some really goddam strange reasons of your own) to stick with the "statist assumptions" which make effective use of concepts in soundly reasoned discourse on praxis impossible.

Ever heard of the expression "check your premises," putzie?

"If you want your words to have any effect on someones opinions" and their "opinions" are fatally divergent from reality, "you have to start where they are at" by demonstrating that their horsepuckey opinions - their "statist assumptions" - are not only wrong but cannot continue to be stupidly and comfortably "assumed" because they are in great part the source of that "someone" having gone off the goddam cliff and into statist error in the first place.

In a lot of cases, this can be done most effectively by clearing away all the "statist assumptions" from the git-go, and starting with the fundamental premise of the individual human being as an entity capable of reasoned thought and therefore action in the world around him on the basis thereof. 

Build up from there, and it takes a really twisted, malevolent, predatory son-of-a-bitch to evoke those "statist assumptions" of yours again, doesn't it?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 06:35:59 am by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

mellyrn on June 03, 2012, 06:46:40 am
Quote
What the hell is any participant in this forum doing "starting with statist assumptions," anyway?

It's what we grew up in. 

Did you get some bad RL news recently?

Tucci78 on June 03, 2012, 07:10:05 am
What the hell is any participant in this forum doing "starting with statist assumptions," anyway?

It's what we grew up in.  

Did you get some bad RL news recently?

No more nor what I usually do.  What, you think you're reading me in a fit of "cranky"?

As for "what we grew up in," do the words "shitty diapers" ring a bell?

Walter Block likes to reminisce about his late mentor, Murray Rothbard, and how the guy responded upon having been asked the source of his volume and eloquence when confronting a new shovelful of malicious idiocy from a Keynesian or a Monetarist.

Dr. Rothbard's reply: "Hatred is my muse."

And Murray had a boatload of fun with it, too.

I my own way, I merely strive to fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of distance run.

=======================
Watching you other people making friends
Everywhere - as a dog makes friends! I mark
The manner of these canine courtesies
And think: “My friends are of a cleaner breed;
Here comes - thank God! - another enemy!”

-- Edmund Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 07:17:53 am by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

mellyrn on June 03, 2012, 09:19:35 am
Quote
As for "what we grew up in," do the words "shitty diapers" ring a bell?

I believe you have kids?  Sweetie, someone taught them -- and you -- how to use the crapper, by example if nothing else.  Someone taught you to speak -- feral children rarely, if ever, learn to communicate verbally; I'm not sure how well they ever use toilets.  The specialized knowledge of the principles of specific political systems does not arise spontaneously in the psyche.

Quote
Dr. Rothbard's reply: "Hatred is my muse."

And Murray had a boatload of fun with it, too.

I my own way, I merely strive to fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of distance run.

So, basically, you need other people to be and/or remain ignorant re: anarchy so that you can hate them for fun; you need voluntaryist society to fail to develop.  Makes you as much part of the problem as any diehard statist.

Tucci78 on June 03, 2012, 10:27:17 am
As for "what we grew up in," do the words "shitty diapers" ring a bell?

I believe you have kids?  Sweetie, someone taught them -- and you -- how to use the crapper, by example if nothing else.  Someone taught you to speak -- feral children rarely, if ever, learn to communicate verbally; I'm not sure how well they ever use toilets.  The specialized knowledge of the principles of specific political systems does not arise spontaneously in the psyche.

Yep. And children are taught - including you, we can all surely hope, boopsie - to pass their waste into the porcelain convenience via the application of corrective remonstrances when they either inadvertently miss the target or willfully soil themselves. 

Dunno how much "by example" was on offer from the familial elders in my own larval years, but I sure as hell didn't make an exhibition of my own micturitions in order to show my young sons or grandsons how to take a whizz.  Is that what you did, honey chile?  Yeesh.

The characteristics "of specific political systems" are not made appreciable to people capable of reasoned abstract thought in the same way that toilet training is undertaken, but the analogy holds in the sense that the adverse consequences of advocating (or suffering) certain malevolent "specific political systems" can be made clear to any but the willfully obtuse (as opposed to the merely ignorant or stupid) person. 

It is for this reason that kindly folks like this, your humble correspondent, persist in the beneficent effort to get and hold the attention of the ignorant and the stupid, not uncommonly by kicking the willfully obtuse (who are safely assumed to be pushing bullshit like the mixed economy for malicious purposes) in the crotch and in the teeth, merrily and repeatedly, drawing attention to the pernicious nature of their "statist assumptions."

When the enemies of human rights present in public fora as examples of malignant pathology, the conscientious educator uses them.

Dr. Rothbard's reply: "Hatred is my muse."

And Murray had a boatload of fun with it, too.

I my own way, I merely strive to fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of distance run.

So, basically, you need other people to be and/or remain ignorant re: anarchy so that you can hate them for fun; you need voluntaryist society to fail to develop.  Makes you as much part of the problem as any diehard statist.

Oh, what simple-minded horsepuckey you're peddling now, lambikins!

As I've said, for the honestly ignorant respondent I have no "need" whatsoever.  This is because my purpose is to amend his ignorance through gentle education and bring him thereby to a condition of knowledge and confidence in his powers of reason, his enjoyment henceforth predicated upon a lucid appreciation of just how totally screwed-unto-death are the "statist assumptions" which the scheming jerkwad immoral humanity-hating authoritarians keep trying to peddle in spite of those "statist assumptions''' destructive effects.

When I'm done with those who are "ignorant," they're not "ignorant" anymore, and "the diehard statist" (from whom I'm very "different") is up shit creek without the proverbial paddle.

Ain't that just such a nice outcome, sweetums?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

 

anything