There is a positive correlation between interest in guns and interest in military historyNO THERE IS NOT!!!!!!! What you're saying is that an LA gangbanger who would just love to have a WW2 machine gun would be expected to know about the Normandy Beach campaign. You're also saying all WW2 historians are gun nuts. That is a STEREOTYPE!!!!! Nothing more. And it's quite offensive to me.
John, I'm sorry this offends you, but I think that you have a poor conception of what constitutes a positive correlation between two traits.
Two things would have to be true for such a correlation to exist.
First, if we take as a group everyone who has an interest in military history as against everyone in the world, all that is necessary is that a higher percentage of those interested in military history are interested in knowing about weapons than the general population. That's so obvious that it's almost a tautology: it is almost impossible to discuss military history without reference to the weaponry used, which means a knowledge of guns.
Second, if we take as a group everyone who has an interest in guns, their capabilities and characteristics, as against everyone in the world, all that is necessary is that a higher percentage of those interested in guns are also interested in knowing about the history of war in which these were developed.
In fact, quite apart from your arguments, I believe you are 1) the person who told me that AK-47s were developed by the Russians as an automatic weapon that was relatively forgiving in the quality and caliber of ammunition, so that in the field it would be easier to supply; and 2) the person who told me that the British used a .303 rifle which used a bullet that might be compatible with a properly designed pistol, thus making possible the .45 caliber pistols and rifles of Dark Honor Empire. Thus I was not merely assuming you knew something about military history; I had clear proof that you did, because you knew quite a bit about the kind of guns that were used by different militaries at different times in modern history.
Now, if you hadn't kept arguing about this, I might not have made that connection; but you really just lost the argument completely, because it is not that you don't know anything about and have no interest in military history, but only that Pearl Harbor is not one of the areas to which that interest extends. And gee, it came terribly close, because you were interested in and informed about the Nimitz and its contrast to the kind of weaponry available at Pearl Harbor, in connection with the movie you analyzed.
So now I think you've got some words to eat.
--M. J. Young
Now, if you hadn't kept arguing about this, I might not have made that connection; but you really just lost the argument completely, because it is not that you don't know anything about and have no interest in military history, but only that Pearl Harbor is not one of the areas to which that interest extends.
No, what it shows is that I'm interested in guns. Not military history. I also know the guns carried by most of the police departments in the Columbus area. Doesn't mean I want to hang out at a police station.
None of which changes the core of what I was saying. You knew damn good and well that I was opposed to changing history and still very carelessly sent me to a known historical event expecting me to have a desire to change history. You just picked out the one thing that you disagreed with. Funny, you accused me of doing that not all that long ago.
So who's eating what?
He's not picking out the one he disagreed with, the other issue has simply been beaten to death so many times that even in MJ's vast patience he's stopped trying.
No, what it shows is that I'm interested in guns. Not military history. I also know the guns carried by most of the police departments in the Columbus area. Doesn't mean I want to hang out at a police station.
There is a difference in knowing military history and liking the military.
None of which changes the core of what I was saying. You knew damn good and well that I was opposed to changing history and still very carelessly sent me to a known historical event expecting me to have a desire to change history. You just picked out the one thing that you disagreed with. Funny, you accused me of doing that not all that long ago.
It wasn't changing the past. It was an alternate universe, which I'm pretty sure the Architect explained in that first starter gather. So MJ had all reasonable expectation that you would treat it as an alternate universe and therefore it doesn't matter that it's a historical event.
I don't think being mentally unstable has as much to do with it as everyone thinks. Here's why. Put yourself in my shoes. You swore that you would never do something. You believed strongly that doing this thing would have serious consequences. You're then put into a game setting and end up doing what you swore you would never do. You could not convince me that it wouldn't shake your cage just a little bit. The fact that I'm mentally unstable might have worsened it, but I'm certain even most "normal people" would be rattled by that. Please note, no other world I've been to has had even remotely this kind of effect on me. If I were still going on about every world I've been to, then I'd say yeah, maybe mentally unstable people shouldn't play. He just picked The One World.
And please don't forget that MJ is every bit as mentally unstable as I am. Just on the other end of the spectrum. Any argument made about why I shouldn't play due to mental instability applies equally to him.
No, role playing games don't shake my cage. They might evoke emotions during the game, when I allow myself to play into it and become the character, and in an especially moving game it may carry over past the game for a little bit (as in an hour or two, when I chat with the others at the table about how the game went), but no I've never been jarred or damaged in any way from one. And before you even comment that I just haven't played enough games I've played far more than you have. From what you've said this forum is your only RP experience, so out of this relatively small scope one jarred you. That's not saying it's the only one, just that you have limited exposure. And I've never seen MJ exhibit poor behavior as either a player in his game with Kyler or as a GM (I'd rate him as one of the top 3 GM's I've had the privilege of playing with ((And this is a public forum so I will not list the others, nor say where he falls in the top 3)))
No, role playing games don't shake my cage.
They haven't shaken your cage YET. If I never got sent to Pearl Harbor, it never would have shaken mine. That was rare circumstances. I've proven it's possible, it's just a matter of time and finding your One World. I said put yourself in my shoes there. Would those circumstances have rattled you? You don't know because you've never been in that situation.
It wasn't changing the past. It was an alternate universe
Close enough. I have every reason to think the world will recover, just like ours did. That's changing the past as far as I'm concerned.
I've never reacted this way and have been in role playing games for almost a decade. A very sizable number of my friends are also gamers, and not one of them has had such a reaction. I've been in games that push my buttons, yeah, but outside of the game i don't harp on them or attack the GM over being wrong, because it's a game.
So while yes it's scientifically impossible to disprove your stance, that's far from proving it. In addition it's statistically reasonable assume it was because of who you are and not just the stars aligned in a conspiracy against you that hasnt happened to anyone else that I know of.
As to the other point, its been addressed enough. If you havent accepted the rational reply yet I'm not going to waste my time entertaining the discussion.
I've been in them for almost a decade now, and I've only had this reaction to one world. If I were going on about every single world, I'd say it was because of me. I'm not saying it's not. What I'm saying is that it's a combination of circumstances. The one in one thousand opening to the one in one thousand world that would scramble the one in one thousand player.
I just hope you never find your One World.
mistake.
Ya know, I keep thinking about it, and yeah, it is an appropriate opening to the world. I could see how that could work for some players. But it was hardly "The Right Opening" for the situation. It was as right and appropriate as a turkey sandwich with hot peppers. A hundred other people would eat that just fine. Not you MJ. You'd probably end up just like I did. In the hospital. It was as right and appropriate as a turkey sandwich with hot peppers.
I could so see myself doing just what I said. Thinking the psionics are still working and encountering a cop first thing? Oh yeah. You're damn right I could. I don't like that opening because it gives you a choice between committing murder or going somewhere you might not want to go. You better believe my character won't ever again make the mistake of not committing murder. Are you /trying/ to turn your players into cold-blooded killers? I also think it makes warning them /far/ /too/ /easy/. What? You never let slip something you didn't mean to say? A player could warn them without ever intending to.
It wasn't changing the past. It was an alternate universe, which I'm pretty sure the Architect explained in that first starter gather. So MJ had all reasonable expectation that you would treat it as an alternate universe and therefore it doesn't matter that it's a historical event.
Glantri, with all due respect, you say that like my position is incorrect. I'd like to think there is no "incorrect" position on the issue of non-involvement. It's changing the history /known/ /to/ /me/. And that's really all that matters if you think about it. I have every reason in the world to think it will all be fine in the end. That's good enough for me.
(Doing Therapy)
Mistake
(Doing Therapy)
Ya know, I've had this in the back of my mind for months, and I just now got it to surface. Your involvement attitude is very pessimistic. You're assuming that the world won't be able to handle its own problems without your help, in the face of solid evidence that it will be fine. My attitude is optimistic. I'm assuming that the world will be able to handle it, just as our world did. And if they can't...... Well, Natural Selection can't be ignored.
I'm rereading that, and for some reason, it sounds confrontational as all hell. Maybe I'm just paranoid. It's completely conversational. I'm really just trying to start a conversation about non-involvement philosophies. Should I take it to the other forum?
(Doing Therapy)
If you wish to discuss non-involvement as a gamer philosophy, feel free to do so in the Multiverser discussion forum.
In case you don't, I'll give a response here.
You're viewing the optimism/pessimism aspect from the viewpoint of the world, not the character.
Interestingly, I was forced at the last minute to change the name of the game from Multiverse to Multiverser (because someone else holds a trademark on the word "multiverse" in relation to fictional stories), and only realized after we went to print that this was really a much better name for the game--because it is not about the worlds we visit, but the people who visit those worlds.
For my character, for Mike's, for Ed's, for most of the characters of most of the players I run, there has to be a reason why this is happening to them. Richard Lutz' character, Pete Adams, takes the view that it's random chance, that you've been violated by the universe and just have to live with it. Bob Thomas takes the attitude that it's unreal, and that the army is behind it, playing mind-games with him to see how he reacts. For most of us, though, the idea that this is all meaningless is more than we can bear. That means there must be a purpose.
It is possible that the purpose is that we are going to be entertained for all eternity by imaginary existences within our minds; but some of these existences are very painful, and in that sense not very entertaining--not anyone's idea of heaven except maybe yours. (Ask Eric whether his character enjoyed being in The Web.)
It is possible that the purpose is for us to learn, to discover facts about reality and about ourselves; but what purpose has knowledge if we are ultimately alone and will never have anything to do with that knowledge?
Thus the remaining possibility is that this is happening to us in order that we can do something. It might be that that which we are to do lies ahead--in the view of Michael di Vars, this is all training for Ragnorak, when the skills I have learned and honed will be put to use in the vast immortal combat against the giants. The alternative, though, is that whether or not there is a future purpose, there is a present purpose--that whether it is to do something here or to learn something we will be able to use to do something elsewhere in the future, our presence here matters. We make a difference.
Thus it is optimism to believe that I am here in this world for a reason, that something or someone beneficent has brought me here for a purpose. That purpose almost certainly means that I can and will make a difference for the better.
Sure, it's a Quantum Leap sort of view of the matter--that I have to do whatever it is I'm supposed to do, or die trying--but it has that optimism to it, that I can make a difference if I try to make a difference. What I do matters, if I make it matter.
--M. J. Young
Interestingly, I was forced at the last minute to change the name of the game from Multiverse to Multiverser (because someone else holds a trademark on the word "multiverse" in relation to fictional stories), and only realized after we went to print that this was really a much better name for the game--because it is not about the worlds we visit, but the people who visit those worlds.
I couldn't agree with you more my friend.
(Doing Therapy)
Mistake. Sorry.
What Bible verse is "Even cold cups of water given in my name shall not be forgotten"? Think of all of the cold cups you've given to me. (Supposed to be funny)
(Doing Therapy)
I can't believe I spent all those years complaining about a military police officer. Now I'm running a game and Glantri is more or less at the mercy of a character of mine. That wasn't what I had intended when I brought Magehammer into the scenario, but I'd give quite a bit to take back a lot of the stuff I said about this in my ignorance.
If you should ever run into a situation like this again, I strongly advise you to make the idiot run a game themselves.
I've been on Facebook too much lately--I was looking for the "like" button.
--M. J. Young
What did I tell you MJ? Don't dare tell me what I've gotten out of it. I've gotten peace of mind out of it. And that, my friend, is the most valuable thing in the world to me.
I feel like God told me I would understand this before I died.
(Doing Therapy)
There is one key difference between Magehammer and the MP though. That difference is that Magehammer would let Glantri walk away without a fight if he chose to do so.
It got confusing in the game. One of the other characters was in the process of having a nervous breakdown and told Glantri a bunch of lies about Magehammer to get him to stay, so we're still kinda working through that.
(Doing Therapy)
I'll tell you what Magehammer would do if he landed there again. He would march straight out the front gate leaving a trail of dead MPs along the way. And consequences to the world be damned.
Two
MJ, I think I see your logic. "Here's your chance to change history without risk of an infinity loop." You just don't see it the way I do. You're right. I do know the outcome of the destruction of Pearl Harbor, and I really like it. Forgive me for being willing to sacrifice 3,800 Americans who will die as martyrs and will always be remembered, for The Greater Good. I want to make something clear. If I had thought that I would die and stay dead, I would not have warned them. I'd gladly die alongside them. This is a case where being brought back to life in another world worked against me. Or perhaps I should say, my lack of understanding of being brought back to life in another world.
(Doing Therapy)
I kept asking you why you thought I would want to save Pearl Harbor. I was legitimately confused by that. I was confused because I knew you knew I was opposed to changing history. You knew I'm opposed to changing history, but for some reason, you thought I would be sorely tempted to do what I perceived as changing history. Then you said your assumption was based on what you thought every other player you know would do. So, without regard to what you know about the individual player, you would assume he would behave like everyone else? So if you had a player character that you knew was gay, had a thousand pounds of gold already, and had never demonstrated a heroic attitude, you would expect him to save the Dancing Princesses because "Every other player" you know would do it?
Do you see the fallacy in your thinking here? OK, so every other player you know would save Pearl Harbor. How many of them spent eight years talking time travel with you? You were clearly using false logic. I just wanted to enlighten you a little bit to the flaws in your thinking.
I feel like God is telling me the reason that this happened is because it's the only way we could make deep enough impressions on each other from across the internet for us to learn some of this stuff. Let's just hope we remember it in our next lifetime together.
It's been 10 days. MJ, check the thread date stamp if you would like to verify this.
MJ, when you sent me there, you said "Based on comments you made at the time, I decided that this would be a perfect world for you." Didn't you think it just a little convenient that I just happened to do an analysis of a movie the subject of which would be the perfect world for me? On a cosmic level, I think it was far more appropriate that not only were every one of your assumptions completely wrong, it was also the one and only scenario that would screw with my psychosis. If it hadn't screwed with my psychosis, you probably never would have found out that your assumptions were completely wrong. It's almost like the universe was trying to teach you a lesson in humility.
I'd appreciate your thoughts MJ. I just can't get over the irony in that.
Two, 2 days apart.
I keep saying it pisses me off that you thought you already knew how how I felt about Pearl Harbor from the analysis. This is because you DID know how I felt about it from the analysis. You just couldn't see the forest for all the trees. (And I never understood that expression until now) You read individual parts that might have suggested to you that I would want to stop it, but the analysis in its entirety says "Stopping the Pearl Harbor bombing would be a disaster." You DID know how I felt about it from the analysis. That just makes it all the more confusing to me that you thought I would want to stop it.
Changing history is bad, mkay?
Seriously, I did want some thoughts on that if you don't mind.
I just can't get over the irony in your saying "I decided that this would be a perfect world for you." In light of everything that happened as a result.
O.K., let me clarify the situation here.
This is a public forum where I am a moderator. Anyone who posts here is having an open conversation with no one in particular, and that includes me on both sides. I am required to skim posts adequately to watch for Spam and abusive posting. I am not required to read posts thoroughly, nor to reply to them. No one else is required to read them.
You want my thoughts about something about which I stopped thinking years ago, and thus my "thoughts on that" are, "Oh, no, not this stupid subject again, when is he ever going to drop it? Let me go do something productive with my time instead of trying to think of things to say about a horse that's so dead and beaten that it's reverted to primeval ooze."
Those are my thoughts. I'll be happy to post them again next time you ask.
--M. J. Young
I did drop it. For 10 days anyway.
I found it funny and ironic. I half expected you to find some morbid humor in that as well. I'm sorry to see that I was wrong.
Keep an eye on the "Last Post" counter on this thread.
Two
It's funny, I just hung up with my buddy Rob (That big *blond guy you met in Columbus) The last thing I said to him was "You have more important things to do than listen to me babble."
That is beyond true in this case. So yeah, true effort will be made. I feel so much better.
I could spend the rest of my life thanking you, and it would never be enough.
*I just read recently that "blond" and "blonde" are two of the very few gender-specific words in the English language. The first is used for a male, the second for a female. I thought you might find that interesting, if you didn't know it already, that is. I didn't know it.
(Doing Therapy)
It's been 6 days
a horse that's so dead and beaten that it's reverted to primeval ooze."
I must take objection with this statement. "Beating a Dead Horse" is saying the same thing over and over and over. While I freely admit to doing that, this is not it. None of this has ever been said before. A lot has been learned on both sides. If not for what you call "Beating a Dead Horse" you would likely continue to mistakenly believe that I knew the attack and would have been tempted to warn it anyway. You also learned that you knew all along how I felt about it. "Changing history is bad, m'kay?" (Sorry, I just really like that saying) I know I've learned a lot that's has been helping me to run Magehammer now. As Uncle Bob would say "You can't argue with success."
This wasn't completely "Beating a Dead Horse" under any reasonable definition. If it were, ongoing scientific research into a particular field would also be "Beating a Dead Horse." We're not repeating the same thing, and we're still learning. (MJ, your irrational dream is to make is as a rock star. My irrational dream is that perhaps these writings will be found by an "Internet Archeologist" and used to help treat psychosis.)
Besides, it is slowing down. Six days since the last. I wish you could notice that MJ. Keep your eye on the counter, if you would.
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, something else. You insist that you could never have become a molecular biologist. I must take objection with that also. It's like you're saying that God couldn't possibly have turned your life that direction, whether or not you can plausibly think how it would have happened. Kind of a brazen statement from someone who probably sees himself as quite humble, dontchathink?
And I just know Dr. Mark Young, Biological Medicine is sitting there thinking "Me? A game designer and musician? Surely you jest!!!"
(Doing Therapy)
Either the title of this thread is misleading or the topic has been derailed.
Or the thread was started years ago by a guy who was (believe it or not) far more psychotic than he is now.
The title of the thread remains misleading in spite of the psychosis of the individual that started it.
And your point is?
His point is that if you're not discussing the subject in the title you ought to be discussing whatever you are discussing in a different thread. He might be interested in "Questions you should ask players" and not in whatever it is you are presently discussing, and he--or someone else--might be interested in whatever you are presently discussing but not in "Questions you should ask players". Thread headings exist for a reason.
--M. J. Young
And to get it back on topic:
It never once occurred to you that it was just a coincidence that Final Countdown was about Pearl Harbor, did it?
For as many times as I've asked this, I don't believe I've yet gotten an answer.
O.K., so most of the people I know who are seriously into guns are seriously into military hardware--kind of difficult not to be--and they're also into military memorabilia and paraphernalia, such as medals, uniforms, backpacks, canteens, ammo belts, and the works. And they're also familiar with military ranks and protocols and know something of military history in relation to one war or another, usually several wars, sometimes many of them. Quite a few of them also play war games; some of them do reenactments.
So the only person I know who is both interested in guns and interested in time travel asks if he can do an analysis of a movie about Pearl Harbor.
So did it never occur to you that it was a really major coincidence that someone who would to the casual observer appear to be a military hardware nut also happened to pick the one historic time travel movie in which the issue was whether they were tampering with the history of a major World War II battle?
It never once occurred to you that the counterpoint of your interest in guns and your interest in that movie would make it appear as if you, like many others who are interested in guns, were interested in war history.
You think I'm a fool because I did not consider the possibility that all the evidence pointing to an interest in military history on your part was just a remarkable coincidence, as if I dropped the Scrabble box and the letters spilled on the floor and told me my mother was going to call today.
No, I never once considered the possibility that someone who was interested in military hardware in great detail and who was also interested in the only time travel movie about a twentieth century war was not interested in twentieth century military history.
Sorry. I guess I'm just not very smart.
--M. J. Young
Sorry. I guess I'm just not very smart.
I would like to make something clear. I'm wasn't trying to insult your intelligence with that statement. What sounded to you probably petulant was asked in serious curiosity.
So the only person I know who is both interested in guns and interested in time travel asks if he can do an analysis of a movie about Pearl Harbor.
Funny that you remembered the guns but not the time travel. "Changing history is bad, m'kay?"
If Final Countdown had been about the Korean War, would you have assumed I knew that? I know less about that than I do about Pearl Harbor.
So did it never occur to you that it was a really major coincidence that someone who would to the casual observer appear to be a military hardware nut also happened to pick the one historic time travel movie in which the issue was whether they were tampering with the history of a major World War II battle?
I'd like to remind you that you mentioned Final Countdown to me on more than one occasion, along with several other movies that you said you were getting requests for. My rule of thumb at the video store is and always will be "When in doubt, get the movie with a good looking girl on the box cover." What I'm trying to say is I'm not terribly picky about what I watch. You repeatedly mentioned, let's say a half-dozen movies you were getting requests for. The title "Final Countdown" stood out to me, because of the 80s group Europe's song of the same name. I remember I was sorely disappointed that the song was not in the movie. I didn't even know what Final Countdown was about, I don't think, before I did the analysis. It was chosen by me because I like a song with that title. If not for you mentioning that movie to me, I very likely would have lived the rest of my life without ever watching it at all.
So I guess the question then becomes, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that you just happened to recommend a time travel film, based on the Pearl Harbor bombing, to a military hardware nut who just happened to like a song with the same title as the movie?
I think it's much more appropriate that it was just coincidentally the one and only scenario that would screw with my psychosis. It's like God was trying to teach us something.
I just can't wait until you're the mentally ill player obsessing over an old game.
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
No, I never once considered the possibility that someone who was interested in military hardware in great detail and who was also interested in the only time travel movie about a twentieth century war was not interested in twentieth century military history.
Sorry. I guess I'm just not very smart.
No, what you are is prejudiced. "All gun collectors are interested in military history." How is that statement any different from "All black people are criminals" or "All Mexican people are here illegally" or "All white people can't dance"?
I bet 10 minutes ago, you thought yourself to be the most unprejudiced person in the world.
<.< >.>
"... most of the people I know who are (interested in) guns are... (also) interested in twentieth century military history."
"... All gun collectors are interested in military history."
First of all, MJ fell victim to the philosophical principle of Occam's Razor, which basically states that the answer which is most likely to be the answer is presumed to be the answer.
Now to address the real or imagined attempt at insult by using loaded words. He is not necessarily being, as you say, prejudiced (loaded word). He is discriminating and he knows it. Discrimination is what allows us to, for instance, tell the color blue from the color red, and it is a vital part of all of our lives along with its counterpart generalization. Together they allow us to respond to stimuli conceptually.
Conceptual behavior is seen when an organism makes the same response to a group of discriminably different objects. An organism is said to respond conceptually when it responds similarly to stimuli within the same class and when it responds differently to stimuli in different classes.
Thus, a child who responds "cat" to different examples of cats and who responds "dog" to different examples of dogs is exhibiting conceptual behavior.
Conceptual behavior involves both generalization and discrimination: generalization within classes and discrimination between classes.
Finally, of course I should mention the elephant in the room: he did not by any means say "All A are B." He said, "In my experience, most A are B."
"In my experience, most black people are criminals."
Still prejudiced.
If you don't agree, say that to your average black guy walking down the street.
I think that first I'll ask the average guy of any ethnicity walking down the street if he knows what conceptual behavior is.
When he can't answer, he'll be proving that my prejudice against the average guy of any color's IQ is wholly justified.
Most black people are not criminals (as a matter of fact, you're the only one saying that); the factoid you're looking for is, "African Americans commit more crimes per capita."