PDA

View Full Version : Lord of the Rings Online



Isolation
10th April 2007, 01:13
Yeah... I'm playing an MMORPG. I never tried one for real, and LOTRO is having a "world tour" open beta. So I figured "what the hell, why not try? It's free." Anyone else playing? It's pretty fun, but those who got WoW'd to death probably won't find much different (except the graphics, which I think look better...)

ProgrammedToConsume
10th April 2007, 03:40
Addicting MMORPG's kill social lives and academic/job progress. I doubt it will do well as people are either sick of online RPG's(due to WoW) or are too addicted to others.

Of course, some major LOTR fans will flock to it, but I still don't think it will hit big.

QReaper
10th April 2007, 04:33
Got a hold of the beta, got bored about 10 minutes into it.

Seriously, the characters are boring and so are the extra abilities.

Demented
10th April 2007, 05:47
Checked a video. Animation made my eyes bleed.
On the other hand, I can't immediately recall seeing a chainmail bikini on the website.

Isolation
10th April 2007, 08:36
Got a hold of the beta, got bored about 10 minutes into it.

Seriously, the characters are boring and so are the extra abilities.

So, you played through the tutorial and tried all the abilities in 10 minutes? Damn, I wish I could gain levels that fast.

Paegus
10th April 2007, 10:28
i'll give it a whirl because it's free. but as with the L2 free servers i doubt i'll stick with it. i get sick to my stomach of grinding...

Noir
10th April 2007, 12:03
I'm sort of interested, but i wanna try it before i confirm, and they haven't sent me a key yet.

QReaper
10th April 2007, 15:43
So, you played through the tutorial and tried all the abilities in 10 minutes? Damn, I wish I could gain levels that fast.
The first ten minutes of any game is crucial, especially in the case of MMORPGS. If it doesn't hold interest and, indeed, you don't wish to play it within five, it's doomed as hell.

Ging
10th April 2007, 16:33
The first ten minutes of any game is crucial, especially in the case of MMORPGS. If it doesn't hold interest and, indeed, you don't wish to play it within five, it's doomed as hell.

If that's true - than how the hell is WoW so fucking popular?

Boxy
10th April 2007, 17:21
I played it for a total of 30 mins and I'm possibly the worst person to ask on MMO games. I hate them, with a vengence. I've stopped just outside the starting town (forget the name, Boresville?) and am waiting to see if I and some mates get some UK keys so we can play together.

The US one I had meant I was all alone and it made it even more eye bleedingly dull. I'm also not a LOTR fan so this game f**ked before I began playing tbh...

ProgrammedToConsume
10th April 2007, 17:30
The first ten minutes of any game is crucial, especially in the case of MMORPGS. If it doesn't hold interest and, indeed, you don't wish to play it within five, it's doomed as hell.

Not true, I have played a few games with the first half an hour or so being dreadfully boring, yet, the game ended up being awesome afterward.

Look at both swkotor games, both of those suck for the first few planets, but then they improve drastically. Matrix Path of Neo sucked the first level as well, but it's an excellent game overall.


Btw, hah, told you noone would like it.

Paegus
10th April 2007, 18:00
I played it for a total of 30 mins and I'm possibly the worst person to ask on MMO games. I hate them, with a vengence. I've stopped just outside the starting town (forget the name, Boresville?) and am waiting to see if I and some mates get some UK keys so we can play together.

finished the download and am installing presently... dunno what country my key is from though.

i should probably have saved it to a different drive than the one i'm installing it to. it's taking forever.

QReaper
10th April 2007, 18:09
If that's true - than how the hell is WoW so fucking popular?
The first 10 minutes at least keep you interested. Within' 20 seconds you're throwing fireballs/stabbing in the back and the environments are colorful and enjoyable.

Look at both swkotor games, both of those suck for the first few planets, but then they improve drastically. Matrix Path of Neo sucked the first level as well, but it's an excellent game overall.
I haven't played KOTOR2, but I enjoyed Taris, I've not heard a lot of people complain about the first part of KOTOR, except the whole "not a jedi" thing.

Path of Neo is training missions for 5 hours before you actually get something done, granted, but they were at least interesting and different from the Matrix's normal atmosphere.

ProgrammedToConsume
10th April 2007, 18:17
In KOTOR2, you start out searching mines full of corpses and argueing with some stupid outlaw. The mines are dreadfully boring, yet, the game afterwards becomes far superior to it's predecessor.


Taris wasn't the first level of KOTOR, it was the stupid ship. I enjoyed Taris too btw, but the whole, running around in the depths of the planet looking for some stupid padiwan got tiring.

QReaper
10th April 2007, 18:24
Taris wasn't the first level of KOTOR, it was the stupid ship. I enjoyed Taris too btw, but the whole, running around in the depths of the planet looking for some stupid padiwan got tiring.
You said "planets", not levels.

ProgrammedToConsume
10th April 2007, 18:26
You said "planets", not levels.

Sorry. Nevertheless, the ship, mines, and Taris were all quite tiring but didn't depict the overall value of the game.

SoulAssassin
10th April 2007, 19:20
I probably should have stuck kotor2 out then. I got bored after the 1st 10 mins as it all felt the same as the 1st. I loved the 1st kotor. one of the only single player games i have completed.

I want to try lotr:o but just seemed boring. But as people are saying might aswell give it a shot and give it some time.

edit°
10th April 2007, 19:29
First KOTOR was brilliant and I've been told just not to play the second. As for YET ANOTHER sub standard fantasy MMO, I'll give it a miss.

ProgrammedToConsume
10th April 2007, 19:37
First KOTOR was brilliant and I've been told just not to play the second. As for YET ANOTHER sub standard fantasy MMO, I'll give it a miss.

Whoever said not to try the second, they're retarded. It's far superior.

It has new weapons, better lightsaber attachments, better lightsaber moves, new abilities/force powers, better character interaction, six new prestige classes, better plot...the only things I have against it are that it's a little easy and the mines are boring.

QReaper
10th April 2007, 19:39
I know one MMO I'm definitely scrambling to get into: Pirates of the Burning Sea (http://www.burningsea.com/)

ProgrammedToConsume
10th April 2007, 19:42
That one looks pretty good. Well at least the beta screenshots do.


I need to upgrade this POS computer so I can start playing online again.

Paegus
10th April 2007, 20:00
kotorii has better mechanics but the graphics are pretty much the same and the story isn't all that inspired i thought. it's just the same junk over again...

legoman
10th April 2007, 20:02
I played LotRO since the alpha stage and it never really appealed to me. I don't really know what it was that didn't catch my attention in this game... The graphics are absolutely amazing, that I will tell you, but everything else in the game seemed a bit bland. I only got as high as around level 16 or something and perhaps it's because of this that I never tried grouping with anybody... which was a big bummer. I'm really waiting for a WoW killer to come out some day, and LotRO definitely isn't one of them.

Sil
10th April 2007, 20:07
Woo! LOTR online! I wanna be Aragorn!

Daedalus
10th April 2007, 20:11
If that's true - than how the hell is WoW so fucking popular?

What I don't get is why anyone would waste so many hours just to get a level 60/70/whatever character, so that you can then start playing the game properly...

Another annoying thing is that you must constantly walk between places. How do people not get bored when doing quests?

I tried playing WoW *cough*on some private server, and this is the second time I said that this game isn't worth two shits...

edit°
10th April 2007, 20:16
Whoever said not to try the second, they're retarded. It's far superior.

It has new weapons, better lightsaber attachments, better lightsaber moves, new abilities/force powers, better character interaction, six new prestige classes, better plot...the only things I have against it are that it's a little easy and the mines are boring.

Gameplay is fair enough but I've heard the story is much of a muchness of the first one, without any decent twist that you don't see coming a mile off. I'll play it but I'm not really holding my breath for something amazing. I really rate the guy's opinion, hes normally bang on the mark with RPGS. We both play them purely for the story though. Game mechanics can FOAD if the story is worth playing through.

Isolation
10th April 2007, 20:38
Anyway :rolleyes:

If anyone does play, I can be found in the Arkenstone server as Alastor for the duration of the beta (No way in hell am I going to buy it, only because I hate subscription fees) . Currently working on my Armorsmith skills.

Paegus
10th April 2007, 21:21
same server for me... name's Pegas. i'm the white haired Cable clone guy hopping around everywhere, running along on fences and jumping onto people in the curious wonder as to why players are allowed to clip right through each-other.

Zabiela
10th April 2007, 21:24
in the curious wonder as to why players are allowed to clip right through each-other.

Crowds I assume.

Paegus
10th April 2007, 21:30
well obviously but that's part of the fun of raids isn't it? making sure you dont get boxed in by your mates... or worse...

it just feels cheap

Boxy
10th April 2007, 21:34
I'll see if I can get on that server as well then if I get a European server key. I'll try to post my name if I can get one thats good enough. Only ten days though, not a massive amount of time to stab my own eyes out with a rusty compass...

Demented
10th April 2007, 21:43
well obviously but that's part of the fun of raids isn't it? making sure you dont get boxed in by your mates... or worse...

it just feels cheap

It IS cheap. That's the point. It saves on server stress (and pathing, with large numbers of mobs) to not have collision.

Ging
10th April 2007, 22:16
player - player collision is deeply annoying in an MMO, the sheer level of griefing it introduces is beyond belief!

SoulAssassin
10th April 2007, 22:29
i think Age of Conan, (which is the MMO im waiting for) is going to have player collision. Mainly tho because of the way combat is done. AoC is going to be about forming formations such as the phalanx(think 300) so with out collision it would be pointless. Im sure they said tho that in main busy areas collision wouldnt be the same. So players cant block door ways.

Could you imagin WoW with collision lol. You would never be able to move in the main citys.

QReaper
10th April 2007, 22:42
Two words: Habbo Raids

No-collision is a God-send...unless you want to grief.;)

ProgrammedToConsume
10th April 2007, 23:05
Gameplay is fair enough but I've heard the story is much of a muchness of the first one, without any decent twist that you don't see coming a mile off.

I found the story to be very interesting, though it is predictable in most cases, however, there are more unexpected twists than you'd think. Also, the story is so changing(it's altered constantly through character interaction and your allignment), at times it's hard to see what's coming next.

Ging
10th April 2007, 23:21
forming formations such as the phalanx(think 300)

Barbarians, fighting in a phalanx?

In fact, barbarians, fighting in any sort of formation other than mad rush?

ProgrammedToConsume
10th April 2007, 23:27
I can't picture barbarians fighting any way that isn't, well, barbaric.

QReaper
10th April 2007, 23:47
As Sil pointed out to me earlier, Barbarians in the Conan mythos are different from what we assume.

This was after I asked him why the hell Barbarian was a sub-class of Rouge instead of Soldier.

Demented
10th April 2007, 23:51
I can't imagine barbarians being associated with rouge in ANY way.

Indigo
11th April 2007, 00:07
I too am doing the world tour of LOTRO. Though the game is ok, the setting just seems kind of generic. Orcs and elves in a fantasy setting with magic swords and +4 armors of agility? I know that Tolkein was the one that did it first and did it best, but it's stale by now. The MMO market is getting pretty clogged with the same thing... but the already existing fanbase for LOTR kind of gaurentees that people will buy it. Eh, I'm not really an MMO person.

And if the race "human" is called "man", does that mean that you could have a female man?

Paegus
11th April 2007, 00:50
yeah i was kinda bummed that they don't let you place orcs and goblins and such. that would have been pretty cool.



player - player collision is deeply annoying in an MMO, the sheer level of griefing it introduces is beyond belief!

but the jump animations in the game are such that you can easily clear a person. and it's just lame. but i guess i don't play mmos much so i've never really run afoul of it.

Demented
11th April 2007, 01:57
but the jump animations in the game are such that you can easily clear a person. and it's just lame. but i guess i don't play mmos much so i've never really run afoul of it.

Which means you better have completely 3d pathing and the ability to stand on people's heads, otherwise you're begging for trouble.

Gusdor
11th April 2007, 02:04
CARBON FUCKNIG COPY OF WORLD OF WARCRAFT

Seriously.
The UI layout is the same
The Spells are the same (if put on different classes in some areas)
Even the hotkeys are the same.

Even the mailbox UI is the same.

It pissed me off so much just watching it. How do they get away with that trash. Ah yeh, we'll take world of warcraft. And yeh, we'll call the Parties Fellowships!, that will fool the nerds!!

The secret to a good MMO is all about the depth of the world and LOTRO doesnt push that aspect enough

Boxy
11th April 2007, 08:00
Imitation is the greatest form of flattery? If Gus is inflamed by this I'd love to see an actual WoW forum. The sad losers are probably crying themselves to sleep at night. Pages and pages of pure MMO rage... :)

Demented
11th April 2007, 09:12
Blizzard games aren't like other games. Their raging fanboys are closer to adoring, soulless cultists. They never cry, except when they lose. And when it comes to game design, Blizzard never does lose.

Paegus
11th April 2007, 09:54
so i'm not really missing much by never having bothered to play WoW then i take it?

at least the L2 female night elves gave you something to look at... while you started falling asleep waiting for the game to finish killing this bad guy for you...

Sil
11th April 2007, 09:56
I can't imagine barbarians being associated with rouge in ANY way. I think it's "rogue".

But, yes. Fighting in a barbaric way. The barbarian is an elemental character, not bound by the laws of society, only self-preservation and honour.
Read the Chronicles of Conan, then find *one* good reason to class him a soldier instead of a rogue. He's been a mercenary, sure. But never a rank-and-file soldier. And it is by Conan the barbarian class is measured. Makes perfect sense, as soon as you let go of your highly coloured view of what a rogue is supposed to be.
After all, the only times I'm assuming you've encountered the word "rogue" is in WoW and, if I'm lucky, DnD. Doesn't mean the word can't encompass a whole lot of other things, too. (It is, after all, not the same as "sneaky weak git who steals stuff", is it now?)

Regarding the phalanx...
Spartans were soldiers from the age of seven. Read: Soldier. =) Soldier is not "guy who can fight". It's "Guy recruited to follow orders". Very different from the elemental barbarian. Barbarians are defined as the opposite to tribesmen, tribesmen are those who follow the laws and expectations of the world around them. Barbarians are those who follow their own. Be it for good or bad, they just don't walk around doing stuff due to it being protocol.

Right.
-Sil out.

Ging
11th April 2007, 10:19
As Sil pointed out to me earlier, Barbarians in the Conan mythos are different from what we assume.

Maybe from what you assume... :p

I've never associated the idea of a barbarian with that of a trained soldier (though they are also soldiers, by right of fighting in combat between armies)

Sil
11th April 2007, 10:24
Hehe. Well, a barbarian is really no more than someone who acts not according to the laws of society but to elemental ideas and concepts, really. Basically: Not a tribesman? Barbarian.

Then comes the fighting, which is based on Conan, who fights in order to survive or die trying. No laws. Brute strength isn't a prerequisite of a barbaric fighting style, it is only a requisite if you intend to survive.

But, I'm sure, most of you understand this. I'm merely trying to make sure the rest do, too. (I've recently multiplied my knowledge and understanding of the Conan universe by a vast amount, having purchased the entire chronicles, and being roughly seventy percent done reading them all. Great fun. I've also read all the info on AoC. =P)

(Oh, and I attended a seminar where I got some extra info on AoC, but I ain't spilling it. :D)

ProgrammedToConsume
11th April 2007, 19:49
Imitation is the greatest form of flattery?

And only absolute retards have to copy to make a decent game.

*rambo_6*

*cough*

Demented
11th April 2007, 21:45
Don't forget, that's specifically when looking at Conanized barbarians, of fantasy. (Don't mistake that with "canonized".)

Actual "barbarians" are basically any society without a civilization, from the vikings to the mongols. Likewise, to lack signs of civilization is barbaric. Thus, if he speaks proper english and shows manners, Conan the Barbarian would cease to be barbaric! Actually, even if he spoke proper chinese it would work that way....
["Barbarian" being derived from what was essentially the word for "foreign-speaking", under the classically civilized assumption that everyone else is less civilized than oneself.]

Anyways, fantasy Barbarians are more rogues than they are barbarians.
But they are not rouge. I would hope.

Mr. Bottomhat
12th April 2007, 02:53
Fuck ya'll grinding carebears. Come play Forumfall with me www.darkfallonline.com. This is the only MMO I could ever consider playing (except Planetside <3). Unrestricted PvP, full looting, city building, manual fighting, no levels ect.

It's like EvE mixed with Quake mixed with Elder Scrolls.

Seto
12th April 2007, 04:05
Reading the forums some times is a head ache of its own,, participating in that kind of stupidity would make head aasplode..

=Too much of Darkfall is still just on paper concepts (They are promising way more than I seriously think is possible to fit into the same game)

Daedalus
12th April 2007, 09:17
This is the only MMO I could ever consider playing (except Planetside <3).

Hell. Yes.

Though it got filled full of faggotry by the devs ever since last year. :(

There are some new patches with new content yes, but I'm not sure if it's worth resubbing.

Sil
12th April 2007, 12:13
["Barbarian" being derived from what was essentially the word for "foreign-speaking", under the classically civilized assumption that everyone else is less civilized than oneself.]
It was the greeks who started this, calling everyone who did not speak greek a barbarian, as it sounded like they were saying "barbarbarbar".

Or so I was told by my philosophy and history teacher.

Paegus
12th April 2007, 12:40
and wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian) agrees

ProgrammedToConsume
12th April 2007, 22:52
You realize wikipedia has been discredited on the news, right?

Demented
12th April 2007, 22:57
You realize common sense has discredited the news, right?


Seriously people, think! With your brains!
Those pink fleshy things inside your skulls!
Not that I know you have brains by empirical evidence... I was told that by wikipedia.

QReaper
12th April 2007, 23:04
You realize wikipedia has been discredited on the news, right?


That wikipedia is nothin' but a faggery daggery doo encyclopedia!

You realize wikipedia is written and edited by anyone who wants to edit it, right?

ProgrammedToConsume
12th April 2007, 23:18
You realize wikipedia is written and edited by anyone who wants to edit it, right?

Some articles are protected.

Nevertheless, some articles are crap. College professors no longer allow wikipedia to be a resource for research papers.

legoman
12th April 2007, 23:19
Some articles are protected.

Nevertheless, many articles are crap. College professors no longer allow wikipedia to be a resource for research papers.

Really? Where'd you get that info? You're kinda generalizing there...

ProgrammedToConsume
12th April 2007, 23:23
News.

Generalizing? Ok, well in America college professors forbid use of wikipedia as a primary source.

Demented
12th April 2007, 23:30
Uncommon sense, please.

A college professor isn't going to allow you to site your best friend as a reference either, no matter how smart he is. Unless he's a Ph.D in the given subject, in which case you'd still need to reference a written, published work of his. (For that matter, you're better off not using most encyclopedias as references.)

Does that mean you are going to ignore everything your friend says, because "the news" has stated that his information isn't "verified"?

Same principles apply to wikipedia. It's an armchair resource. And a significantly better one than the water cooler club.
It's not the scientifically-accurate-resource-to-end-all-resources, it's the sum of all human knowledge, both right AND wrong.

Paegus
12th April 2007, 23:41
ya seriously...

any academic type who DOES accepts wikipedia as a reference needs their head checked.


On topic: i got bored and uninstalled it...

Ging
13th April 2007, 01:25
You realize wikipedia has been discredited on the news, right?

Yet, amusingly, people who know what they're talking about have looked at articles relevant to their sphere of knowledge on wikipedia and generally found them to be well written and most importantly, correct.

Here's my reference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm), where's yours?

ProgrammedToConsume
13th April 2007, 01:34
Want a link? Here (http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1290491.php/Wikipedia_criticised_as_educational_tool).

I got this from the NBC News archives.


For reference sake, I merely said it was discredited and many were false, not all. I never said every single word was crap.

@Ging: Note the words "in America". Your reference is BBC news. And not all they had to say about wikipedia was good anyway.


Ok, who else wants to argue?

*besides qreaper*

Demented
13th April 2007, 03:58
Stating that Wikipedia has been "discredited by the news" implies that it is wrong in its entirety, and not only that, but that discrediting was so accepted and official that it was worth reporting on. Which would be quite the logical fiasco if that statement were true.


None of which much matters...


Point was, Barbarians aren't all crude musclemen with loincloths.

(That WAS the original topic of this thread, right?)



Anyway, argument, for the sake of it:
Wikipedia being "discredited"
It is impossible to discredit something which makes no claim to having credit, is it not?

Many Wikipedia articles being "crap"
Factually correct, yet irrelevant.
This is merely a result of the sheer number of articles and the limited effort available to make them useful. The number of articles that are total crap are small compared to the number that are useful or simply incomplete, and any crap article can be swiftly improved or deleted. This is about as relevant an argument as the fact that book encyclopedias are usually months, if not years, out of date.

QReaper
13th April 2007, 04:06
Really? Where'd you get that info?
From the Spanish teacher's younger brother, or from someone who heard it from him.:p


*besides qreaper*
Too fuckin' bad.:rolleyes:



@Ging: Note the words "in America". Your reference is BBC news. And not all they had to say about wikipedia was good anyway.
The internet has no nationality there bubba.

Demented
13th April 2007, 04:24
Too fuckin' bad.:rolleyes:

You make baby llamas cry. >=(

Ging
13th April 2007, 10:15
Want a link? Here (http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1290491.php/Wikipedia_criticised_as_educational_tool).

That doesn't actually say anything about colleges not accepting wikipedia in references, it merely states that staff at wikipedia recommend that you don't take all of their articles as 'gospel'.


@Ging: Note the words "in America". Your reference is BBC news. And not all they had to say about wikipedia was good anyway.

You still provide no sources for your statement, you say "in America" - is that every college? Some colleges? Some states?

Your argument falls down because you can't (or aren't willing to) back it up with your actual sources other than claiming "the news" (which we have to look upon as if you'd pointed us to a wikipedia article!)

The fact that I referenced the BBC has no bearing, the quote I was replying to said in "the news" - there's some "news" stating that wikipedia is about as accurate (in science) as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

No one else wants to argue because your argument is based on fallacy and is without merit.

Demented my lad, the actual original topic of this thread was LOTRO, not barbarians - and yes, they are in the Conan universe :p

Naib
13th April 2007, 10:59
I quite like the way this thread has kept to the topic of online roll playing games.

LOTR Online: A roll playing game where you pretend to be an elf
Age of Conan: A roll playing game where you pretend to be a barbarian
Wikipedia: A roll playing game where you pretend to be an expert about a subject

:p

Daedalus
13th April 2007, 11:36
I quite like the way this thread has kept to the topic of online roll playing games.

LOTR Online: A roll playing game where you pretend to be an elf
Age of Conan: A roll playing game where you pretend to be a barbarian
Wikipedia: A roll playing game where you pretend to be an expert about a subject

!NITPICK ALERT!

It's role, not roll, mate. :p

edit°
13th April 2007, 16:25
Wiki has one or two less errors per 10 articles than Britanica if I remember rightly. Not going to give a link because I heard it from a friend who normally knows everything.

Sil
13th April 2007, 18:33
Point was, Barbarians aren't all crude musclemen with loincloths.
I think it was "the word Barbarian originates from meaning 'anyone who doesn't speak greek'."

And this, in turn, relates to how barbarians are a rogue-subclass in Age of Conan, which is an MMO -- as is tLotRO. Yes? No?

(By the by, in nitpicking fashion, I call it tLotRO, as it is "The Lord of the Rings: Online", not "Lord of the Rings". There's only one lord.)

ProgrammedToConsume
13th April 2007, 19:47
Ging, sorry, couldn't find that in the archives.


My statement that it has some fault falls on fallacy? You of all people I would have expected to notice that I said SOME entries are invalid. About the colleges, I have yet to look for that archive, I'll start today.


Not backed up? NBC News; I showed you their archive, how else would you like me to back it up, I'll try.

If the news is fallacy(well you may be right, NBC may be crap), then why did you quote BBC News?


Edit:Ok, sorry for all the crap I gave you Ging, here (http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070405/NEWS/70405004/1051/NEWS01) is what I based that statement on. I know this is only one college, but this is the only article I could find.

See Ging, I knew what I was talking about...to a point anyway.

*bangs head on desk*
Why do I bother?

Ging
13th April 2007, 20:22
I didn't say the news was fallacy, I said your argument was based on fallacy - because you weren't producing anything to reinforce your statements other than "news".

Now you have provided a link that's actually relevant (the previous link you posted did nothing to back up your side of the discussion) - there's slightly less an issue of fallacy and more that you're opening statement was indeed overly generalized and shouldn't have been made without further checking your facts first.

Let's just say that you really shouldn't join your schools debating team...

Demented
13th April 2007, 20:25
Well, you at least read the headlines.
They are suspiciously catchy.


!NITPICK ALERT!

It's role, not roll, mate. :p

Other than that, he's perfectly accurate. =X

Sil
14th April 2007, 12:15
a handful of college history departments across the country
Claiming all American college professors to have done the same is like reading

"A handful of immigrants were arrested today for criminal acts."
And going
"Immigrants are criminals."

Edit: My point is, it can't be considered pedantic nitpickery or anything to contest your statement here, as it is a dangerous fallacy that you've stated. You're claiming that "if some are, all are". And that's *never* true.

With that, I retract from this stupid discussion, and I'm trusting you not to try going against me here, as I've said nothing to attack you or your point in this debate -- I've merely elucidated why I believe you, logically, cannot feasibly defend the generalisation you did. After all, it *was* wrong. That was what the discussion was all about.

ProgrammedToConsume
14th April 2007, 13:52
Sil I made that statement because when I watched said story the reporter generalized so I assumed such was correct over the span of the nation.


Ging, I can back myself up, I just should've paid more attention(which I'm sure your getting sick of).

Don't join the debate team...thanks for the advice but in general knowledge I'm not completely and utterly retarded, I merely suck at finding what I'm looking for on the internet.(I'll try to specify more if that satisfies you)

Again, sorry for the crap Ging.


Now...on topic: I say LOTR online isn't worth the time. Though MMORPG's aren't really my cup of tea.