Funny, on the same post you prove you havent read the thread, you cant find info that is 1 click away, and you contradict yourself.
Let me guess, you need me to point what is which, dont you...?
Interesting. I would have actually came up with a better response for this, if it had any merrit behind it. But all I'll say is, I didn't contradict myself.
You fail.
~Redslayer-Saga of Ryzom~ Active again! ~Kinch/Lotu-WoW~ Retired True RedSlayer - Eve ~ Current Primary game
I understand it is trite to say, "WoW dumbs people down." There is, however, an element of truth to it.
WoW has invited WoW=sp33k, which is communicating without actually 1) saying anything or 2) adhering to rules of proper grammar. Moreover, the gameplay/content in WoW requires little to no strategic thinking, planning, or any other skills of the mind. You kill five boars, you collect five boar tusks, and you return to the NPC with five boar tusks. You then obtain a new quest. The community in WoW lends itself to this, and most members of the community do not speak English, which creates it own language barriers that exacerbate the problems of WoW-sp33k.
[If you read to this point, you probably do not suffer from WoW's attention deficit disorder.]
[Edit: by the way, sense my humor and sarcasm are not detectable online, this is a joke - mostly.] [btw - it is supposed to be since - wink*wink*. Points if you detect other errors.]
I actually enjoyed EQ much more then WOW. I think part of the reason was the younger crowd that Blizzard had to sacrafice for. They tailored the game to the 8-17 crowd more with the type of skills and thinking required to play the game. They basically noobified the MMO genre by giving every kid a reason to play, lets make a macro press one button and kill everyon yey.
I played the shit out of both games and they both made me smarter.... Everquest's base game may be a more thought provoking game and World of Warcraft may be a cartoony dumb game but people are what made me smart not reading quests and what not. Dealing with guilds members and leaders has made me a lot smarter in terms in working in groups and I only went endgame in World of Warcraft. I'm not a fanboy of either and I currently play no online games. But I think any game with online interaction will make people smarter generally. Sorry for the typos I wrote this in a hurry.
Originally posted by brostyn Look up the word acronym, You used one in your sentence, genius.
** warning, amusement detector broken, warning **
Right. Attacking me because I used "LMAO" was amusing. I'm sorry I missed that great joke.
I didnt attacked, i stated a fact. I guess you also missed that...
You didn't state a fact. Unless, of course, you went through the trouble of hiring someone with an MSc in psychology, and forced everybody who used the acronym 'lmao' in a sentence to an IQ test, to check and see if their IQ was sub-120.
And you do realise that many psychologists feel that IQ tests are too unreliable to properly measure intelligence without any sort of cultural bias?
How in the world you got this idea in your head, I don't know, but lets put the two in perspective. EQ was a pain in the butt to play, while Wow is actually fun. What do you not understand about that? Nothing against EQ when it was released there was only UO out there and UO was a pvp maven while EQ was the pve king and pretty much established that pve was the more desired facet.
You would think with millions of subscribers the majority of people would try to act mature. But then again thats what I get for thinking.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
You didn't state a fact. Unless, of course, you went through the trouble of hiring someone with an MSc in psychology, and forced everybody who used the acronym 'lmao' in a sentence to an IQ test, to check and see if their IQ was sub-120. And you do realise that many psychologists feel that IQ tests are too unreliable to properly measure intelligence without any sort of cultural bias?
It's so ironic how psychologists make the IQ tests too: It's as if they have something to prove about themselves. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the subject of this thread could serve as a thesis...
In any case, most hardcore raiders in WoW are at least able to use excel spreadsheets to project DPS and there are some physicists/mathematicians that actually play WoW. Everybody on this website likes to ignore facts, however, by assuming that actually enjoying a mainstream product makes you stupid. It's really the same kind of elitism found in sub-genres of music.
Of course there's the website's bias as well, since the smaller companies invest more than Blizzard on this site for advertising, which is why we've never seen the moderators touch many of the WoW bashing posts.
WoW is a solid game that performs well on most machines, but has much larger proportion of kids, because of it's accessibility and popularity. I think that the moral of the story is that you should always take the ratings on this site with a grain of salt... and some lime.. and cilantro...
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
To play WoW too much, will end up in what's written in the statement. Otherwise it won't, but it will surely not make people smarter. Nor help non-English speaking people improve their English.
I think there are both a lot funnier and "healthier" games.
Interesting. I would have actually came up with a better response for this, if it had any merrit behind it. But all I'll say is, I didn't contradict myself. You fail.
Interesting. I would have actually came up with a better response for this, if it had any merrit behind it.
You fail.
Originally posted by Praetoriani
You didn't state a fact. Unless, of course, you went through the trouble of hiring someone with an MSc in psychology, and forced everybody who used the acronym 'lmao' in a sentence to an IQ test, to check and see if their IQ was sub-120. And you do realise that many psychologists feel that IQ tests are too unreliable to properly measure intelligence without any sort of cultural bias?
You know you are not helping the cause you fight for, dont you?
Also, for argue sake, once i played with a 11 years old, that had everything people with 14-20+ years dont have: was polite, friendly, was playing to have fun, knew most of the game, althought didnt had real capacity to perform really well (not that it matters). But, above all, that 11 years old knew, and said it several times, "those people are bad", when talking about the "bunch of teens" (my words) that kept going 'lmao, u got pwned nub' everytime they killed someone, and would go 'rofl, u noob sukxor' everytime they got killed.
Funny enough, i came to discover all those people from that group had around 18-22 years old.
And the "master" of the group had 24. Then he got banned for insults
Sorry, I don't feel MMOs are desroying the world's communication ability. Sure, typing is not as personal as talking over a mic, and talking over a mic isn't as personal as standing face to face.
What I find interesting is that we can even SAY that communication is being destroyed, and actually believe it. Communication cannot be "destroyed". It can only be added to. The fact is...if I say "LOL" out loud, every last one of us would know exactly what I meant and how it pertained to the conversation. That means that "LOL" was valid as a communication device.
In the end, as long as whatever is being used is both understood and effective....its a perfectly FINE communication device. To say otherwise is pure ignorance since the entire American English language is nothing more than a pure bastardization of the ACTUAL English language it was spawned from since inception.
A level of discourse *can* be lessened with profanity, slang, etc.. If I were communicating with a member of a board of directors, a C-level employee, or any prospective client, I would choose my language to be as clear and concise as possible - regardless of the form of communication (oral, e-mail, even via a blackberry). I certainly would not use leet-speak in such a conversation.
There are situations where words or slang can be understood and be counter-productive to one's goals because they are inappropriate given the social context. For example, there are profanities that are almost universally known that would add emphasis during a conversation but be wholly inappropriate to use given the social context.
I can't put stock into your argument that anything is a perfectly fine communication device as long as it is understood and effective.
One could understand the meaning of a completely novel word solely on the basis of the context of the sentence. Both syntax and semantics from other words in the sentence provide context for an unknown word. But there is context from a conversation *beyond* semantic and syntactical cues (e.g., pragmatics). As an example, what if you overheard one mechanic ask another "Does your car run well?" - and the second mechanic replied, "Well, the air conditioner runs fine!". There aren't any semantic or syntactic cues in the reply that would imply that the car does not run well.
All of these cues could allow one to insert a novel word into a sentence and have it be understood during a conversation. But to say that any time this is done and it is understood, that it is "perfectly fine" ignores other conventions of language. There are words (an grammatical structures) in the Japanese language that would be considered informal or impolite if used in an incorrect context. Regardless of cross-cultural and cross-linguistic differences, there is a common principle of politeness and social appropriateness of language in Japanese and English. The idea that any word is a perfectly fine communication device as long as it was understood would clearly defy this principle.
To go a bit deeper, sociolinguistics includes the study of styles and social registers in language. Within the same dialect, there can be multiple styles - and a single speaker may employ different styles depending on the situation. For example, I may use one style when talking to a close personal friend, a very different style when talking to a superordinate in business, and a third style when trying to convey a point on a internet forum. Some styles may include social registers - for example, the use of honorifics when speaking to a superordinate in business.
There are even style guides (like the widely known Elements of Style by Strunk) - and the point of these style guides is not to say what is "right or wrong" or whether something will or not be understood, but to inform one about the conventions that are appropriate and useful for having the desired effect given the audience (that's why there are different English style guides for different purposes / audiences).
But you don't need a style guide to know not to put LOL at the end of a job description on your resume, and you shouldn't need one to know that you shouldn't use ROFLCOPTER in a sentence when you go to your next job interview, even if you are certain the interviewer would know what you meant.
This is very true.
I do not know what company Brostyn works for, but I can tell you right now if I sent my boss a email on the blackberry with this "Meeting? LOL teh is teh sux noob, meh not going 2 a meeting i r way 2 1337 4 that!"
Interesting. I would have actually came up with a better response for this, if it had any merrit behind it. But all I'll say is, I didn't contradict myself. You fail.
Interesting. I would have actually came up with a better response for this, if it had any merrit behind it.
You fail.
Originally posted by Praetoriani
You didn't state a fact. Unless, of course, you went through the trouble of hiring someone with an MSc in psychology, and forced everybody who used the acronym 'lmao' in a sentence to an IQ test, to check and see if their IQ was sub-120. And you do realise that many psychologists feel that IQ tests are too unreliable to properly measure intelligence without any sort of cultural bias?
You know you are not helping the cause you fight for, dont you?
Also, for argue sake, once i played with a 11 years old, that had everything people with 14-20+ years dont have: was polite, friendly, was playing to have fun, knew most of the game, althought didnt had real capacity to perform really well (not that it matters). But, above all, that 11 years old knew, and said it several times, "those people are bad", when talking about the "bunch of teens" (my words) that kept going 'lmao, u got pwned nub' everytime they killed someone, and would go 'rofl, u noob sukxor' everytime they got killed.
Funny enough, i came to discover all those people from that group had around 18-22 years old.
And the "master" of the group had 24. Then he got banned for insults
I've never once said those things to anyone I've killed.(Not sure if you aimed that at me or w/e but -) (and I killed alot in Ryzom heh), I'd actually sit there and talk to the dead enemies about the battle, or just random stuff, untill they respawned... and then after the battles were over (in that game we faught over "outposts" which gave special mats and stuff like that)... I'd team up with a few people from both sides, and we'd go out and kill stuff.
As a matter of fact, I spent more time hunting/killing mobs with my 'enemies' then I did my allies half the time.
Now to finish this off I'll, I'll end this post with this -> I'm sorry for any insults I've said towards you over the last couple of days, The pointless arguments (pointless because we were both judging eachother - when in fact we've never even met) we've both posted, has done nothing but make us both look kinda immature.
As to the other part, from someone else you quoted - I've taken several different I.Q. Tests from different locations, from the Internet, to the U.S. Navy recruiters office (a total of 7 different ones I don't feel like listing where they all were) - And I've never scored lower then 135. I used the lowest score I ever got, when I made my original statement.
I learn very quickly - Example, I own a 1995 eclipse, I saw the transmission removed once, then I showed someone else how to do it 3 months later, Then changed it (to a different tranny) by myself in my back yard 4 months after that. So not only did I learn it just by watching, I remembered months later.
I apologize ahead of time if this sounds arrogant in any way - I'm simply trying to prove a point.
~Redslayer-Saga of Ryzom~ Active again! ~Kinch/Lotu-WoW~ Retired True RedSlayer - Eve ~ Current Primary game
Lol id have to agree that wow makes people stupid , but it also makes people have no life , i mean i know people who have played WoW for about.. a year and have like 4-6 lvl 70's on their account , but when i talked to them more about WHY they did this , its because they want to sell the account for money when a BETTER game comes out , ive seen accounts with 2 lvl 70's sell for well over 200$ , so im guessing that with 6 lvl 70's he could get $300+ , so it is actually smart to play wow for some reasons , but yes i used to play eq1 , and when it first came out the graphics then were like , revolutionary back then....
Originally posted by Turdinator: Wow. So many great points made in that post. You are a fine addition to the Athiest movement my good man. Keep up the good work and post as often as you like. It sounds like you have important/intelligent things to say.
Comments
Let me guess, you need me to point what is which, dont you...?
Interesting. I would have actually came up with a better response for this, if it had any merrit behind it. But all I'll say is, I didn't contradict myself.
You fail.
~Redslayer-Saga of Ryzom~ Active again!
~Kinch/Lotu-WoW~ Retired
True RedSlayer - Eve ~ Current Primary game
I actually enjoyed EQ much more then WOW. I think part of the reason was the younger crowd that Blizzard had to sacrafice for. They tailored the game to the 8-17 crowd more with the type of skills and thinking required to play the game. They basically noobified the MMO genre by giving every kid a reason to play, lets make a macro press one button and kill everyon yey.
I played the shit out of both games and they both made me smarter.... Everquest's base game may be a more thought provoking game and World of Warcraft may be a cartoony dumb game but people are what made me smart not reading quests and what not. Dealing with guilds members and leaders has made me a lot smarter in terms in working in groups and I only went endgame in World of Warcraft. I'm not a fanboy of either and I currently play no online games. But I think any game with online interaction will make people smarter generally. Sorry for the typos I wrote this in a hurry.
** warning, amusement detector broken, warning **
Right. Attacking me because I used "LMAO" was amusing. I'm sorry I missed that great joke.
I didnt attacked, i stated a fact. I guess you also missed that...You didn't state a fact. Unless, of course, you went through the trouble of hiring someone with an MSc in psychology, and forced everybody who used the acronym 'lmao' in a sentence to an IQ test, to check and see if their IQ was sub-120.
And you do realise that many psychologists feel that IQ tests are too unreliable to properly measure intelligence without any sort of cultural bias?
How in the world you got this idea in your head, I don't know, but lets put the two in perspective. EQ was a pain in the butt to play, while Wow is actually fun. What do you not understand about that? Nothing against EQ when it was released there was only UO out there and UO was a pvp maven while EQ was the pve king and pretty much established that pve was the more desired facet.
You would think with millions of subscribers the majority of people would try to act mature. But then again thats what I get for thinking.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
It's so ironic how psychologists make the IQ tests too: It's as if they have something to prove about themselves. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the subject of this thread could serve as a thesis...
In any case, most hardcore raiders in WoW are at least able to use excel spreadsheets to project DPS and there are some physicists/mathematicians that actually play WoW. Everybody on this website likes to ignore facts, however, by assuming that actually enjoying a mainstream product makes you stupid. It's really the same kind of elitism found in sub-genres of music.
Of course there's the website's bias as well, since the smaller companies invest more than Blizzard on this site for advertising, which is why we've never seen the moderators touch many of the WoW bashing posts.
WoW is a solid game that performs well on most machines, but has much larger proportion of kids, because of it's accessibility and popularity. I think that the moral of the story is that you should always take the ratings on this site with a grain of salt... and some lime.. and cilantro...
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I think there are both a lot funnier and "healthier" games.
Even more, my grammar skills as well. As I recall, we never had EQ-sp33k such as in WoW.
Unfortunately it didn't help your logic skills at all I see.
Interesting. I would have actually came up with a better response for this, if it had any merrit behind it.
You fail.
You know you are not helping the cause you fight for, dont you?
Also, for argue sake, once i played with a 11 years old, that had everything people with 14-20+ years dont have: was polite, friendly, was playing to have fun, knew most of the game, althought didnt had real capacity to perform really well (not that it matters). But, above all, that 11 years old knew, and said it several times, "those people are bad", when talking about the "bunch of teens" (my words) that kept going 'lmao, u got pwned nub' everytime they killed someone, and would go 'rofl, u noob sukxor' everytime they got killed.
Funny enough, i came to discover all those people from that group had around 18-22 years old.
And the "master" of the group had 24. Then he got banned for insults
_________________
Senhores da Guerra
What I find interesting is that we can even SAY that communication is being destroyed, and actually believe it. Communication cannot be "destroyed". It can only be added to. The fact is...if I say "LOL" out loud, every last one of us would know exactly what I meant and how it pertained to the conversation. That means that "LOL" was valid as a communication device.
In the end, as long as whatever is being used is both understood and effective....its a perfectly FINE communication device. To say otherwise is pure ignorance since the entire American English language is nothing more than a pure bastardization of the ACTUAL English language it was spawned from since inception.
A level of discourse *can* be lessened with profanity, slang, etc.. If I were communicating with a member of a board of directors, a C-level employee, or any prospective client, I would choose my language to be as clear and concise as possible - regardless of the form of communication (oral, e-mail, even via a blackberry). I certainly would not use leet-speak in such a conversation.
There are situations where words or slang can be understood and be counter-productive to one's goals because they are inappropriate given the social context. For example, there are profanities that are almost universally known that would add emphasis during a conversation but be wholly inappropriate to use given the social context.
I can't put stock into your argument that anything is a perfectly fine communication device as long as it is understood and effective.
One could understand the meaning of a completely novel word solely on the basis of the context of the sentence. Both syntax and semantics from other words in the sentence provide context for an unknown word. But there is context from a conversation *beyond* semantic and syntactical cues (e.g., pragmatics). As an example, what if you overheard one mechanic ask another "Does your car run well?" - and the second mechanic replied, "Well, the air conditioner runs fine!". There aren't any semantic or syntactic cues in the reply that would imply that the car does not run well.
All of these cues could allow one to insert a novel word into a sentence and have it be understood during a conversation. But to say that any time this is done and it is understood, that it is "perfectly fine" ignores other conventions of language. There are words (an grammatical structures) in the Japanese language that would be considered informal or impolite if used in an incorrect context. Regardless of cross-cultural and cross-linguistic differences, there is a common principle of politeness and social appropriateness of language in Japanese and English. The idea that any word is a perfectly fine communication device as long as it was understood would clearly defy this principle.
To go a bit deeper, sociolinguistics includes the study of styles and social registers in language. Within the same dialect, there can be multiple styles - and a single speaker may employ different styles depending on the situation. For example, I may use one style when talking to a close personal friend, a very different style when talking to a superordinate in business, and a third style when trying to convey a point on a internet forum. Some styles may include social registers - for example, the use of honorifics when speaking to a superordinate in business.
There are even style guides (like the widely known Elements of Style by Strunk) - and the point of these style guides is not to say what is "right or wrong" or whether something will or not be understood, but to inform one about the conventions that are appropriate and useful for having the desired effect given the audience (that's why there are different English style guides for different purposes / audiences).
But you don't need a style guide to know not to put LOL at the end of a job description on your resume, and you shouldn't need one to know that you shouldn't use ROFLCOPTER in a sentence when you go to your next job interview, even if you are certain the interviewer would know what you meant.
This is very true.
I do not know what company Brostyn works for, but I can tell you right now if I sent my boss a email on the blackberry with this "Meeting? LOL teh is teh sux noob, meh not going 2 a meeting i r way 2 1337 4 that!"
Guess what?
FIREDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!
So yeah, proper communication in a profession capacity is a MUST. I wouldn't even speak to the employees that are under me in such a manner.
Talking over the mic or typing an email.... matters not, it needs to be in a communication format - NOT - 13375P34K
Interesting. I would have actually came up with a better response for this, if it had any merrit behind it.
You fail.
You know you are not helping the cause you fight for, dont you?
Also, for argue sake, once i played with a 11 years old, that had everything people with 14-20+ years dont have: was polite, friendly, was playing to have fun, knew most of the game, althought didnt had real capacity to perform really well (not that it matters). But, above all, that 11 years old knew, and said it several times, "those people are bad", when talking about the "bunch of teens" (my words) that kept going 'lmao, u got pwned nub' everytime they killed someone, and would go 'rofl, u noob sukxor' everytime they got killed.
Funny enough, i came to discover all those people from that group had around 18-22 years old.
And the "master" of the group had 24. Then he got banned for insults
I've never once said those things to anyone I've killed.(Not sure if you aimed that at me or w/e but -) (and I killed alot in Ryzom heh), I'd actually sit there and talk to the dead enemies about the battle, or just random stuff, untill they respawned... and then after the battles were over (in that game we faught over "outposts" which gave special mats and stuff like that)... I'd team up with a few people from both sides, and we'd go out and kill stuff.
As a matter of fact, I spent more time hunting/killing mobs with my 'enemies' then I did my allies half the time.
Now to finish this off I'll, I'll end this post with this -> I'm sorry for any insults I've said towards you over the last couple of days, The pointless arguments (pointless because we were both judging eachother - when in fact we've never even met) we've both posted, has done nothing but make us both look kinda immature.
As to the other part, from someone else you quoted - I've taken several different I.Q. Tests from different locations, from the Internet, to the U.S. Navy recruiters office (a total of 7 different ones I don't feel like listing where they all were) - And I've never scored lower then 135. I used the lowest score I ever got, when I made my original statement.
I learn very quickly - Example, I own a 1995 eclipse, I saw the transmission removed once, then I showed someone else how to do it 3 months later, Then changed it (to a different tranny) by myself in my back yard 4 months after that. So not only did I learn it just by watching, I remembered months later.
I apologize ahead of time if this sounds arrogant in any way - I'm simply trying to prove a point.
~Redslayer-Saga of Ryzom~ Active again!
~Kinch/Lotu-WoW~ Retired
True RedSlayer - Eve ~ Current Primary game
Lol id have to agree that wow makes people stupid , but it also makes people have no life , i mean i know people who have played WoW for about.. a year and have like 4-6 lvl 70's on their account , but when i talked to them more about WHY they did this , its because they want to sell the account for money when a BETTER game comes out , ive seen accounts with 2 lvl 70's sell for well over 200$ , so im guessing that with 6 lvl 70's he could get $300+ , so it is actually smart to play wow for some reasons , but yes i used to play eq1 , and when it first came out the graphics then were like , revolutionary back then....