|
WORDS:
deterrence : A negative motivational influence. A communication that makes you afraid to try something.
The act or process of discouraging actions or preventing occurrences by instilling fear or doubt or anxiety
atonement :
Good tidings to all. It's been a long time since I've written, and saying that, I don't know where to begin. My quest to ascend the ladder and stand amongst the heroic, those venerable ones who have endured the path of engagement, facing many a battle - my desire to reach a respectable rank in Starcraft II - has not yet been allayed.
I have very much been studying and considering the game, though my tone may seem like one, either over-articulating, over thinking and over analyzing.
Or conversely it may seem like the ramblings of one who will always be trapped within the realm of bronze, unable to escape because he is a fool, by design, by genetic heritage.
Whatever the case may be! That notion is immaterial, but what is yet more significant, is that I must admit my hope is found within THIS community, and whatever
words of coherent sense I can speak, I always wish to bestow it upon this group of people, those who play this game ( cybernetic sport ) and I hope that no negative feelings are evoked, concerning reaction
to my words.
To begin, I will draw forth a feeling and doubt I my self have been experiencing. It is the nature of most people, that they by design will strive to perfect everything
around them, and themselves.
This perfection is achieved in two ways. Either the internal process of conditional adaption, adjusting and configuring the mind, and training the body, the somatic
function to be suitable. A body ready and vigilant to engage with whatever scenario at hand.
And the other way of perfecting things, is defining and arranging the surrounding environment. I my self have a fan nearby that keeps the ambient atmosphere cool,
and purchase various gaming mice to optimize my performance.
Now, I always, and have many times before drawn forth these two words. Forgive me if they seem trite and dull as hell. But objective and subjective.
I will define them presently:
Subjective : Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.
(philosophy) of a mental act performed entirely within the mind
(grammar) pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects
subjectivity : Judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts.
=>
objective : [ The goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be attainable) ]
ADJECTIVE => objective : Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena
Emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation
Belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events.
**
That is done. And maybe when reading those formal defintion(s) the player or reader, will have a variety of thought and notion come to mind.
In the Starcraft II engagement, during battle, whatever the case may be there, will always be the bridge to what is happening, and what is happening within
the peripheral AND immediate mind of the player. There is this idea I have heard people throw around, and
many are too quick to declare this notion as a deterrence. This is the feeling or idea of emotion being a hinderance.
The ideal that most imagine, is the painted picture of a cruel and cold player whom has by logical deduction removed emotion from his mechanism of function,
and operates within a realm of logical deduction. But how can you repress something that is involuntarily brought about?
This error and assumption has been fatal for us to operate upon, as I will explain presently.
I hear, that before was is enrolled in the French Foreign Legion, one of the questions they ask you is, if you cry.
If you say no, you are refused entry, for the very reason that your decision(s) will not be based upon, acceptable, rational, instinctual reaction.
As I write this article, I am imagining it to go on, and indulge my self in speaking, all too much. But I will reach a very quick conclusion, and end it.
Cos I'm secretly, if you must know, passing time waiting for the most subsequent Starcraft II patch to download.
The conclusion : You must not suppress emotion, anxiety, fear, concern, anger.
AND the worst emotion that you must - by design - strive against is this one. Disenchantment. Demoralization.
Remember the cunning and devious player will demoralize you, by disarming & disabling your economical flow. Paralysis. The key word.
Do not let disenchantment allay your strength in the game.
Fight, and endure, and instead of ignoring the emotion(s) invoked on the battlefield, rather channel them into a coherent reaction to the scenario at hand.
Anyway.. go forth, and kick &$$ soldiers!!
 
|
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude.
|
was it hell to read? (edit) like, boring or frustrating? I must know these things so I can correct them
|
On January 22 2014 15:54 jameswatts wrote:
was it hell to read? (edit) like, boring or frustrating? I must know these things so I can correct them
Yeah. You have a ton of unnecessarily pompous vocabulary in there for a blog in which you basically state some definitions and then say that you want to try hard at SC2 and also be emotional. It sounds incredibly pseudo-intellectual and it has no real point.
edit: also the formatting makes it even more impossible to read. I don't know if you're just inserting new lines at random or copy pasting from a pdf or what, but it looks awful.
|
On January 22 2014 16:12 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 15:54 jameswatts wrote:
was it hell to read? (edit) like, boring or frustrating? I must know these things so I can correct them Yeah. You have a ton of unnecessarily pompous vocabulary in there for a blog in which you basically state some definitions and then say that you want to try hard at SC2 and also be emotional. It sounds incredibly pseudo-intellectual and it has no real point.
A prodigious lexicon embellishes. An artifically vitiated one stymies semantic precision through eschewing the mots justes for vernacular.
If one encounters an unknown word, look it up and thank the provenance for one's newfound perspicacity! Surely one would not be complacent with a meager vocabulary coupled with a lack of proclivity for learning?
|
@packrat
OK I will try and conclude the point, with sensible vernacular.
Ok the subjective area of thought. A person gets angry in a game. Then will turn to a cigarette, which will deter his will.
Maybe he should pace around, then make another cup of filter or instant coffee and like, watch a replay or think.
Then the objective environment, like people always wanna optimize their environment.
WCS 2013 I was like thinking, 'what the hell, those keyboards and mouse(s) are not what the player plays
with everyday, what is Stefano was used to like, an acer laptop keyboard, and a CM Storm Spawn (?).'
I don't WANT to get emotional but I have had this tendency to always force this notion to be a good sportsman.
I just sometimes think, the impression upon this ice cold Korean players are they're devoid of emotion.
But the point, was to kind of say in one sentence..
don't let a cunning enemy demoralize you, where within they do something, which causes your rate of
performance to decrease AT THAT POINT OF TIME, it happens. yoo know
|
On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude.
Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read.
|
On January 22 2014 20:28 Usus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude. Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read.
Not that I disagree with you, but an aspect of great writing is to keep it as concise as possible. A lot of words are redundant (ambient atmosphere is unnecessarily repetitive) and it's best to try and explain your thoughts in as clear of a manner as possible. You don't have to do a Steinbeck impression to have great imagery in your writing 
|
On January 22 2014 20:28 Usus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude. Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read.
He uses too many of them. Good writing should be effortless to understand. The words should just "flow" straight into your head. Some of the greatest authors are so good with their medium that they almost make you forget that there's a medium at all.
As it is, I got irritated at the unnecessary verbosity and bizarre formatting and gave up after a few lines.
|
Enjoyed this, friend. I know disenchantment all too well.
On January 23 2014 00:10 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 20:28 Usus wrote:On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude. Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read. He uses too many of them. Good writing should be effortless to understand. The words should just "flow" straight into your head. Some of the greatest authors are so good with their medium that they almost make you forget that there's a medium at all. As it is, I got irritated at the unnecessary verbosity and bizarre formatting and gave up after a few lines.
Why "should" he use less? Why is his purported verbosity and bizarre formatting "unnecessary"? You see, you are projecting purpose and intention onto the author. You might exclaim that a painting is 'too red' and "should" use more green, but perhaps the artist really likes red and that's that. Hobson's choice. Take it or leave it.
Additionally, if something is "effortless to understand" then it merely reinforces what you already think you know, a fortification of your reality tunnel. Thinking and learning, challenging one's beliefs in life, all necessarily require effort.
|
This is a pretty shitty analogy. Half of his sentences aren't even valid sentences. Hard to have my beliefs challenged when essentially no statement is being made.
|
On January 23 2014 01:36 Mstring wrote:Enjoyed this, friend. I know disenchantment all too well. Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 00:10 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 20:28 Usus wrote:On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude. Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read. He uses too many of them. Good writing should be effortless to understand. The words should just "flow" straight into your head. Some of the greatest authors are so good with their medium that they almost make you forget that there's a medium at all. As it is, I got irritated at the unnecessary verbosity and bizarre formatting and gave up after a few lines. Why "should" he use less? Why is his purported verbosity and bizarre formatting "unnecessary"? You see, you are projecting purpose and intention onto the author. You might exclaim that a painting is 'too red' and "should" use more green, but perhaps the artist really likes red and that's that. Hobson's choice. Take it or leave it. Additionally, if something is "effortless to understand" then it merely reinforces what you already think you know, a fortification of your reality tunnel. Thinking and learning, challenging one's beliefs in life, all necessarily require effort.
Perhaps I should state my caveats and rationales more often.
Usually, one writes to communicate. The assumption here is that he is trying to communicate something. Thus, writing in this case is utilized as a medium to communicate thoughts and ideas, whether those thoughts and ideas be characters and landscapes in a fantasy world or a philosophical concept. Note that this is in contrast to writing that seeks to make the words themselves artful, such as poetry.
I did not mean "effortless to understand" as in, "does not communicate any intellectually deep ideas." I meant "effortless to understand" as in, "communicates the intended thoughts and ideas well."
If this was intended to be artful usage of words, then he did a poor job. His writing style was too eclectic and unfocused and he did not demonstrate any real "skill" or "talent" with all those over-sized words he used. I could write something with this many big words when I was 13; they only really served to obfuscate the point he was trying to make. Also he makes some fairly egregious grammatical mistakes and uses some words improperly.
And no, writing is not a perfectly subjective medium like music.
|
On January 23 2014 01:56 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 01:36 Mstring wrote:Enjoyed this, friend. I know disenchantment all too well. On January 23 2014 00:10 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 20:28 Usus wrote:On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude. Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read. He uses too many of them. Good writing should be effortless to understand. The words should just "flow" straight into your head. Some of the greatest authors are so good with their medium that they almost make you forget that there's a medium at all. As it is, I got irritated at the unnecessary verbosity and bizarre formatting and gave up after a few lines. Why "should" he use less? Why is his purported verbosity and bizarre formatting "unnecessary"? You see, you are projecting purpose and intention onto the author. You might exclaim that a painting is 'too red' and "should" use more green, but perhaps the artist really likes red and that's that. Hobson's choice. Take it or leave it. Additionally, if something is "effortless to understand" then it merely reinforces what you already think you know, a fortification of your reality tunnel. Thinking and learning, challenging one's beliefs in life, all necessarily require effort. Perhaps I should state my caveats and rationales more often. Usually, one writes to communicate. The assumption here is that he is trying to communicate something. Thus, writing in this case is utilized as a medium to communicate thoughts and ideas, whether those thoughts and ideas be characters and landscapes in a fantasy world or a philosophical concept. Note that this is in contrast to writing that seeks to make the words themselves artful, such as poetry. I did not mean "effortless to understand" as in, "does not communicate any intellectually deep ideas." I meant "effortless to understand" as in, "communicates the intended thoughts and ideas well." If this was intended to be artful usage of words, then he did a poor job. His writing style was too eclectic and unfocused and he did not demonstrate any real "skill" or "talent" with all those over-sized words he used. I could write something with this many big words when I was 13; they only really served to obfuscate the point he was trying to make. Also he makes some fairly egregious grammatical mistakes and uses some words improperly. And no, writing is not a perfectly subjective medium like music.
Where you assume, I do not. You see what you think "should" be, I see what is.
Maybe you would like to be nitpicked on grammar before someone gets past a few lines, but some would not. Consider that the author did not request a literary criticism.
On January 23 2014 01:39 packrat386 wrote:
This is a pretty shitty analogy. Half of his sentences aren't even valid sentences. Hard to have my beliefs challenged when essentially no statement is being made.
One can't walk through a closed door.
|
On January 23 2014 02:35 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 01:56 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 23 2014 01:36 Mstring wrote:Enjoyed this, friend. I know disenchantment all too well. On January 23 2014 00:10 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 20:28 Usus wrote:On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude. Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read. He uses too many of them. Good writing should be effortless to understand. The words should just "flow" straight into your head. Some of the greatest authors are so good with their medium that they almost make you forget that there's a medium at all. As it is, I got irritated at the unnecessary verbosity and bizarre formatting and gave up after a few lines. Why "should" he use less? Why is his purported verbosity and bizarre formatting "unnecessary"? You see, you are projecting purpose and intention onto the author. You might exclaim that a painting is 'too red' and "should" use more green, but perhaps the artist really likes red and that's that. Hobson's choice. Take it or leave it. Additionally, if something is "effortless to understand" then it merely reinforces what you already think you know, a fortification of your reality tunnel. Thinking and learning, challenging one's beliefs in life, all necessarily require effort. Perhaps I should state my caveats and rationales more often. Usually, one writes to communicate. The assumption here is that he is trying to communicate something. Thus, writing in this case is utilized as a medium to communicate thoughts and ideas, whether those thoughts and ideas be characters and landscapes in a fantasy world or a philosophical concept. Note that this is in contrast to writing that seeks to make the words themselves artful, such as poetry. I did not mean "effortless to understand" as in, "does not communicate any intellectually deep ideas." I meant "effortless to understand" as in, "communicates the intended thoughts and ideas well." If this was intended to be artful usage of words, then he did a poor job. His writing style was too eclectic and unfocused and he did not demonstrate any real "skill" or "talent" with all those over-sized words he used. I could write something with this many big words when I was 13; they only really served to obfuscate the point he was trying to make. Also he makes some fairly egregious grammatical mistakes and uses some words improperly. And no, writing is not a perfectly subjective medium like music. 1. Where you assume, I do not. You see what you think "should" be, I see what is.
2. Maybe you would like to be nitpicked on grammar before someone gets past a few lines, but some would not. Consider that the author did not request a literary criticism.Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 01:39 packrat386 wrote:
This is a pretty shitty analogy. Half of his sentences aren't even valid sentences. Hard to have my beliefs challenged when essentially no statement is being made. 3. One can't walk through a closed door.
1. You do realize that you're assuming that you're right, just as I am assuming that I am right, correct? What makes YOUR assumptions inherently more valid than mine?
2. On January 22 2014 15:54 jameswatts wrote:
was it hell to read? (edit) like, boring or frustrating? I must know these things so I can correct them
Also I read the OP and the OP's posts in this thread before making the grammar criticism.
3. That can mean two things. One: you're acknowledging his point, which is that jameswatts didn't communicate very well. Two: you're saying that he is closed-minded. If your point is the latter, stop being so pretentious and get off your high-horse. He didn't say anything revolutionary or special. He had stupid, pointless line breaks everywhere, he had tedious and completely unnecessary explanations only a retard would need, he talked like Jonathan Swift one second and R. Lee Ermy the next. He used needlessly large words purely for their syllable count and sometimes made horrendous grammatical mistakes.
There is nothing arcane here, nothing special, nothing sublime, just overly pretentious writing that literally anyone could do.
|
On January 23 2014 03:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 02:35 Mstring wrote:On January 23 2014 01:56 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 23 2014 01:36 Mstring wrote:Enjoyed this, friend. I know disenchantment all too well. On January 23 2014 00:10 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 20:28 Usus wrote:On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude. Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read. He uses too many of them. Good writing should be effortless to understand. The words should just "flow" straight into your head. Some of the greatest authors are so good with their medium that they almost make you forget that there's a medium at all. As it is, I got irritated at the unnecessary verbosity and bizarre formatting and gave up after a few lines. Why "should" he use less? Why is his purported verbosity and bizarre formatting "unnecessary"? You see, you are projecting purpose and intention onto the author. You might exclaim that a painting is 'too red' and "should" use more green, but perhaps the artist really likes red and that's that. Hobson's choice. Take it or leave it. Additionally, if something is "effortless to understand" then it merely reinforces what you already think you know, a fortification of your reality tunnel. Thinking and learning, challenging one's beliefs in life, all necessarily require effort. Perhaps I should state my caveats and rationales more often. Usually, one writes to communicate. The assumption here is that he is trying to communicate something. Thus, writing in this case is utilized as a medium to communicate thoughts and ideas, whether those thoughts and ideas be characters and landscapes in a fantasy world or a philosophical concept. Note that this is in contrast to writing that seeks to make the words themselves artful, such as poetry. I did not mean "effortless to understand" as in, "does not communicate any intellectually deep ideas." I meant "effortless to understand" as in, "communicates the intended thoughts and ideas well." If this was intended to be artful usage of words, then he did a poor job. His writing style was too eclectic and unfocused and he did not demonstrate any real "skill" or "talent" with all those over-sized words he used. I could write something with this many big words when I was 13; they only really served to obfuscate the point he was trying to make. Also he makes some fairly egregious grammatical mistakes and uses some words improperly. And no, writing is not a perfectly subjective medium like music. 1. Where you assume, I do not. You see what you think "should" be, I see what is.
2. Maybe you would like to be nitpicked on grammar before someone gets past a few lines, but some would not. Consider that the author did not request a literary criticism.On January 23 2014 01:39 packrat386 wrote:
This is a pretty shitty analogy. Half of his sentences aren't even valid sentences. Hard to have my beliefs challenged when essentially no statement is being made. 3. One can't walk through a closed door. 1. You do realize that you're assuming that you're right, just as I am assuming that I am right, correct? What makes YOUR assumptions inherently more valid than mine?
What are my assumptions?
|
On January 23 2014 03:52 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 03:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 23 2014 02:35 Mstring wrote:On January 23 2014 01:56 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 23 2014 01:36 Mstring wrote:Enjoyed this, friend. I know disenchantment all too well. On January 23 2014 00:10 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 20:28 Usus wrote:On January 22 2014 15:11 packrat386 wrote:
You get one star. Lay off the thesaurus dude. Although I find his blog contrived, the words included should be in most peoples vocabulary and therefore easy enough to read. He uses too many of them. Good writing should be effortless to understand. The words should just "flow" straight into your head. Some of the greatest authors are so good with their medium that they almost make you forget that there's a medium at all. As it is, I got irritated at the unnecessary verbosity and bizarre formatting and gave up after a few lines. Why "should" he use less? Why is his purported verbosity and bizarre formatting "unnecessary"? You see, you are projecting purpose and intention onto the author. You might exclaim that a painting is 'too red' and "should" use more green, but perhaps the artist really likes red and that's that. Hobson's choice. Take it or leave it. Additionally, if something is "effortless to understand" then it merely reinforces what you already think you know, a fortification of your reality tunnel. Thinking and learning, challenging one's beliefs in life, all necessarily require effort. Perhaps I should state my caveats and rationales more often. Usually, one writes to communicate. The assumption here is that he is trying to communicate something. Thus, writing in this case is utilized as a medium to communicate thoughts and ideas, whether those thoughts and ideas be characters and landscapes in a fantasy world or a philosophical concept. Note that this is in contrast to writing that seeks to make the words themselves artful, such as poetry. I did not mean "effortless to understand" as in, "does not communicate any intellectually deep ideas." I meant "effortless to understand" as in, "communicates the intended thoughts and ideas well." If this was intended to be artful usage of words, then he did a poor job. His writing style was too eclectic and unfocused and he did not demonstrate any real "skill" or "talent" with all those over-sized words he used. I could write something with this many big words when I was 13; they only really served to obfuscate the point he was trying to make. Also he makes some fairly egregious grammatical mistakes and uses some words improperly. And no, writing is not a perfectly subjective medium like music. 1. Where you assume, I do not. You see what you think "should" be, I see what is.
2. Maybe you would like to be nitpicked on grammar before someone gets past a few lines, but some would not. Consider that the author did not request a literary criticism.On January 23 2014 01:39 packrat386 wrote:
This is a pretty shitty analogy. Half of his sentences aren't even valid sentences. Hard to have my beliefs challenged when essentially no statement is being made. 3. One can't walk through a closed door. 1. You do realize that you're assuming that you're right, just as I am assuming that I am right, correct? What makes YOUR assumptions inherently more valid than mine? What are my assumptions?
Well go on, what do you think this is, then?
Actually, let's take this to PMs.
|
|
|
On January 22 2014 17:34 jameswatts wrote:
@packrat
OK I will try and conclude the point, unnecessary comma with sensible vernacular.
Ok the subjective area of thought This is not a sentence, no verb. A person gets angry in a game. Then will turn to a cigarette, which will deter his will. "will" doesn't really make any sense here, since in its usual meaning it isn't something that can be deterred. WC
Maybe he should pace around, unnecessary comma then make another cup of filter or instant coffee and like, watch a replay or think.
Then the objective environment What does this have to do with the independent clause that follows?, like people always wanna optimize their environment.
WCS 2013 I was like thinking, 'what the hell, those keyboards and mouse(s) are not what the player plays
with everyday, what is Stefano was used to like, an acer laptop keyboard, and a CM Storm Spawn (?).' Holy run-on sentence batman
I don't WANT to get emotional but I have had this tendency to always force this notion to be a good sportsman. So do both? Why are these mutually exclusive. Elaborate
I just sometimes think, unneeded comma the impression upon WC this ice cold Korean players are they're devoid of emotion. You need to resolve subject object errors in this sentence
But the point, was to kind of say in one sentence.. This isn't a sentence, why does it have a period
don't let a cunning enemy demoralize you, where within they do something, which causes your rate of
performance to decrease AT THAT POINT OF TIME,Period goes here it happens. yoo wat know
This sentence makes no sense, reword and rework
D+ , See me after class
[/red][/red]
Wanna sound like Immanuel Kant? Use gud inglish
|
I wrote.. this while waiting for the patch to download ( edit => this forgive me if I didn't have a point to begin with ), and the formatting is bad cos I write it in Notepad II, which is formatted to with a custom StarCraft II font. I didn't write it within the direct interface of the program. Next time, I will format it better and also, thank you everyone for the input, I will try, and make my next article(s) a bit more seamless.
(Additional edit)
And a blog will always be a blog, falling under no criteria, although I did make a point that the topic I speak of, will probably always be StarCraft II
|
On January 24 2014 12:46 jameswatts wrote:
I wrote.. this while waiting for the patch to download ( edit => this forgive me if I didn't have a point to begin with ), and the formatting is bad cos I write it in Notepad II, which is formatted to with a custom StarCraft II font. I didn't write it within the direct interface of the program. Next time, I will format it better and also, thank you everyone for the input, I will try, and make my next article(s) a bit more seamless.
(Additional edit)
And a blog will always be a blog, falling under no criteria, although I did make a point that the topic I speak of, will probably always be StarCraft II
Please look up the proper use of commas and STOP USING THEM UNNECESSARILY. Your general sentence structure is beyond atrocious. The first step to writing ANYTHING meaningful is to learn the formalities of your language's grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
