Why Preach?

Ricky, first, let me thank you for the warm compliment.  It's nice to receive one once in a while.

Second, you make the claim that "no-one considers preaching to be a useful endeavor" I will take as a generalization rather than an absolute measurement as I, for one, find preaching useful.  So assuming that you are simply making a generalization and that what you mean is something like "most or nearly all" rather than "no-one," what evidence do you bring to support that claim?  You may not have encountered many who find preaching useful, but even your personal experience would probably be quite limited and unless you have taken a scientific survey or know of one such a statement would be, I think, difficult to even support, let alone to prove.  But do try as it's an important question.

Third, you imply that being useful is the measure of if one should do something or not.  Please elaborate as I can think of several other possible reasons for doing something.  Still, I do appreciate the civil tone of what you said.  Thanks

Adrian

The problem with you asking me to "stop being a jerk and come off your tower ok? its not funny anymore nor was it ever funny and you....just stop it " is that if I agree to do as you ask I must first agree that I've been a jerk and am on a tower of some sort.  It's like asking you when you quit beating up children.  See what I mean?

Of course the term "jerk" means "contemptibly obnoxious behavior.  And "contempt" means "deserving of contempt, despicable," and thus, we can say a jerk is one who engages in behaviours deserving of contempt."  The moral or social standard which measures behaviours which are "deserving of contempt" vary from culture to culture and even from sub-culture to sub-culture.  My own standards suggest that calling a person a name or assuming that they are a "jerk" when in a debate, could be deserving of contempt, but usually when I come upon such a thing I ignore it as it's probably just somebody expressing their feelings rather than a well thought out and measurable thing.  As for the modifier "obnoxious," yes, sometimes I am.  I will try to do better, but, of course, what is obnoxious to one may not be to another.

All of which points out how difficult it is to call somebody a name and actually prove the name to be applicable.

And finally, don't you think it would be better, in  thread about preaching, that we really attempted to address the subject instead of jumping on the "I don't like AJ" bandwagon?  I might suggest that I am fully aware of some peoples distaste of my style of preaching, but is it really helpful to spend so much time telling me you are upset? 

Gragnog, sorry to hear that you have accepted such a low opinion of yourself as I don't think I've ever mentioned you by name.  But if you think something I said applies to yourself, well who am I to argue? (Though I do have some doubt that you are actually so bad as all that).  As for your planned excursions, you may have to act fast as you are not the first in line.  Sadly, all the "aggressive game play" only adds evidence to my continuing arguments and pretty much shows what I've been saying all along. 

So, in summary, I understand some of you don't like my style but let's try to stick to the subject at hand.  You do realize that every time you stray from the subject at hand and I feel it necessary to say things like this, I am forced to sound like your school teacher, right?  Sigh.  So if you stay on the subject at least I'll sound like your school teacher less often?  A little improvement is still improvement.

AJ

Shul-Nak authored an excellent rebuttal of ajqtrz's assertions that in-game attacks in response to his forum posts indeed constitute some form of cyber-bullying. The audience will note that Ajqtrz took the time to address the posts by Ricky, Adrian, and Gragnog in considerable detail. Their arguments were weaker and much easier to attack. Shul-Nak's post was carefully avoided precisely because of its articulate delivery of a valid point. The conclusion is obvious--that although Ajqtrz constantly professes a desire to engage in thoughtful discussion, when he is confronted by an excellent argument, his only response is silence.

The very use of the word "preaching" suggests a one-way street of ideas being blasted from a pulpit. It also implies a moral and intellectual superiority that is wholly missing from Ajqtrz's assertions. If one cloaks an intention to blare words at people under a charade of seeking intellectual engagement, that is ultimately little more than trolling. Verbose trolling, perhaps, but trolling nonetheless, and quite deserving of the in-game consequences that have been heaped upon him.

Preaching is not about trying to win other person argument but just challenge its realness with different argument.

Shul-Nak's post was on topic. He questioned the validity of this game as a platform for your "preaching". You were the one who brought up armies being sent to your cities, perhaps somewhat in jest. It is therefore fully in context for him to comment on whether or not real world free speech protections truly apply to "preaching" in the context of a video game (and affiliated forum), and whether or not people frustrated by your approach to "preaching" can take retribution within the game itself and remain morally sound in the eyes of society.

Rill wrote: Speaking for myself, at least half the time, I couldn't care less about whatever aj is talking about.  But it doesn't bother me that he's talking about it.

Currently, that sums it up for me (though, I'd say most instead of half). Originally, I took him at face value and tried to engage him in debate, but all his tricks were tiresome and just flat out ignoring my points was that final straw.