Only with things supported by GS1. I still haven't taken the time to learn some of the newer, more advanced GS2 commands (though i suppose that's my fault), but the point is great with GS1 is mediocre with GS2.

Falco, programming isn't about learning commands. It's a way of thinking.

You still need to learn commands, you can't program by just having a mindset that is good for programming.

Yes, which is why I said: "It just takes a little while to adjust".

If someone suddenly becomes medeocre when switching to GS2, I doubt they were originally great. I would go as far to say that the actual scripting process when dealing with GS2 is not greatly different at all to scripting in GS1.

To respond to both of you, my main point is basically just saying that even after adjusting for the different commands, well, 5/10 is less than 5/6.

Congratulations. Do you have anything meaningful to say?

in GS2, the commands aren't so much different.
Basically it's the same thing only everything is in function format(which is good because that will make scripts run smoother and faster). For example:
hide;
is now
hide();

something like:
tokenize #c;
is now
tokenize(#c);

there are differences with setplayer prop and setcharprop though:
setplayerprop #c,bla;
would now be
player.chat=bla;
or
player.#c=bla; (if I'm not mistaken)

How is that change likely to make scripts run smoother and faster?

Yes, I agree. How would turning all the GS1 commands into functions have an effect on the speed and quality?

I'm sorry that you were unable to make the connection. The 5/6 represents someone who knows how to do about 5 sixths of the possible things for gs1. When converting to gs2, even if they learn all the new version of the commands right away, since there is much more that you can do, the five tenths is represented, the ten being there instead of a six, showing that gs2 has much more that you can do. Never call me a *****/fool/someone with low intelligience again if you cannot make such a simple connection.

I'm sorry that you haven't yet shaken your arrogance. You assume that I dismissed your little number comparison because I didn't understand it, when in reality it was because it had no value. We are talking about skill, not knowledge. And there is nothing in GS2 that would take a skilled scripter more than a few hours to pick up.

First, my looking down upon you is just that, looking down on you. I was in no way being arrogant.

Second, considering the lack of explanation in the documents, it would so take a while to learn some of the new things, like gui scripts and such (took me a couple hours and MANY examples to make most of the connections necessary, and i usually learn commands quickly, though this may have been due to lack of documentation), and I'm sure there are many more. Thusly, my comparison did so have value.

You had made assumptions about my perceptions, apparently convincing yourself that your expression was more clever than it was. You did this all in the interests of putting yourself above me, like the buffoon that you continue to be.

I said a skilled scripter.

Proportions aside, it had already been stated that a period of adjustment would be necessary. You did not add anything to the discussion.

No, I said it in a way that was meant to say "Hypocrite", not "I r better than u!".

And I'm arrogant?

It's called a metaphor, it isn't meant to add, it's meant to explain.

"Never call me a *****/fool/someone with low intelligience again"

How does that make me look like a hypocrite?

Yes. Very much so. You even admitted it over AIM.

I didn't even say anything about my own abilities in the text that you quoted.

You're saying that metaphors are not "meant to add" anything to discussions?

Your post was phrased as a disagreement (or at least a continuation thereof). Why would you disagree if you had nothing to add?

Basically means "Why do you call me a fool when you do something deemable as equally stupid as anything I've done."


Neither did I in the text you did. Can't use two opposite arguments you know...

No, they aren't. I can disagree without adding anything. i don't see why you would think this is not feasable. Besides it was more of an explanation (in metaphor) of what I had said before that.

That's what it's supposed to mean, yeah. But the assumption that I did anything stupid is born from arrogance.

Not directly, maybe. You assumed that I had failed to understand because you put absolute, arrogant faith in the validity of what you had said. I, however, merely judge you as a weak scripter. There is no reference (direct or indirect) to anything I am, anything I've done, anything I said. How could it be arrogant?

Did you go back in time and ask the guy who invented them?

It's feasible, sure. But what would be the point?

No it's born from the fact that it looked like you made a stupid examination, your fault, not that of my arrogance you speak so much of while ignoring your own. In fact, it's your own that causes these types of arguments.

No, I looked at your comment, interpreted as a normal person would, and it seemed as though you misunderstood. Your bias towards my arrogance is blaringly obvious here.





Yes :rolleyes:

To explain one's view in a form more understandable to that person? I used math, knowing you were a math person. I thought putting it in the form of fractions would show what I meant to you. I was wrong, but of course I can't read your mind so i had no way of knowing.

It didn't look much like that to me. You interpreted it how you chose to interpret it: In a way that would let you deem yourself superior.

Wha?

You'd already given your point of view in plain English, and it had already been addressed.

Of course you wouldn't label yourself as someone who would make a stupid comemnt, you're arrogant. I chose to interpret it as how it looks; Like you didn't understand what I meant.

*sigh* Your previous negative feelings, that is, thinking (and I admit sometimes I am) an arrogant person. Because of this, you of course assume that what I am saying is arrogant. Thus a bias towards my arrogance.

I thought that maybe using a metaphor would help you understand my point of view. THAT was the point, even if it didn't work. Sheesh.

Yeah, this is just turning into a my opinion/your opinion thing. We're just gonna have to let the readers make their own interpretations.

Okay. Next time it would be nice if you could make sense on the first try.

What made you think that I didn't already? Perhaps an arrogant assumption that the only reason somebody could think you were wrong is if they didn't understand?

FIne

Made sense to me. Saying you have a bias towards something means that you are biased concerning that. Basically, I had said "The fact that you are biased concerning my arrogance is blaringly obvious"



And at this point, i do not think we can get much more out of this argument, would you not agree?

No I don't agree. Where do you get off.. *starts off the next argument*

No it doesn't. To be biased towards X is to grant X favorable consideration or treatment for personal, subjective reasons.

No, it means to treat x in any way that is different than if there was no bias towards x.

Look, kid, you can keep whatever delusions you want. But to assume that you're right and I'm wrong is a pretty damn good example of your aforementioned arrogance. Do you think you know more about the language than me? Would you like me to point out all the errors you've made in this thread?

Everyone naturally assumes they are the right one until shown they are wrong. Quite frankly, you haven't done anything to show otherwise.

No, just this particular situation.

Fine, do it, and I will point out any like errors you've made.

Hardly. Would you argue physics with a physicist? Most people tend to defer to those who are more knowledgeable than them, for fear of looking like fools.

Aside from anything else, your definition of directed bias was recursive! How could it possibly be meaningful?

Man, I was bluffing. I'm far too lazy. I'll just take some from your more recent posts, okay?

"No, it means to treat x in any way that is different than if there was no bias towards x"
Were.
"Your previous negative feelings, that is, thinking (and I admit sometimes I am) an arrogant person"
'thinking an arrogant person'? Nonsensical.
"your fault, not that of my arrogance"
Arrogance is a fault. It doesn't have faults.

No, you'd state what you think and they'd correct you. Then you come away knowing something.
It was meant for those who know what bias is.


Heh.
I thought you mean argumentive flaws, not grammar errors....
but to counter: "Do you think you know more about the language than me?" Do you think that you...
forgot the I am, whoops....
Most people will know what i mean, and such a fault is made by everyone constantly:
"But the assumption that I did anything stupid is born from arrogance."

This can have the same type of "misunderstanding" as the example you gave (if arrogance doesn't have faults, it doesn't give birth either)

So why haven't you done this?

Do you know what 'recursive' means? Do you not understand that a recursive definition of the type you gave is as useless as it is tautological? Would you consider the sentence "an apple is an apple" particularly helpful?

Well, that is a strange perception. We were talking about use of English at the time, after all.

Not an error at all. The 'that' is optional. Apparently you agree:
"Saying ___ you have a bias towards something"
"I will point out any like errors ___ you've made"
"i do not think ___ we can get much more out of this argument"

Huh? How is that the same? You referred to faults possessed by arrogance, while I merely referred to the fault that is arrogance.

But that's an inaccurate (and overly literal) interpretation. To be born from X is simply to occur as a result of X. It doesn't say anything about the actual act of childbirth.

Because one would trust a physicist's words, knowing that they have no real knowledge that could surpass the physicist's, since a physicist will have evidence of their superior knowledge on that subject. You however have not shown any evidence that your interpretation is founded by an expertry in langauge.


Alright, then i will redefine myself as saying Being biased towards x is Treating x differently than someone with which no bias has been formed.

Maybe not even argumentive. But a grammarical flaw has nothing to do with definitions.


I am not exactly sure how it's categorized, but the mistake you showed is hardly considered one in common grammar.


[quote
Huh? How is that the same? You referred to faults possessed by arrogance, while I merely referred to the fault that is arrogance.[/quote] I wasn't saying arrogance would have faults, i was saying it would cause them (or rather that it didn't). My interpretation of yours is the same type of flaw in finding a mistake, and unimportant anyway.


See above.

Except that it's quite obvious that I'm more skilled with the "langauge" than you.

Little better. But still incorrect. Here's an idea: Google for the term "biased towards" and see how the majority of articles are using it.

No, it's more a matter of general linguistic ability. They tend to correlate pretty well, though.

None of the three examples I gave are of mistakes. That's my point. As I said, the 'that' is optional.

You referred to faults of arrogance, and the context (the fact that you were contrasting it with a claim regarding possession of a fault) implied ownership.

Not to the point that you are always right about it and i am always wrong.


So that's the common usage in some articles found by google. Whoop-dee-doo. And from some asking around I have found that it can mean either, and by default it IS yours, though mine is practical. So go ahead and gloat now.

Not always. I could care less about looking at 3 paragraphs and knowing if someone mispelled "the". I focus on math and science for a reason. I figure that if I speak at least more intelligiently than the majority of my peers, i'm fine.


My point was that changing was to were is also optional in that case.


Fault of something doesn't actually mean that they possess owenership of the fault, more that they are the cause of it.

Well, that would just be another example of the arrogance.

How is yours practical when it means something completely different to the normal interpretation?

What's the relevance? None of the errors I cited involved spelling.

Haha, that's going in the list.

No it's not. 'Was' is simply the wrong word to choose. Ask your teacher if you feel it necessary.

What about 'your'? Does that not imply ownership? As I said, the context is important.

Yes, yours.

It's a different definition of it, just like how cheesy can mean like cheese or low quality.


i am talking overall spelling/grammar knowledge.


Why?

It's fine for everyday use, which is what i meant by common grammar, though you'd probably lose points on an english paper.....

"Your Fault" Means "You caused it". Do not ask me why they made it like that, but that's what it means.

lol, you two went from debating scripting language to who is better at grammar
Anyway, moved to Graal main forum, apologies....

That's how our arguments almost always work.

Thats not quite correct, tokenize would be:
stringname.tokenize();
The delimiters (or whatever they're called) would be the function parameters.
For example:
player.chat.tokenize(",");

And for the other thing, it would be:
#c = "bla";

Anytime you're entering text directly into a script you need to use quotes :o or else it will identify what you type as the name of a var/string.

player.chat = "Blah"; would return: Blah
whereas:
player.chat = Blah; would return: 0

The new engine makes using addstring,removestring, and stuff like that useless, since you can just use, stringname.add(params), etc.

'Towards' can only be equivalent to 'regarding' if you stretch your definitions to breaking point. Needless to say, good communication does not revolve around this process.

Well, the two mispellings alone make it quite funny. But mostly because you would need to hang out with gophers in order to achieve that condition.

In that people will understand you, yeah. But it's still an example of a lack of knowledge.

Gah! Do you never listen? The word 'your' denotes ownership or possession of characteristics. True or false?