GS1 VS GS2 (Split from Domination thread)

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

No, you'd state what you think and they'd correct you. Then you come away knowing something

So why haven't you done this?

It was meant for those who know what bias is

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?

I thought you mean argumentive flaws, not grammar errors....

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

but to counter: "Do you think you know more about the language than me?" Do you think that you...

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"

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."

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

(if arrogance doesn't have faults, it doesn't give birth either)

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.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

So why haven't you done this?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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"

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.

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.

See above.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

You however have not shown any evidence that your interpretation is founded by an expertry in langauge

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

I wasn't saying arrogance would have faults

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.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

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

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

from some asking around I have found that it can mean either, and by default it IS yours, though mine is practical

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

Not always. I could care less about looking at 3 paragraphs and knowing if someone mispelled "the"

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

I figure that if I speak at least more intelligiently than the magority of my peers, i'm fine

Haha, that's going in the list.

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

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

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

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

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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

Yes, yours.

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

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

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

i am talking overall spelling/grammar knowledge.

Haha, that's going in the list.

Why?

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

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

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

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

[Darlene159]

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

[falco10291029]

That's how our arguments almost always work.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by coreys

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)

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.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

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

'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.

Why?

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.

It's fine for everyday use

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

"Your Fault" Means "You caused it"

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

[jake13jake]

What's all this fuss about?
Anyway, Maybe this will get the topic back on track?
I actually better understand gscript2 than I do gscript1. Concatenation definitely makes a lot more sense. Some things are still a little bit confusing, but it definitely makes things tons easier. I can't wait until it goes clientside.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

'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.

My point is that you can.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Dude, stop being such a damned hypocrite. You constantly say I am arrgoant, putitng myself above you, and you go and do the EXACt same thing. The fact that I am in PDM alone says I am not a complete ***** (PDM is a senior class, im a sophmore), I got a 29 on my ACT wothout having time to finish every problem (about five blank on each subject, I didn't keep time well enough). If needbe I can scan and show pictures to prove this. But I don;t want to. I am considered one of the smartest in my school by my peers (not in this forum). TO me, that is enough alone to prove myself. Of cours,e you can't come here and interview everyone i know, but if you did, well, let's just say you'd feel like a total ass.

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

I know what the correct use is, I choose not to use it, that shows nothing pertaining to lack of knowledge. For one needing proofs for eveything, you sure stretch wehat one is for yourself.

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

True.

True or false, the phrase beat it means leave, having nothing to do with the definition of the words used.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

My point is that you can

I can also reinterpret it to mean a dozen other things. But should I? If you do not speak in a manner that is compliant with standard English, you cannot expect others to know what you are saying.

Dude, stop being such a damned hypocrite. You constantly say I am arrgoant, putitng myself above you, and you go and do the EXACt same thing

It's only arrogance if it's not accurate. I am above you, in every way that's relevant.

The fact that I am in PDM alone says I am not a complete ***** (PDM is a senior class, im a sophmore), I got a 29 on my ACT wothout having time to finish every problem [etc]

Congratulations! But none of this means anything to me. I do not even know what an 'ACT' is. All I can use to judge you is the behaviour I witnessed.

I know what the correct use is, I choose not to use it

Why would you do that?

True

And when you use the word 'of' to contrast a previous use of the word 'your', you must be using it to describe the same kind of relationship. ie: Ownership, possession.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I can also reinterpret it to mean a dozen other things. But should I? If you do not speak in a manner that is compliant with standard English, you cannot expect others to know what you are saying.

Well i wasn't aware of the more common usage, I'll admit.

It's only arrogance if it's not accurate. I am above you, in every way that's relevant.

It's arrogance whether true or not.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

arrogance

n : overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

Let me see....hmm...nothing about whether true or not.......

Congratulations! But none of this means anything to me. I do not even know what an 'ACT' is. All I can use to judge you is the behaviour I witnessed.

ACT
is the most commonly used standarized test we have here. And if you are going to judge on behavior, well as I have explained that is very misleading.

Why would you do that?

I don't like it as much, and the way i like is acceptable in common use. I care not if I am going by "perfect" grammar.

And when you use the word 'of' to contrast a previous use of the word 'your', you must be using it to describe the same kind of relationship. ie: Ownership, possession.

Yes, but you did not answer my point after that. You have said yourself that this is bad argument skills (I am not looking it up, if you dont remember saying it blame your own memory)

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

It's arrogance whether true or not

Not if the situation actually calls for such comparisons.

And, in addition, not if the statement of superiority doesn't imply any particularly elite state. If you were to claim that you were more intelligent than a cat, for example, I would not call it a symptom of pride; it is simply a true statement.

ACT
is the most commonly used standarized test we have here. And if you are going to judge on behavior, well as I have explained that is very misleading

It's not perfect, but would accepting your claims be a more reliable method?

I don't like it as much

Would that not justify pretty much any mistake? Like confusing 'your' with 'you're'? What if they prefer an incorrect version? Why do you prefer to make that particular error?

Yes, but you did not answer my point after that. You have said yourself that this is bad argument skills

Untrue. If you intend to make such accusations in the future, please come equipped with a suitable quote.

Anyway, I ignored your point partly because I had difficulty deciphering it and partly because it didn't appear to say anything relevant to the debate. Now you are ignoring mine. Why?