Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Abstaining. Group's far too heterogenous to come to a fair verdict.

 mattyrm wrote:
Look at my needless ban from the OT.. I hardly think I'm a particularly aggressive/uncouth individual and clearly 75% of the community don't think so either

But you are mattyrm. You're one of the most insulting people at this website, and never miss an opportunity to brow beat or insult individuals or groups. You constantly go for the jugular and as soon as I saw your first post in this thread I just knew it'd be you talking down to everyone about how maladjusted gamers are. And, what a shock, you're doing just that. Hell, before I even knew who you were you were telling me I had mental problems (something you seem to do quite a lot).

And that’s a ‘hard truth’ for you.

I think he goes firmly in the mentally challenged category himself actually. If he didn't have issues of his own he wouldn't feel the need to annotate his brow beating with personal tidbits like how he is a handsome socialite with impeccable hygiene and gets along with 99% of the people he ever met.

I asked my invisible friend, and he didn't know, but my Rice Krispies suggested 'Intelligent', so I thanked them and voted for that.

This forum is not for making personal remarks about people.

Please remember Rule no.1!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

You constantly go for the jugular and as soon as I saw your first post in this thread I just knew it'd be you talking down to everyone about how maladjusted gamers are.

Arguably, we are though. I spend more time thinking/talking about 40k related things than I probably spend thinking about work, or anything else, really. My roommate and I literally sit around after work drinking scotch and discussing tactics, conventions, projects, and whatnot. I'm spending about 90% of my free time on a Warhammer related project and have accepted that I'm going to need to continue working on it for the next several months at the current rate.

Now consider all the 'horror stories' that, granted, aren't verifiable, but still get told with such frequency that I'm sure at least some of them are. Consider the people who get massive Warhammer related tattoos covering parts of their bodies difficult to conceal. Consider the hundreds of posts from people who seem to genuinely hate Mat Ward, in spite of having never met him.

I'm pretty sure "most wargamers" ARE maladjusted. Of course, I'd argue that most of everyone is maladjusted, in one way or another, but I think the initial premise is sound too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

But you are mattyrm. You're one of the most insulting people at this website, and never miss an opportunity to brow beat or insult individuals or groups. You constantly go for the jugular and as soon as I saw your first post in this thread I just knew it'd be you talking down to everyone about how maladjusted gamers are. And, what a shock, you're doing just that. Hell, before I even knew who you were you were telling me I had mental problems (something you seem to do quite a lot).

And that’s a ‘hard truth’ for you.

Not gamers enmasse HB, just some of them, you dislike me because you dislike a hard truth, you don't act like a normal person with regards to the hobby, you take the whole thing far, far too seriously, and since I have pointed it out to you several times, you have a childish dislike of me personally.

I mean, I don't dislike you, I just think you take the hobby too seriously, and I have pointed out to you that really taking it personally when a large company acts greedily (they almost all do) is a little silly. Its not something I bother bringing up anymore, I've been here long enough, and we wont change each others minds. Ive been accused of being a fanboy for example, and we both know that's not true either.

Its nothing personal, we just strongly disagree on that one issue, and it probably is only that one. You shouldn't feel the need to take it personally and have a go at me every chance you get because of one major disagreement.

 Glorioski wrote:
I think he goes firmly in the mentally challenged category himself actually. If he didn't have issues of his own he wouldn't feel the need to annotate his brow beating with personal tidbits like how he is a handsome socialite with impeccable hygiene and gets along with 99% of the people he ever met.

But see, I do dislike you, and I'm glad you have been insulting me all thread because that means I get to have a go back, and surely no fair minded mod would think me retorting after you being on my balls all thread will be a step to far right?

You whine incessantly because I upset you once, its embarrassing and everyone who can read knows it.... I'm better than you, so just suck it up and ignore me, we will both feel better. You wont have to cry like a child anymore, and I wont have to speak to you again.. we both win, because you are about as much fun to talk to as a sack of cabbages, and you complain more than an endlessly menstruating feminist with tourettes syndrome.

We have had about three conversations in the space of six months. Get over yourself.

Lanrak wrote:
As the average IQ of my group is 132,I voted intellegent.

I lol'd. And by lol'd I mean my mouth twitched slightly upwards.

 Glorioski wrote:
We have had about three conversations in the space of six months. Get over yourself.

Don't start mate, its embarrassing. PM if you want to have a virtual argument...

No thanks. I'm far too embarrassed.

That little ducky's going red! I can see it!

Argumentative it is then!

 daedalus wrote:

Arguably, we are though. I spend more time thinking/talking about 40k related things than I probably spend thinking about work, or anything else, really. My roommate and I literally sit around after work drinking scotch and discussing tactics, conventions, projects, and whatnot. I'm spending about 90% of my free time on a Warhammer related project and have accepted that I'm going to need to continue working on it for the next several months at the current rate.

So? Everyone should have hobbies and you’re not hurting anyone by engaging in your one.

 daedalus wrote:
Now consider all the 'horror stories' that, granted, aren't verifiable, but still get told with such frequency that I'm sure at least some of them are. Consider the people who get massive Warhammer related tattoos covering parts of their bodies difficult to conceal. Consider the hundreds of posts from people who seem to genuinely hate Mat Ward, in spite of having never met him.

That’s because stereotypes are real and unavoidable, but they don’t represent the whole.

 daedalus wrote:
I'm pretty sure "most wargamers" ARE maladjusted. Of course, I'd argue that most of everyone is maladjusted, in one way or another, but I think the initial premise is sound too.

The question becomes “what is adjusted?”. The idea that our specific subset or clique is somehow the only one that displays any of these traits is simply laughable, which is what makes the list of options the OP provided so silly.

The poll options are rather poorly done and in some cases, offensive.

 mattyrm wrote:
Not gamers enmasse HB, just some of them, you dislike me because you dislike a hard truth

No, I dislike you because you’re unusually and unnecessarily brutal in your appraisal of people. If my first real contact with you hadn’t been reading an out-of-the-blue “you have a mental condition” post in the OT forum in a thread unrelated to wargaming, then you’d probably be just another member to me. But you didn’t. You came after me, out of nowhere and without provocation or context. And I’m blessed (cursed?) with a mind that remembers pretty much everything, especially trivial things (but never important things like dates or phone numbers). So from that point forward you were tied to that comment. I don’t hold a grudge per se (it’s the Internet – what would be the point?), but I’m incapable of forgetting. Just the way my brain works.

 mattyrm wrote:
you don't act like a normal person with regards to the hobby, you take the whole thing far, far too seriously

I’ve explained why I take things seriously before, something you seemed to accept. Besides, I’m a big advocate of the mantra that is “Don’t take yourself seriously, but take what you’re doing seriously”.

 Glorioski wrote:
We have had about three conversations in the space of six months. Get over yourself.

Then perhaps it might help if next time, you didn't announce your presence in a given topic with an ad hominem argument directed at mattyrm (without so much as a whiff of on-topic comment)?

still, thanks for proving some general points about certain groups of gamers, I suppose :S

Aye thats fine mate,as I said, I do understand your point thanks to several more discussions on the matter and ive happily drawn a line under it...im far from a white knight, and ive conceded several points you have made since.

Suffice to say that I was probably making a jocular comment, or certainly didnt intend to be as rude as you think I was initially.

Like Ive said, Im good humoured mostly,its just taking the piss a bit comes out worse via keyboard!

Bolognesus wrote:
Then perhaps it might help if next time, you didn't announce your presence in a given topic with an ad hominem argument directed at mattyrm (without so much as a whiff of on-topic comment)?

Ad hominem would imply that he said "You're wrong because you're stupid". I think he just said "you're stupid". That's not an ad hominem attack.

His first post was a full on whine about how upset he was at being kicked out of OT which he used to justify his insults against the supposed typical wargamer. What do you expect people to respond with?

Of course this would all be easier if mattyrm knew how to express himself via his nemesis the keyboard and his insults looked like the good humoured joyous crack they were intended as.

 BrookM wrote:
The poll options are rather poorly done and in some cases, offensive.

/thread. Also, exalted!

Seriously. We're trying to put a relatively large group of people, all with different personalities, histories, and views, into one homogenous whole.

Take me for example: I'm attractive (according to my female friends), fairly intelligent (As and Bs in school, I write fairly well, read extensively, and I have a passion for astrophysics), and hardworking. I can also be "socially challenged", but that's because I'm an introvert - once I get to know you, I'm a big goof. I can be argumentative about anything to do with putting people into little boxes.

Kinda like the whole purpose of this thread.

_Tim?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Bolognesus wrote:
Then perhaps it might help if next time, you didn't announce your presence in a given topic with an ad hominem argument directed at mattyrm (without so much as a whiff of on-topic comment)?

Ad hominem would imply that he said "You're wrong because you're stupid". I think he just said "you're stupid". That's not an ad hominem attack.

...Yeah, right. With that history, context is everything.

Honestly, with mattyrm's usual complete and utter lack of subtlety I think it's perfectly fine to fire an opening shot like that - just don't act all butthurt when a fitting retort gets posted.

Gloriosky: giving rubber duckies the world around a bad name...

Bringing someone up on their vanity is not buthurt. This is buthurt...

 mattyrm wrote:
Aye thats fine mate,as I said, I do understand your point thanks to several more discussions on the matter and ive happily drawn a line under it...im far from a white knight, and ive conceded several points you have made since.

Suffice to say that I was probably making a jocular comment, or certainly didnt intend to be as rude as you think I was initially.

Like Ive said, Im good humoured mostly,its just taking the piss a bit comes out worse via keyboard!

Your attack on my avatar has brought me to tears, however.

Missing a t there consistently, chap
Besides, bit of a strawman argument. I wasn't talking about that. What I *was* talking about is you repeatedly injecting yourself in a topic you have nothing on topic to report in, just because you feel you somehow have to 'assert' yourself or feth what else.
...Yeah, fits the definition for me. Feel free to follow me around; I love me a good grillin

Out of the choices....

Intelligent.

However, a lot of the other options certainly apply!

 Bolognesus wrote:
Missing a t there consistently, chap
Besides, bit of a strawman argument. I wasn't talking about that. What I *was* talking about is you repeatedly injecting yourself in a topic you have nothing on topic to report in, just because you feel you somehow have to 'assert' yourself or feth what else.
...Yeah, fits the definition for me. Feel free to follow me around; I love me a good grillin

I honestly don't know where I could find the time to follow you around the forums when apparently all I do is constantly interject every thread mattyrm posts in.

FTR myself and mattyrm have only exchanged bitter words twice before. Once when I started a thread on the olympics in the OT and mattyrm decided to offer his slowed opinion. And another where I mentioned his name amongst my gripes of these forums. So where you've seen me barging into threads and 'asserting' myself "or feth what else" is beyond me.

And the OP just sits back all the while, popcorn in hand. And, presumably, a cigarette

 Bolognesus wrote:
Besides, bit of a strawman argument. I wasn't talking about that. What I *was* talking about is you repeatedly injecting yourself in a topic you have nothing on topic to report in, just because you feel you somehow have to 'assert' yourself or feth what else.

But that's not an ad hominem. That's all I was getting at!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
And the OP just sits back all the while, popcorn in hand. And, presumably, a cigarette

You're assuming that wasn't the whole purpose of this thread?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
Besides, bit of a strawman argument. I wasn't talking about that. What I *was* talking about is you repeatedly injecting yourself in a topic you have nothing on topic to report in, just because you feel you somehow have to 'assert' yourself or feth what else.

But that's not an ad hominem. That's all I was getting at!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
And the OP just sits back all the while, popcorn in hand. And, presumably, a cigarette

You're assuming that wasn't the whole purpose of this thread?

ad 1: it's implied. oh well, tenuous, I'll give you that.
ad 2: and I'm happy to give it just that. Sort of expected Glorioski to bite a bit harder; usually these sorts are more fun

Don't worry, when you can pull accusations out of your arse like you do you'll have a fair few people to go at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still, I'm sorry I spelt butthurt wrong.