User talk:Arshay Duskbrow

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


asian cash-shop mmos[edit]

Which ones did you try? I'm looking for a new game. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 07:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was Ether Saga Online, and I seriously don't recommend it. Very pretty graphics, extremely poorly designed. PvE, PvP, equipment, quests, inventory, party/guild options... all garbage compared to GW. The sad thing is, I believe it's above average for a game of its kind, but that just goes to show how horrid the breed is. Arshay Duskbrow 07:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

edit summary[edit]

I have come to expect more coherent argument from you than simple and unevidenced restatement | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 04:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that I did not revert the edit, nor argue for reinstating the trivia, so feel free not to reply on those grounds | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 04:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your expectations, and am sorry if I've disappointed them. As stated, I simply don't see the relevance of that information toward the skill in question. The name of the skill is self-explanatory and - I firmly believe - not a deliberate allusion to anything in particular, let alone the very specific (and frankly, volatile) source that you referred to.
Further compounding the superfluity of the statement was the highly subjective remark, "poignantly for this skill". I personally see nothing poignant about the completely coincidental similarity between the skill name and the material you quoted.
Finally, I am firmly of the belief that references to real-world religion, of any flavor, are absolutely inappropriate anywhere in non-talk spaces, and still quite out of place even there. This wiki is not the place. (Of course, as a vehement atheist, I admit a not-insignificant level of bias.)
In any case, let me assure you that I appreciate your response, which has been entirely reasonable even though you clearly disagree. Hopefully I will give you no further cause for disillusionment. Arshay Duskbrow 05:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, too, for your civility. Here is my argument for the trivia.
I consider that first, when b has come about by no other means, at least ultimately, by a, there is a connection between b and a ; and second, that when the application of b bears resemblance to the application of a, the mention of the application of a is relevant to the application of b . Now when there is a connection between two elements, and the one is relevant to the other, the trivia ought to be mentioned. I gather you agree with these premises (as your edit summary indicates); I certainly hope no one in their right mind denies them!
Therefore, your disagreement, since it doesn't concern the above formula, argues that the specific trivia I mentioned does not fill one or both of the criteria above.
The allegation against the first is not credible, because the phrase has only entered the English language via the source I mentioned. Surely "star-crossed lovers", or "a rose by any other name...", though phrases now in common usage and whose source is unknown to many who use them, should be attributed to Shakespeare. "Vengeance is mine" is a particular phrase which entered the language in the same way (and, as it happens, at the same time ... ); it is a singular/unique wording whose author is known. To me, this is evidence at least of the need to cite source, if not explicitly (not to say 'plagiarism', for something this minor!).
As for the issue of the nature of its source, the question of atheism or belief is totally irrelevant. I do not think Shakespeare's stories are true, nor, say, Homer's, but the fact of their having been written is undeniable. The Bible (especially the KJV) as literature, which has influenced what we call Western thought for at least a millennium, and which has lent uncountable quotes to a million works, is a much, much surer fact than almost any other piece of writing we could ever cite. In this sense, it is not in the least volatile, any more than the talk of genies and fairies in The Arabian Nights is volatile, or makes the work dangerous to cite. In my opinion, it does injustice to the reader to assume that the mention of this famous work will offend them. (I hope it is not a phobia of the Bible that makes people reject everything related to it, effectively, as phobias do, causing them to irrationally reject the whole of a thing on account of a small and/or imagined element in it.)
It should, I think, be pretty undeniable that there is a connection and an origin owed in this phrase. However, I agree that unless the second part, that it is relevant, is filled, it should still not be mentioned. And this is where I lose my footing of surety, and can do no more than present my subjective interpretation.
In very short, the phrase "Vengeance is mine ... says the Lord" appears in its original context in reference to a being with power over the world to enact vengeance on evildoers, or, if you prefer, its enemies. The application of the skill in question, in the first place by changing 'Mine' to 'Ours', identifies the "being with power" as, which is at very least plausible; in the second place, by then putting into the hands of that "Lord" the vengeance against its enemies, there seems to me to be a second tie. That is the best case I can make for it.
So, then, the phrase certainly originates from the source mentioned in my trivia; there is a connection. But whether it is relevant is up for debate, and I allow that the trivia can be rejected or accepted on that basis. (You will notice that the version I put on the page was as conservatively limited to the objective connection as possible, and made not much of the second part.)
Again, thanks for reading (if you read this far. If you didn't, don't bother replying), and for level discussion. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 15:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I again disagree that the phrase is of a unique origin. "(noun) is (possessive pronoun)" is a construction anyone could make, and even if you want to argue that "vengeance is hers/his/theirs/mine" arose entirely from the source in question - which again, I think is going too far in attribution - it has become a completely genericized phrase, whereas your Shakespearean examples have not.
In summary, there is no reason to assume a) its use in this case is directly attributable to the source in question, or that b) the phrase would never and could never have arisen without that source. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that every usage of the phrase "victory is mine" subsequent to Monty Python's use of it is attributable to them. An erroneous notion, I'm sure you'll agree. Arshay Duskbrow 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between "x is y's" arising in colloquial speech and "specificversionofX is specificversionofY's" having been in the language since, and before, the language in its currently intelligible form existed, and being the source of other "x is y's" phrases.
It is totally irrelevant to wonder whether a phrase would or could never have arisen outside of an instance (certainly it could, in this case); what matters is that it did. Ought we to say that because it's hypothetically possible for anyone to have come up with "Ask not for whom the bell tolls," or for anyone with a gun to have shot JFK, or for a thousand monkeys typing randomly to produce the works of Shakespeare, that Donne, Oswald, and Shakespeare may as well not have done/originated them, and moreover, that we don't need to refer to their author? If you don't find that idea ludicrous, I think we have come as far as we can agree and may as well stop; if you do find it so, you will see that b) is not in question but rather irrelevant.
Also, Shakespeare's and others' wordings have entered common usage (as well as a million other author's) a lot more than you give them credit for (even the example I mentioned is as widespread as is the English language). Authors are authors even when their wording degenerates into colloquialism (quite the contrary: that's probably where they are most fully authors). And it is not too far an attribution, particularly if you are acquainted with the history of English, Occidental culture, and Bible translation, to say that a phrase which is word-for-word as it stands in the King James Version owes its position in modern English to it. (Yes, by this paragraph I'm referring less -- but still pertinently, I think -- to the skill, and more to phrase origins in general.) | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, our views are irreconcilable. That said, I again appreciate you allowing me the final decision. Arshay Duskbrow 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
/nod/ | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 18:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In case you did not know[edit]

Your email adress is visible to everyone. For your privacy, I recommend removing it from the 'real name' field in your preferences. Koda User Koda Kumi UT.jpeg Kumi 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. No one's ever tried to email me anyway, but better safe etc. etc. Arshay Duskbrow 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)